14
votes
In December 2023, Denmark introduced a law banning "improper treatment" of religious texts – two people are now set to face trial on the island of Bornholm
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Denmark: Trial for Quran burning kicks off in Bornholm - DW - 05/08/2025
- Word count
- 837 words
Well, I’m probably in the minority view on this site but in my opinion that law is a travesty. I can’t support limiting freedom of expression like that.
Is that actually the minority view? I would've thought that most of us find it absurd and unjust to punish anyone for destroying a book. At least as long as there are not other relevant crimes (ex. destroying someone else's book is still destruction of property).
I see a lot of disparagement of unlimited free speech and support for European style hate speech laws here. I get that some of it is a sort of response to Elon Musk and his (fake) free speech absolutism, but I think in general tilderinos are more comfortable with placing restrictions on speech than I am.
It is absolutely possible to think that unlimited free speech is not necessarily good and to be opposed to the existence of blasphemy laws, which is what this basically is. That's certainly the combination of positions I hold.
I'd be curious what the law entails in its entirety.
It seems from the article that:
This sounds akin to laws we have in the USA around crimes of expression that may incite violence. It really gets into the space of, a thought is not a crime, an expression of a thought - can be a crime.
Reading deeper into the article and linked article the law:
So if you want to burn the Quran in your backyard or house, go for it. It raises the question of should someone be able to publicly burn symbolic objects, and under what contexts?
As an example, if I go stand outside and protest Planned Parenthood with signs that say, "Abortionists are going to hell for sinning!" and show pictures of mutilated fetuses, should I be allowed to do this? Or is this illegal under the "inciting fear" clause ? I would argue that this person is inciting fear and this fear may prevent people from getting an abortion or pursuing sexual education, which I believe to be a human right.
In the non-hypothetical case of Sweden and Denmark, they had very real problems and threats to their security to consider:
In a situation like that, how do you balance these direct threats with complete freedom of expression?
I think that setting an embassy on fire is a disproportionate response and not one that society should be cowed by. The fact that Denmark and Sweden raised their terror alert levels is concerning. I value freedom of expression more than I value a religon's freedom to censor that expression.
You don't negotiate with terrorists. Being pressured from outside with retaliation is not acceptable. I would've preferred Denmark to stand fast and allow freedom of expression of their citizens, no matter what Baghdad thinks, even if I disagree with the people doing the burning.
In my opinion, one should be allowed to express dissatisfaction with organised religion.
In Evelyn Beatrice Hall's immortal words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." We should give no ground to those who would censor us through violence.