I live in Norway, and some random old dick burned a Quran outside my grocery store last week. In the video that I saw he hopped out of a van like he was in a heist movie, burned the book, and the...
I live in Norway, and some random old dick burned a Quran outside my grocery store last week. In the video that I saw he hopped out of a van like he was in a heist movie, burned the book, and the only people nearby were a police officer and an elderly Norwegian woman. The police officer let him do his thing. No one cared. It did not make national news.
I'm sure that Sweden isn't necessarily the intended audience. They won't look strong/tough to their own people if they don't say something, even if it has absolutely 0 impact to everyone else.
I'm sure that Sweden isn't necessarily the intended audience. They won't look strong/tough to their own people if they don't say something, even if it has absolutely 0 impact to everyone else.
There is a weird amount of hostile misinformation in this thread. One point that I think people need to be aware off before they conflate everything from Morocco to Malaysia: Iraq isn't a...
Exemplary
There is a weird amount of hostile misinformation in this thread. One point that I think people need to be aware off before they conflate everything from Morocco to Malaysia: Iraq isn't a theocracy like some people here are saying, or a dictatorship. Saying this kind of thing is ignorant at best, and racist at worst. It is a flawed democracy, with governments that regularly collapse, PMs that change, elections that are contentious.
Iraq isn't Iran. Iraq isn't Saudi Arabia. Iraq isn't Turkey. Iraq is Iraq. If you're going to talk about Iraq, please talk about Iraq, and not Generic Muslim Country you have made up in your head.
It's a stupid thing to ask for, and Sweden's going to say no. But I suspect the some of the same people that are acting like this request is the worst possible affront of human rights probably aren't quite as outraged about Holocaust denial being banned in Germany. And if you're in that position, I challenge you to ask yourself why.
Free speech being curtailed happens in literally every country to an extent. Obviously non Muslims don't feel anything when the Qur'an is burnt; they're not Muslims! That doesn't make you more logical and enlightened, it just means you're from a culture in which that book has no meaning.
But there's certainly transgressive things in western countries, even in the US. Go to a baseball game, stand up and yell "fuck soldiers, they're selfish psychopaths and I hope they get killed in Afghanistan". Let me know how many people rally around your free speech in the moment. Or go to New Zealand and try to give a transphobic and homophobic speech, see how quickly we run you out of the country.
I'm so sick and tired of westerners pretending they're special.
Feeling nothing when a book you don't consider holy and haven't ever looked at doesn't make you enlightened or logical, and I'm frankly astonished that you think it does. This is like saying that...
Feeling nothing when a book you don't consider holy and haven't ever looked at doesn't make you enlightened or logical, and I'm frankly astonished that you think it does.
This is like saying that you're handling the destruction of Mariupol just fine, and don't understand why Ukranians are upset. Being remote to a thing doesn't mean you're logical, it means you're remote.
Why? I don't think holocaust denial should be illegal, but I'm not as outraged because holocaust denial is harmful, while... disrespect of a holy book just isn't.
I mean, you're proving my point for me. You think things that are culturally not significant to you are culturally not significant to you. I'm not sure what I can do with this. I'm confident that if I knew you, I'd be able to find a dumb cultural belief the rest of the world would laugh at.
Westerners are allowed to say hurtful things, which apparently is special, no?
Is this meant to be a joke, or is it serious? Do you think what makes westerners special is that they're assholes?
I feel you're going to pick apart every analogy I come up with. Obviously different things mean different things. My point is that, unless you have an experience or story you think is similar, you...
I feel you're going to pick apart every analogy I come up with. Obviously different things mean different things. My point is that, unless you have an experience or story you think is similar, you don't really have the credibility to talk about your own enlightenment within a scenario you don't emotionally understand.
I'm sure you could, but I'm also sure you could never find a cultural belief in me that would make me attack someone else.
That's not the topic. The topic is Iraq requesting Sweden to ban it as hate speech.
Again, I may not have made myself clear - I think you misunderstand me. Is it not clear to you that Westerners are legally allowed to express themselves freely, while people in Iraq are not?
Well, no, not really. Like I said, go to a Republican convention and say "soldiers are scum". You'll get your ass kicked by perfectly western westerners. Or more likely, just shot.
Iraq told Sweden it would sever diplomatic ties if a Koran is burned again, after hundreds of people stormed the Swedish embassy in Baghdad and set it alight in a protest against plans for one to be burned in Stockholm later on Thursday.
Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom said embassy staff were safe but that Iraqi authorities had failed in their responsibility to protect the embassy in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
The Iraqi government strongly condemned the burning of the Swedish embassy, according to a statement from the office of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani which declared it a security breach and vowed to protect diplomatic missions.
But Baghdad had also "informed the Swedish government ... that any recurrence of the incident involving the burning of the Holy Qur’an on Swedish soil would necessitate severing diplomatic relations", the statement said.
"We, these people of another nation, demand that you, the people of the other nation... live like we do!" Absolutely not. Just because a book is hallowed to some, does not mean it is to all.
"We, these people of another nation, demand that you, the people of the other nation... live like we do!"
Absolutely not.
Just because a book is hallowed to some, does not mean it is to all.
Can you imagine what the response would be if Sweden demanded that Iraq allowed same-sex marriage? Actually, we don't need to imagine: there was plenty of outcry over Qatar's anti-LGBT laws during...
Can you imagine what the response would be if Sweden demanded that Iraq allowed same-sex marriage? Actually, we don't need to imagine: there was plenty of outcry over Qatar's anti-LGBT laws during the world cup last year: the Qatari government seemed offended they were being asked about it.
Seeing these sorts of demands from authoritarian regimes over the last few months has been truly baffling.
Authoritarians gonna be all Authoritative. When it is normal for you to control your people with impunity in your country it is outrageous to you when someone not from your country defies you....
Authoritarians gonna be all Authoritative. When it is normal for you to control your people with impunity in your country it is outrageous to you when someone not from your country defies you.
Fascist Leader thinking: "How dare they!? Don't they know I should be the unquestioning ruler of all and people should just accept that!?"
I do want to clarify that Iraq isn't actually an authoritarian country. It's certainly not a Nordic democracy, but they do have elections, PMs change, governments collapse, coalitions are formed.
I do want to clarify that Iraq isn't actually an authoritarian country. It's certainly not a Nordic democracy, but they do have elections, PMs change, governments collapse, coalitions are formed.
Perhaps. But there's a perception that I'm seeing in some replies that it it's just one more Arab theocracy or dictatorship. I did want to mention that it's not, it's a democracy. Flawed, weak and...
Perhaps. But there's a perception that I'm seeing in some replies that it it's just one more Arab theocracy or dictatorship. I did want to mention that it's not, it's a democracy. Flawed, weak and unstable, yes, buts it's not Iran.
I also want to caution against railing too hard against this. Wanting to ban Qur'an burnings seems ridiculous to non Muslim countries, obviously. But to me, healthcare is a human right, and plenty of Americans here live in a country where it isn't. I think that's a much worse violation of human rights, and presumably the Americans here disagree.
This is a great point. Obviously Iran's position is untenable (it would be politically impossible for Sweden to ban book burning, which begets the question of why Iran even bothers demanding it),...
Wanting to ban Qur'an burnings seems ridiculous to non Muslim countries, obviously. But to me, healthcare is a human right, and plenty of Americans here live in a country where it isn't. I think that's a much worse violation of human rights, and presumably the Americans here disagree.
This is a great point. Obviously Iran's position is untenable (it would be politically impossible for Sweden to ban book burning, which begets the question of why Iran even bothers demanding it), but I think people have internalized this ideal of freedom of expression to the point of it becoming a thought-terminating cliche. As xkcd put it, appealing to freedom of speech is really the least compelling argument you can make, as all you're really arguing is that your speech isn't technically illegal. Or as the prime minister of Sweden put it: although burning the Koran is constitutional, it is not advisable.
I think people will take your comparison to health care as just a form of whataboutism, but I think you're highlighting a blindspot in people's values. Truthfully the US could ban book burning tomorrow and I doubt it would have much practical impact. To be sure, I would be against this as a matter of principle. But if I had the ability to trade away the right to burn a book for the right to universal healthcare, I would make that trade.
So to everyone admonishing Iran right now, I ask you to consider this: imagine instead we were talking about the US healthcare system. Would you speak so patronizingly about the US as you do about Iran?
The US doesn’t threaten other countries if they provide healthcare to others. You are missing the point if you think it’s the topic that matters. It’s about respecting the sovereignty of other...
The US doesn’t threaten other countries if they provide healthcare to others. You are missing the point if you think it’s the topic that matters. It’s about respecting the sovereignty of other countries.
If another country wants the right to tell me how to live, you better take over my country or stfu.
The Taliban are in power in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And no, the elections are real, contentious, fraught and sometimes dangerous. There was an Iraqi government crisis recently where a government...
The Taliban are in power in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And no, the elections are real, contentious, fraught and sometimes dangerous. There was an Iraqi government crisis recently where a government couldn't form, and one of the most important figures walked away, which led to protests.
There's no Putin here. It's not a perfect democracy, I wouldn't even say it's a good democracy, but people should stop confusing it with actual dictatorships and theocracies. Iraq is better than that.
"Do as I say, not do as I do" is the default for anyone with autocratic tendencies. The problem is when China and it's ilk start doing so, they've more influence than Islamic nation states than a...
"Do as I say, not do as I do" is the default for anyone with autocratic tendencies.
The problem is when China and it's ilk start doing so, they've more influence than Islamic nation states than a lot of people realise.
Sorry I had some difficulty actually replying to the post I intended to. In my view the only reason you would go out of your way to buy a copy of the Qur'an, take it to a public place, and set it...
Sorry I had some difficulty actually replying to the post I intended to.
In my view the only reason you would go out of your way to buy a copy of the Qur'an, take it to a public place, and set it on fire is to express to other people that you find their religion so repungent that you think the only fitting way to interact with members of that faith is to burn the central book of their religion.
I'm not a religious person myself but I don't think that this is really an acceptable way to interact with members of a religious group. On a purely practical basis, it will only increase resentment, tension and lower social cohesion.
Of course, there are cases where religions advocate very outmoded views. But the reasonable thing to argue (in my view) is to apply the philosophy that beliefs which are held on a religious basis about rights in society – e.g. about gay rights, racism, gender equality, etc – are of course views people are permitted to hold, but aren't any more "valid" than those which are not held on a religious basis. It is better to say "gay people deserve rights and they have a right to live their lives in peace as much as you do to your religious beliefs" than "I'm not racist and don't hate muslims but their religion espouses horrible views and I believe is fundamentally at odds with the values that my society holds and they are the 'enemy'".
I would also add that European societies are hardly models of tolerance on this basis, between the war on terror, Burka bans and the general hateful rhetoric towards the asylum seekers fleeing the wars which Europe and the US have instigated.
I’m refraining from making any judgement on whether or not the protest was justified or not, but I’ll add a little context that is missing from this article. The man in the original Quran burning...
I’m refraining from making any judgement on whether or not the protest was justified or not, but I’ll add a little context that is missing from this article.
The man in the original Quran burning protest is an Iraqi Christian. While I know nothing of the protester’s specific background, Christians were targeted by ISIS for a whole host of crimes against humanity in Iraq, actions that would almost certainly give rise to negative feelings towards the religion that those actions were ostensibly done in the name of.
As far as ways to vent those negative emotions, burning a symbol of Islam, publicly or privately, is probably one of the more peaceful ways to go about it, imo
That is true. I don't want to minimise the plight of religious minorities in majority muslim countries (they've been treated extremely violently and hatefully) and I don't think that Qur'an...
That is true. I don't want to minimise the plight of religious minorities in majority muslim countries (they've been treated extremely violently and hatefully) and I don't think that Qur'an burning should be banned, but I do think it should be discouraged because it's not really helpful.
Its not just religious minorities that have been impacted by violence in the Middle East. ISIS for example frequently brutally executed or violated the rights of Shi'a Muslims. The situation there...
Its not just religious minorities that have been impacted by violence in the Middle East. ISIS for example frequently brutally executed or violated the rights of Shi'a Muslims. The situation there is a tragedy but it's not as simple as Muslims against non-Muslims.
I don't mean to erase the struggles of Shi'a muslims in Iraq by any means. My goal in talking about the original protester's ethnic and religious background was to give some context to his...
I don't mean to erase the struggles of Shi'a muslims in Iraq by any means. My goal in talking about the original protester's ethnic and religious background was to give some context to his specific protest.
A well-known fact is that religion is not just about belief, but can also be a cultural thing. Would you tell people who face antisemitism because they have been constructed as Jewish (and have a...
A well-known fact is that religion is not just about belief, but can also be a cultural thing. Would you tell people who face antisemitism because they have been constructed as Jewish (and have a cultural Jewish identity) but are secular Jews that they should just "stop believing" in something that they don't believe because they face antisemitism?
It is an infinitely more acceptable interaction than the demand that people in another country must follow your own religious beliefs and you're prepared to riot over it.
I'm not a religious person myself but I don't think that this is really an acceptable way to interact with members of a religious group.
It is an infinitely more acceptable interaction than the demand that people in another country must follow your own religious beliefs and you're prepared to riot over it.
The idea that religions in Pakistan or Iraq should get a say over what people do in Sweden is unacceptable. Your points aren't wrong, but I strongly disagree with your focus on them. The fact that...
The idea that religions in Pakistan or Iraq should get a say over what people do in Sweden is unacceptable.
Your points aren't wrong, but I strongly disagree with your focus on them. The fact that you're only condemning the embassy storming and not the idiotic religious protests in the first place is problematic. The fact that you're more interested in condemning the burning of a book than the people who react irrationally to the burning of the book is problematic.
These people are an order of magnitude poorer than anyone in Sweden. Many of these people are food insecure. The Iraqis have been through war, an occupation by a foreign Western power, massive...
The fact that you're more interested in condemning the burning of a book than the people who react irrationally to the burning of the book is problematic.
These people are an order of magnitude poorer than anyone in Sweden. Many of these people are food insecure. The Iraqis have been through war, an occupation by a foreign Western power, massive regional instability, and have experienced or brushed up against genocide in the form of IS/ISIL/ISIS, all in the last 20 years. As of 2017, 14% of the country is illiterate. Iraq's HDI is 121/191. Do you really think the people in Iraq have the safety, stability, and nutrition to sit and rationally contemplate their religion? I find this equivocation absurd. In fact, a lot of fundamentalist Islam thrives in this region as a reaction to their terrible circumstances and perceived Western aggression.
It's understandable that Iraq's demands are silly and that there's no way Sweden can force its private citizens to do anything. But the tenor of this discussion is ridiculous.
I know you're two different people, but the contrast to you talking about Iraq being "silly" while the comment I was taking issue with referred to the actions in Sweden as "unacceptable" rather...
I know you're two different people, but the contrast to you talking about Iraq being "silly" while the comment I was taking issue with referred to the actions in Sweden as "unacceptable" rather perfectly illustrates my point.
The adjectives would be more accurate if reversed and one called what's happening in Sweden silly and Iraq unacceptable. And this Iraqi government is presumably not drawn from the illiterate 14%.
Do you really think that people are upset at the Iraqi poor instead of just their leadership? Are you upset at the poor US residents when you decry the US invasion of Iraq? No? You're rightfully...
Do you really think that people are upset at the Iraqi poor instead of just their leadership? Are you upset at the poor US residents when you decry the US invasion of Iraq? No? You're rightfully upset at George Bush III and his regime? Yeah, well me too.
I really don't know why you have such an axe to grind here. Obviously the life of the Iraqi poor is terrible. No one disputes that. People feel bad about it to the extent that they can for issues on the other side of the world. The religious extremism means that there's little to nothing we can do about it from the other side of the world. It's an impenetrable problem that cannot be solved from without. Trying to make everyone feel worse about it is nonsensical.
This is a really weird way of phrasing this? They are complaining that the Swedish government is condoning an action that they know is intended to be provocative, and is intended to create...
The idea that religions in Pakistan or Iraq should get a say over what people do in Sweden is unacceptable.
This is a really weird way of phrasing this? They are complaining that the Swedish government is condoning an action that they know is intended to be provocative, and is intended to create conflict.
The fact that you're more interested in condemning the burning of a book than the people who react irrationally to the burning of the book is problematic.
Thanks? Not really sure what to do with this, but if a neo-Nazi dressed up in a Nazi uniform (with armband swastika and all) and decided to grab a copy of the Torah and burn it outside a synagogue would you really condemn the "people [including Jewish people] who react irrationally to the burning of the book" and state that this is problematic? And if you would condemn that, why is it ok when the hate is directed against muslims – is it because they're mostly black and brown?
Except that they do? They could make burning religious texts a hate crime, which many other countries do, and doesn't seem unreasonable. If you feel that they don't have the power to do this, what...
[the Swedish government] doesn't have the power to decide whether Quran burnings are allowed or not.
Except that they do? They could make burning religious texts a hate crime, which many other countries do, and doesn't seem unreasonable. If you feel that they don't have the power to do this, what about Holocaust Denial, or antisemitic speech, or racism?
Couldn't they propose a law to the parliament restricting hate speech. I didn't realise this (I thought Sweden was a party to the ECHR which does condemn hate speech), but it does not suprise me...
Couldn't they propose a law to the parliament restricting hate speech.
"Holocaust Denial, antisemitic speech and racism [racist speech]" are all legal in Sweden.
I didn't realise this (I thought Sweden was a party to the ECHR which does condemn hate speech), but it does not suprise me given that Sweden is one of the most racist places in Europe (see for example this article in Bloomberg or this censure from the UN human rights office of the high commissioner or the fact that OECD data shows that Sweden has the most segregated labour market – in terms of foreigners – in Europe)
Yeah. Edgelords will always be edgelords. BUT, their religious book holds no inherent value over say Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings or Warhammer. Burn those if you must, you'll get raised...
In my view the only reason you would go out of your way to buy a copy of the Qur'an, take it to a public place, and set it on fire is to express to other people that you find their religion so repungent that you think the only fitting way to interact with members of that faith is to burn the central book of their religion.
Yeah. Edgelords will always be edgelords.
BUT, their religious book holds no inherent value over say Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings or Warhammer. Burn those if you must, you'll get raised eyebrows from the community and confusion. But nothing like this where they demand outright that a sovereign nation step in and enforce their (Iraqi) morality on others.
I'm not a religious person myself but I don't think that this is really an acceptable way to interact with members of a religious group. On a purely practical basis, it will only increase resentment, tension and lower social cohesion.
I'm a Humanist, have been for all my life and I was raised by Catholic parents. I get it.
On a practical level, I can get on with people who do follow religion themselves. I've got friends who follow Eastern Orthadoxy, Islam, Buddhism and others and we do occassionally talk about these things, but we don't argue about it. I don't get the need for a God, they don't get how I function without... but that's fine. If they were throwing shit during Pride? That's a different matter. Religion is distinctly a private thing and should be confined to that and nothing more. As long as you aren't hurting anyone, what's the big deal?
Of course, there are cases where religions advocate very outmoded views. But the reasonable thing to argue (in my view) is to apply the philosophy that beliefs which are held on a religious basis about rights in society – e.g. about gay rights, racism, gender equality, etc – are of course views people are permitted to hold, but aren't any more "valid" than those which are not held on a religious basis. It is better to say "gay people deserve rights and they have a right to live their lives in peace as much as you do to your religious beliefs" than "I'm not racist and don't hate muslims but their religion espouses horrible views and I believe is fundamentally at odds with the values that my society holds and they are the 'enemy'".
Not everyone wants to have that conversation. My family is Irish and by God do you know it when Abortion / Protestants / English people come up in conversation. They don't want to hear how the world has changed in sixty years, they're still hateful and resentful. You cannot have a conversation with people who have not reasoned themselves into their opinions, nor should you try to (you often push them further into the deep end of their beliefs.)
There are serious problems with organised religion in that it gets away with absolute murder, because 'God.' Just recently the UK Government declared that the Church of England should have more power at the local level (Absolutely not), or a County Council refused to allow Humanists a seat at a religious education table (one that advised secular schools specifically). There's a real power element to its usage, one that conversation absolutely cannot decry.
So, this isn't actually about religion. It's about freedom of expression (See my remarks on books to burn above). A nation state has to do nothing another one wants to do, just because it says so. I've no idea where you're from, but the notion of me coming to your nation and going "Oi, Fucker... I demand you punish that group of people because my book says so" would probably go down swimmingly with you as well. Some folks react badly to that and do edgelord things, a la burn a 'holy' book. Let them, it's their perogative to do so because that text doesn't mean anything to them (If they were burning people... different story.)
I would also add that European societies are hardly models of tolerance on this basis, between the war on terror, Burka bans and the general hateful rhetoric towards the asylum seekers fleeing the wars which Europe and the US have instigated.
Religion is the great divider. Nation states and Western Imperialism over the past 500 years has been done to absolute death. I agree with you, much of this really is 'reap what you fucking sow' and in many regards in an intellectually hilarious conversation. But one that does have painful repercussions elsewhere in the world. But that does not mean we should compromise our own values and integrity just because we've done some nasty shit in the past. It means we build on that, and like you said... maybe have that conversation.
Edgelords will always be edgelords. Do we judge Islam on the extremist? Or the US on Right-Wing fanatics?
You are framing this as a conflict between Sweden and Iraq, with Iraq trying to force Sweden to adopt its position. But what about muslims in Sweden (one of the more racist countries in Europe)...
You are framing this as a conflict between Sweden and Iraq, with Iraq trying to force Sweden to adopt its position. But what about muslims in Sweden (one of the more racist countries in Europe) who live in a society which openly hates them and praising such people for burning the Qur'an as an important act in protecting free expression is just another microaggression that they face in their day to day lives.
Religion is the great divider. Nation states and Western Imperialism over the past 500 years has been done to absolute death. I agree with you, much of this really is 'reap what you fucking sow' and in many regards in an intellectually hilarious conversation. But one that does have painful repercussions elsewhere in the world. But that does not mean we should compromise our own values and integrity just because we've done some nasty shit in the past.
It does mean that nobody outside the west takes western countries seriously on this matter, which is fine. But there is a bit of a double standard here, for example how is what Iraq doing (not with regards to allowing the embassy to be attacked, only with regards to the criticism) any different to western countries criticising other countries for not condemning Ukraine?
I sort of agree with you, though not entirely. Burning a quran is like finding an enemy military base and carpet bombing the entire city around it. You end up hurting a lot of innocent people and...
I sort of agree with you, though not entirely. Burning a quran is like finding an enemy military base and carpet bombing the entire city around it. You end up hurting a lot of innocent people and their allies start to see you as a monster. Islam isn't really one religion; there are sects just like there are in christianity. By doing this you make a lot of people upset and reduce the possibility of peaceful amelioration.
On the other hand, burning a book is not an act of violence; it doesn't actually hurt anyone, it just offends people's sensibilities. Iraq's reaction is not only totally unwarranted, it's frankly very childish.
The whole idea of freedom and sovereignty is that people get decide how they want to interact with others according to their own laws. And most places go out of their way to make sure minority...
The whole idea of freedom and sovereignty is that people get decide how they want to interact with others according to their own laws. And most places go out of their way to make sure minority speech is protected for the exact reason that just because a majority of people think of something as distasteful but legal don’t have the right to tell you that you can’t do that.
I have to say, the rhetoric in this thread is scary. I can only conclude that nobody here grew up in or around people in Islamic cultures or people who hold Islamic beliefs. The lack of empathy is...
I have to say, the rhetoric in this thread is scary. I can only conclude that nobody here grew up in or around people in Islamic cultures or people who hold Islamic beliefs. The lack of empathy is frightening.
As someone with direct ancestry from the Global South, I am shook.
The fact of the matter is that the free will of people is far more important than the feelings of Muslims. If religion is allowed to, it will take as much power over everyone as it can. This is...
The fact of the matter is that the free will of people is far more important than the feelings of Muslims. If religion is allowed to, it will take as much power over everyone as it can. This is not exclusive to Islam, but a statement must be made to reject giving religion power to control those that do not follow it. Hurt feelings are a necessary byproduct of the absolute necessity to reject authoritarianism.
I say this as someone whose very good friend is from a family of very welcoming and kind devout Muslims. There has still got to be a line.
Iraq's religious fanatics should never hold any sway over Sweden's people. Not for any reason. Iraq stands to lose a lot more by cutting themselves off from the world than does Sweden in the end, anyhow.
Look, who actually thinks Sweden is going to start punishing its citizens for free religious expression due to the demands of a tinpot dictator? North Korea and Cuba routinely make idiotic demands...
Look, who actually thinks Sweden is going to start punishing its citizens for free religious expression due to the demands of a tinpot dictator? North Korea and Cuba routinely make idiotic demands of the US and the US doesn't capitulate. If Iraq does cut diplomatic with Sweden, what will really be lost here? It's not like Sweden is a close confidant of Iraq. It's political posturing, appeasement of its own citizens over anything else.
What I'm objecting to is the tenor of this discussion. If other people were saying something like "What a silly argument" or "It's regrettable that Iraq is causing a diplomatic row over something so silly" that would be that. But so many commenters, you included, are bothered by "Iraq's religious fanatics".
Iraq's religious fanatics should never hold any sway over Sweden's people.
Iraq was invaded by the US on false pretenses, its government toppled, and was occupied. The UN listened to the US. The US government's de-Baathification policy created a dangerously unstable situation in the country. The country was almost occupied by IS/ISIS/ISIL, an Islamist organization agitating to install a theocracy. Trying to cast Iraq's religious fundamentalists as if they're "religious fanatics" who should have just learned more about humanism and tolerance is ridiculous. If anything, it's justifiable for Iraqi citizens to be angry at the West.
I say this as someone whose very good friend is from a family of very welcoming and kind devout Muslims. There has still got to be a line.
Emigrants to the West are very different than those folks who still live in the Middle East. Their lives have been upended, their futures gutted, by decades of foreign intervention and proxy wars. It's easy to sneer at religious fundamentalists from safe Western regimes, but very different when you've been raised in instability and propaganda your whole life. The lack of empathy I see for this perspective is scary, and makes me think that very few people here have ever been to or have relatives in a much poorer country.
My friend and his family live in Iran. I don't condone the US invasion of Iraq. I'm not scornful of people peacefully practicing their religion. There's no lack of empathy happening here. I will...
My friend and his family live in Iran. I don't condone the US invasion of Iraq. I'm not scornful of people peacefully practicing their religion.
There's no lack of empathy happening here. I will say that it is, however, poor form of you to be making so many negative assumptions to support your ill informed position.
You can remove my section on emigrants to the West and it won't change what I'm saying here. Tinpot dictatorships claim all sorts of things. Here's Cuba accusing the US of nuclear aggression on...
You can remove my section on emigrants to the West and it won't change what I'm saying here. Tinpot dictatorships claim all sorts of things. Here's Cuba accusing the US of nuclear aggression on Jul 8. What I'm saying is that the tenor of criticism here against Islamic religious extremism is uncomfortably disproportionate compared to silly comments by other tinpot dictatorships and ignorant of the recent history in the region, namely US invasion and occupation in the last 20 years, making Islamic extremism more likely to take hold.
Anyway, I don't think we have any more to discuss here so we can end our back and forth here. Have a nice day.
I am reminded of John Cage's musical composition 4'33" during which the orchestra sits silently for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. The first performance angered a lot of people. It seemed pointless:...
I am reminded of John Cage's musical composition 4'33" during which the orchestra sits silently for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. The first performance angered a lot of people. It seemed pointless: what's the purpose of silence in music?
One interpretation is that silence—thought to be the opposite of music, of sound—is the fundamental yet unnoticed thing that structures sound into music. Without it, sound would otherwise be noise.
I'm also reminded here in the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that burning our flag, a sacred civic symbol, is protected symbolic speech and allowable conduct.
What's the purpose in burning a book? The activity seems to hold no productive purpose. If anything, it antagonizes people. But it is an important conceptual exercise in freedom. You do it to test and verify that you can do it; if you can't, then speech in the West is diminished.
Freedom of speech is like silence in music. It is invisible yet structures everything. It's really in extreme cases, like when one is subjected to nearly five minutes of silence, does it become visible. And from time to time, it has to be tested to show people that it's still there.
Which is fine, except why specifically the Quran? If you want to test freedom of speech, burn your nation's flag, or a copy of its charter document, something that'll piss off the powers that be...
Which is fine, except why specifically the Quran? If you want to test freedom of speech, burn your nation's flag, or a copy of its charter document, something that'll piss off the powers that be in your own society. Don't single out a marginalized and politically fraught minority to make your statement. I'm all for proving the limits of expression, but the choice of the Quran as the target symbol is simply Islamophobia, largely inspired by right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric.
In short, if you want to burn a holy document that has nothing to do with you, be my guest. Just don't expect me to applaud, because I suspect you aren't a humanistic crusader, but rather an asshole.
I disagree to the utmost degree. There are profound civic implications at the core of the act and the liberty to do it. I think these people are humanistic crusaders: their act is an exercise of...
I disagree to the utmost degree. There are profound civic implications at the core of the act and the liberty to do it. I think these people are humanistic crusaders: their act is an exercise of the very purpose of a free society.
The Quran is an excellent choice precisely because it is so contentious. There is no point in protecting ordinary speech; there is nothing to protect it from. No one cares if someone burns an Introduction to SQL book or announces what they had for breakfast. In a free society, we must be able to have contentious speech without fear of violence or suppression.
One already can burn a flag in the US or Sweden. It's been tested countless times. It is legal and protected.
But burning the Quran or depicting the Prophet are the frontiers of free speech. People have a theoretical right to do so, but it is meaningless unless it can be done so in practice. If it cannot be, then there is a serious problem. If aggrieved individuals can kill expressers, like extremists did with Charlie Hebdo, then the state has diminished monopoly over violence to guarantee free speech. If outside actors can pressure the state into silencing its citizens, then the state's sovereignty is diminished.
If individuals and outside states can say that so-and-so speech in our country is not allowed, and we cannot test it out of fear, then the integrity of our free society is diminished.
If you really believe in this, why don't you pick up a copy of the Torah and the Bible and go burn them outside your country's legislature? Do you also support unionists in Northern Ireland...
If you really believe in this, why don't you pick up a copy of the Torah and the Bible and go burn them outside your country's legislature?
Do you also support unionists in Northern Ireland dressing up and marching through Catholic communities, burning the Irish flag as they go as they are protecting their right to free expression?
I think that you're being disingenuous and not reading or engaging in good faith, and it is clear that you are new to Tildes from Reddit and should be reminded of the code of conduct. Rhetorical...
I think that you're being disingenuous and not reading or engaging in good faith, and it is clear that you are new to Tildes from Reddit and should be reminded of the code of conduct. Rhetorical questions are discourteous and do not advance the conversation. They will go unanswered.
This kind of rebuke doesn't advance the conversation either. I've been on Tildes since 2019 and I've never heard of any kind of ban on rhetorical questions, nor any indication that using them is...
This kind of rebuke doesn't advance the conversation either. I've been on Tildes since 2019 and I've never heard of any kind of ban on rhetorical questions, nor any indication that using them is outside the norm of discussions on here.
I believe I am engaging in good faith. These are my opinions that I do really hold, and I understand that they can make white people uncomfortable, but I still think that they are valid. I am...
I think that you're being disingenuous and not reading or engaging in good faith
I believe I am engaging in good faith. These are my opinions that I do really hold, and I understand that they can make white people uncomfortable, but I still think that they are valid.
I am sorry to have used a rhetorical question (although I did not see any reference to rhetorical questions in the code of conduct when I last read it, perhaps it has changed since then), having seen other users on the site use them I thought they were acceptable – my point is that while such actions against muslims are often seen as fine in the west, they are not treated the same if they are actions against (for example) Jews (who of course face a huge amount of hate, which is not to be minimised).
Nah, I think they're less "free speech crusaders" and just regular old crusaders, since they seem to be carrying on the long-time European tradition of hostility towards people who aren't the...
Nah, I think they're less "free speech crusaders" and just regular old crusaders, since they seem to be carrying on the long-time European tradition of hostility towards people who aren't the right kind of Christian. If someone in a Muslim-majority country did this, I'd have a lot more respect for the idea that it's a brave statement against religious intolerance and not just a stunt to get media attention that's stirred up far-right rhetoric on both sides. A single terror attack on Charlie Hebdo does not make Islamophobia in Europe and the Global North any less potent. No one should ever be attacked or censored for criticizing any religion, but if we really care about free speech, we should look at cases that aren't just the dominant cultural tendency reinforcing itself.
Which is fine, except why specifically the Quran? If you want to test freedom of speech, burn your nation's flag, or a copy of its charter document, something that'll piss off the powers that be in your own society. Don't single out a marginalized and politically fraught minority to make your statement. I'm all for proving the limits of expression, but the choice of the Quran as the target symbol is simply Islamophobia, largely inspired by right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Another middle east theocracy is complaining about insulting their religion. I don't see why fire is all that bad, it could be worse like a time lapse of it decomposing in a pile of manure. Their...
Another middle east theocracy is complaining about insulting their religion. I don't see why fire is all that bad, it could be worse like a time lapse of it decomposing in a pile of manure.
Their threat isn't even all that convincing and amounts to: "Capitulate and betray one of your country's core tenets or be kicked out of IRAQ and have a few frowny faces in the UN!" The idea a country would give in to such a threat is absurd and any leaders who'd give in to it should be removed from their position.
I don’t think that burning a religious text of a tiny minority group in Europe and the Global North proves anything about how free it is. If you challenge the dominant group and prevailing...
I don’t think that burning a religious text of a tiny minority group in Europe and the Global North proves anything about how free it is. If you challenge the dominant group and prevailing assumptions in society and you’re still left alone, that’s how you know your speech is protected. Attacking Islam in a country with a tiny population of Muslims doesn’t achieve much besides creating a spectacle that has unsurprisingly been embraced by the far right. I don’t think this man should be prevented from doing what he’s doing, but I think it’s an unnecessary stretch to make this into a litmus test for freedom.
I wonder how this will play out when edgelords inevitably record themselves burning a Quran on Swedish soil and send it to Iraqi government emails.
I live in Norway, and some random old dick burned a Quran outside my grocery store last week. In the video that I saw he hopped out of a van like he was in a heist movie, burned the book, and the only people nearby were a police officer and an elderly Norwegian woman. The police officer let him do his thing. No one cared. It did not make national news.
Iraq's comment is just baiting someone to test/demonstrate Sweden sovereignty. I just wonder what they're after with such comment.
I'm sure that Sweden isn't necessarily the intended audience. They won't look strong/tough to their own people if they don't say something, even if it has absolutely 0 impact to everyone else.
Could just do it with a Swedish flag in the background and use a Swedish VPN for authenticity.
There is a weird amount of hostile misinformation in this thread. One point that I think people need to be aware off before they conflate everything from Morocco to Malaysia: Iraq isn't a theocracy like some people here are saying, or a dictatorship. Saying this kind of thing is ignorant at best, and racist at worst. It is a flawed democracy, with governments that regularly collapse, PMs that change, elections that are contentious.
Iraq isn't Iran. Iraq isn't Saudi Arabia. Iraq isn't Turkey. Iraq is Iraq. If you're going to talk about Iraq, please talk about Iraq, and not Generic Muslim Country you have made up in your head.
It's a stupid thing to ask for, and Sweden's going to say no. But I suspect the some of the same people that are acting like this request is the worst possible affront of human rights probably aren't quite as outraged about Holocaust denial being banned in Germany. And if you're in that position, I challenge you to ask yourself why.
Free speech being curtailed happens in literally every country to an extent. Obviously non Muslims don't feel anything when the Qur'an is burnt; they're not Muslims! That doesn't make you more logical and enlightened, it just means you're from a culture in which that book has no meaning.
But there's certainly transgressive things in western countries, even in the US. Go to a baseball game, stand up and yell "fuck soldiers, they're selfish psychopaths and I hope they get killed in Afghanistan". Let me know how many people rally around your free speech in the moment. Or go to New Zealand and try to give a transphobic and homophobic speech, see how quickly we run you out of the country.
I'm so sick and tired of westerners pretending they're special.
Feeling nothing when a book you don't consider holy and haven't ever looked at doesn't make you enlightened or logical, and I'm frankly astonished that you think it does.
This is like saying that you're handling the destruction of Mariupol just fine, and don't understand why Ukranians are upset. Being remote to a thing doesn't mean you're logical, it means you're remote.
I mean, you're proving my point for me. You think things that are culturally not significant to you are culturally not significant to you. I'm not sure what I can do with this. I'm confident that if I knew you, I'd be able to find a dumb cultural belief the rest of the world would laugh at.
Is this meant to be a joke, or is it serious? Do you think what makes westerners special is that they're assholes?
I feel you're going to pick apart every analogy I come up with. Obviously different things mean different things. My point is that, unless you have an experience or story you think is similar, you don't really have the credibility to talk about your own enlightenment within a scenario you don't emotionally understand.
That's not the topic. The topic is Iraq requesting Sweden to ban it as hate speech.
Well, no, not really. Like I said, go to a Republican convention and say "soldiers are scum". You'll get your ass kicked by perfectly western westerners. Or more likely, just shot.
"We, these people of another nation, demand that you, the people of the other nation... live like we do!"
Absolutely not.
Just because a book is hallowed to some, does not mean it is to all.
Can you imagine what the response would be if Sweden demanded that Iraq allowed same-sex marriage? Actually, we don't need to imagine: there was plenty of outcry over Qatar's anti-LGBT laws during the world cup last year: the Qatari government seemed offended they were being asked about it.
Seeing these sorts of demands from authoritarian regimes over the last few months has been truly baffling.
Authoritarians gonna be all Authoritative. When it is normal for you to control your people with impunity in your country it is outrageous to you when someone not from your country defies you.
Fascist Leader thinking: "How dare they!? Don't they know I should be the unquestioning ruler of all and people should just accept that!?"
I do want to clarify that Iraq isn't actually an authoritarian country. It's certainly not a Nordic democracy, but they do have elections, PMs change, governments collapse, coalitions are formed.
They are rather authoritarian, but I think what you meant is that they're not autocratic.
Perhaps. But there's a perception that I'm seeing in some replies that it it's just one more Arab theocracy or dictatorship. I did want to mention that it's not, it's a democracy. Flawed, weak and unstable, yes, buts it's not Iran.
I also want to caution against railing too hard against this. Wanting to ban Qur'an burnings seems ridiculous to non Muslim countries, obviously. But to me, healthcare is a human right, and plenty of Americans here live in a country where it isn't. I think that's a much worse violation of human rights, and presumably the Americans here disagree.
This is a great point. Obviously Iran's position is untenable (it would be politically impossible for Sweden to ban book burning, which begets the question of why Iran even bothers demanding it), but I think people have internalized this ideal of freedom of expression to the point of it becoming a thought-terminating cliche. As xkcd put it, appealing to freedom of speech is really the least compelling argument you can make, as all you're really arguing is that your speech isn't technically illegal. Or as the prime minister of Sweden put it: although burning the Koran is constitutional, it is not advisable.
I think people will take your comparison to health care as just a form of whataboutism, but I think you're highlighting a blindspot in people's values. Truthfully the US could ban book burning tomorrow and I doubt it would have much practical impact. To be sure, I would be against this as a matter of principle. But if I had the ability to trade away the right to burn a book for the right to universal healthcare, I would make that trade.
So to everyone admonishing Iran right now, I ask you to consider this: imagine instead we were talking about the US healthcare system. Would you speak so patronizingly about the US as you do about Iran?
The US doesn’t threaten other countries if they provide healthcare to others. You are missing the point if you think it’s the topic that matters. It’s about respecting the sovereignty of other countries.
If another country wants the right to tell me how to live, you better take over my country or stfu.
The Taliban are in power in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And no, the elections are real, contentious, fraught and sometimes dangerous. There was an Iraqi government crisis recently where a government couldn't form, and one of the most important figures walked away, which led to protests.
There's no Putin here. It's not a perfect democracy, I wouldn't even say it's a good democracy, but people should stop confusing it with actual dictatorships and theocracies. Iraq is better than that.
Iraq and Afghanistan are two completely different countries.
Iraq is ruled by a tendentious, flawed democracy. It is not ruled by the Taliban nor is it ruled by IS.
"Do as I say, not do as I do" is the default for anyone with autocratic tendencies.
The problem is when China and it's ilk start doing so, they've more influence than Islamic nation states than a lot of people realise.
Sorry I had some difficulty actually replying to the post I intended to.
In my view the only reason you would go out of your way to buy a copy of the Qur'an, take it to a public place, and set it on fire is to express to other people that you find their religion so repungent that you think the only fitting way to interact with members of that faith is to burn the central book of their religion.
I'm not a religious person myself but I don't think that this is really an acceptable way to interact with members of a religious group. On a purely practical basis, it will only increase resentment, tension and lower social cohesion.
Of course, there are cases where religions advocate very outmoded views. But the reasonable thing to argue (in my view) is to apply the philosophy that beliefs which are held on a religious basis about rights in society – e.g. about gay rights, racism, gender equality, etc – are of course views people are permitted to hold, but aren't any more "valid" than those which are not held on a religious basis. It is better to say "gay people deserve rights and they have a right to live their lives in peace as much as you do to your religious beliefs" than "I'm not racist and don't hate muslims but their religion espouses horrible views and I believe is fundamentally at odds with the values that my society holds and they are the 'enemy'".
I would also add that European societies are hardly models of tolerance on this basis, between the war on terror, Burka bans and the general hateful rhetoric towards the asylum seekers fleeing the wars which Europe and the US have instigated.
I’m refraining from making any judgement on whether or not the protest was justified or not, but I’ll add a little context that is missing from this article.
The man in the original Quran burning protest is an Iraqi Christian. While I know nothing of the protester’s specific background, Christians were targeted by ISIS for a whole host of crimes against humanity in Iraq, actions that would almost certainly give rise to negative feelings towards the religion that those actions were ostensibly done in the name of.
As far as ways to vent those negative emotions, burning a symbol of Islam, publicly or privately, is probably one of the more peaceful ways to go about it, imo
That is true. I don't want to minimise the plight of religious minorities in majority muslim countries (they've been treated extremely violently and hatefully) and I don't think that Qur'an burning should be banned, but I do think it should be discouraged because it's not really helpful.
Its not just religious minorities that have been impacted by violence in the Middle East. ISIS for example frequently brutally executed or violated the rights of Shi'a Muslims. The situation there is a tragedy but it's not as simple as Muslims against non-Muslims.
I don't mean to erase the struggles of Shi'a muslims in Iraq by any means. My goal in talking about the original protester's ethnic and religious background was to give some context to his specific protest.
People have a right to not be vilified for who they are; the same isn't true for what they believe.
A well-known fact is that religion is not just about belief, but can also be a cultural thing. Would you tell people who face antisemitism because they have been constructed as Jewish (and have a cultural Jewish identity) but are secular Jews that they should just "stop believing" in something that they don't believe because they face antisemitism?
It is an infinitely more acceptable interaction than the demand that people in another country must follow your own religious beliefs and you're prepared to riot over it.
The storming of the Swedish embassy was unacceptable, but it's also not necessary to stoop to other people's level.
The idea that religions in Pakistan or Iraq should get a say over what people do in Sweden is unacceptable.
Your points aren't wrong, but I strongly disagree with your focus on them. The fact that you're only condemning the embassy storming and not the idiotic religious protests in the first place is problematic. The fact that you're more interested in condemning the burning of a book than the people who react irrationally to the burning of the book is problematic.
These people are an order of magnitude poorer than anyone in Sweden. Many of these people are food insecure. The Iraqis have been through war, an occupation by a foreign Western power, massive regional instability, and have experienced or brushed up against genocide in the form of IS/ISIL/ISIS, all in the last 20 years. As of 2017, 14% of the country is illiterate. Iraq's HDI is 121/191. Do you really think the people in Iraq have the safety, stability, and nutrition to sit and rationally contemplate their religion? I find this equivocation absurd. In fact, a lot of fundamentalist Islam thrives in this region as a reaction to their terrible circumstances and perceived Western aggression.
It's understandable that Iraq's demands are silly and that there's no way Sweden can force its private citizens to do anything. But the tenor of this discussion is ridiculous.
I know you're two different people, but the contrast to you talking about Iraq being "silly" while the comment I was taking issue with referred to the actions in Sweden as "unacceptable" rather perfectly illustrates my point.
The adjectives would be more accurate if reversed and one called what's happening in Sweden silly and Iraq unacceptable. And this Iraqi government is presumably not drawn from the illiterate 14%.
Do you really think that people are upset at the Iraqi poor instead of just their leadership? Are you upset at the poor US residents when you decry the US invasion of Iraq? No? You're rightfully upset at George Bush III and his regime? Yeah, well me too.
I really don't know why you have such an axe to grind here. Obviously the life of the Iraqi poor is terrible. No one disputes that. People feel bad about it to the extent that they can for issues on the other side of the world. The religious extremism means that there's little to nothing we can do about it from the other side of the world. It's an impenetrable problem that cannot be solved from without. Trying to make everyone feel worse about it is nonsensical.
This is a really weird way of phrasing this? They are complaining that the Swedish government is condoning an action that they know is intended to be provocative, and is intended to create conflict.
Thanks? Not really sure what to do with this, but if a neo-Nazi dressed up in a Nazi uniform (with armband swastika and all) and decided to grab a copy of the Torah and burn it outside a synagogue would you really condemn the "people [including Jewish people] who react irrationally to the burning of the book" and state that this is problematic? And if you would condemn that, why is it ok when the hate is directed against muslims – is it because they're mostly black and brown?
Except that they do? They could make burning religious texts a hate crime, which many other countries do, and doesn't seem unreasonable. If you feel that they don't have the power to do this, what about Holocaust Denial, or antisemitic speech, or racism?
Couldn't they propose a law to the parliament restricting hate speech.
I didn't realise this (I thought Sweden was a party to the ECHR which does condemn hate speech), but it does not suprise me given that Sweden is one of the most racist places in Europe (see for example this article in Bloomberg or this censure from the UN human rights office of the high commissioner or the fact that OECD data shows that Sweden has the most segregated labour market – in terms of foreigners – in Europe)
Yeah. Edgelords will always be edgelords.
BUT, their religious book holds no inherent value over say Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings or Warhammer. Burn those if you must, you'll get raised eyebrows from the community and confusion. But nothing like this where they demand outright that a sovereign nation step in and enforce their (Iraqi) morality on others.
I'm a Humanist, have been for all my life and I was raised by Catholic parents. I get it.
On a practical level, I can get on with people who do follow religion themselves. I've got friends who follow Eastern Orthadoxy, Islam, Buddhism and others and we do occassionally talk about these things, but we don't argue about it. I don't get the need for a God, they don't get how I function without... but that's fine. If they were throwing shit during Pride? That's a different matter. Religion is distinctly a private thing and should be confined to that and nothing more. As long as you aren't hurting anyone, what's the big deal?
Not everyone wants to have that conversation. My family is Irish and by God do you know it when Abortion / Protestants / English people come up in conversation. They don't want to hear how the world has changed in sixty years, they're still hateful and resentful. You cannot have a conversation with people who have not reasoned themselves into their opinions, nor should you try to (you often push them further into the deep end of their beliefs.)
There are serious problems with organised religion in that it gets away with absolute murder, because 'God.' Just recently the UK Government declared that the Church of England should have more power at the local level (Absolutely not), or a County Council refused to allow Humanists a seat at a religious education table (one that advised secular schools specifically). There's a real power element to its usage, one that conversation absolutely cannot decry.
So, this isn't actually about religion. It's about freedom of expression (See my remarks on books to burn above). A nation state has to do nothing another one wants to do, just because it says so. I've no idea where you're from, but the notion of me coming to your nation and going "Oi, Fucker... I demand you punish that group of people because my book says so" would probably go down swimmingly with you as well. Some folks react badly to that and do edgelord things, a la burn a 'holy' book. Let them, it's their perogative to do so because that text doesn't mean anything to them (If they were burning people... different story.)
Religion is the great divider. Nation states and Western Imperialism over the past 500 years has been done to absolute death. I agree with you, much of this really is 'reap what you fucking sow' and in many regards in an intellectually hilarious conversation. But one that does have painful repercussions elsewhere in the world. But that does not mean we should compromise our own values and integrity just because we've done some nasty shit in the past. It means we build on that, and like you said... maybe have that conversation.
Edgelords will always be edgelords. Do we judge Islam on the extremist? Or the US on Right-Wing fanatics?
You are framing this as a conflict between Sweden and Iraq, with Iraq trying to force Sweden to adopt its position. But what about muslims in Sweden (one of the more racist countries in Europe) who live in a society which openly hates them and praising such people for burning the Qur'an as an important act in protecting free expression is just another microaggression that they face in their day to day lives.
It does mean that nobody outside the west takes western countries seriously on this matter, which is fine. But there is a bit of a double standard here, for example how is what Iraq doing (not with regards to allowing the embassy to be attacked, only with regards to the criticism) any different to western countries criticising other countries for not condemning Ukraine?
I sort of agree with you, though not entirely. Burning a quran is like finding an enemy military base and carpet bombing the entire city around it. You end up hurting a lot of innocent people and their allies start to see you as a monster. Islam isn't really one religion; there are sects just like there are in christianity. By doing this you make a lot of people upset and reduce the possibility of peaceful amelioration.
On the other hand, burning a book is not an act of violence; it doesn't actually hurt anyone, it just offends people's sensibilities. Iraq's reaction is not only totally unwarranted, it's frankly very childish.
The whole idea of freedom and sovereignty is that people get decide how they want to interact with others according to their own laws. And most places go out of their way to make sure minority speech is protected for the exact reason that just because a majority of people think of something as distasteful but legal don’t have the right to tell you that you can’t do that.
Welp, guess relations are going to be severed.
I have to say, the rhetoric in this thread is scary. I can only conclude that nobody here grew up in or around people in Islamic cultures or people who hold Islamic beliefs. The lack of empathy is frightening.
As someone with direct ancestry from the Global South, I am shook.
The fact of the matter is that the free will of people is far more important than the feelings of Muslims. If religion is allowed to, it will take as much power over everyone as it can. This is not exclusive to Islam, but a statement must be made to reject giving religion power to control those that do not follow it. Hurt feelings are a necessary byproduct of the absolute necessity to reject authoritarianism.
I say this as someone whose very good friend is from a family of very welcoming and kind devout Muslims. There has still got to be a line.
Iraq's religious fanatics should never hold any sway over Sweden's people. Not for any reason. Iraq stands to lose a lot more by cutting themselves off from the world than does Sweden in the end, anyhow.
Look, who actually thinks Sweden is going to start punishing its citizens for free religious expression due to the demands of a tinpot dictator? North Korea and Cuba routinely make idiotic demands of the US and the US doesn't capitulate. If Iraq does cut diplomatic with Sweden, what will really be lost here? It's not like Sweden is a close confidant of Iraq. It's political posturing, appeasement of its own citizens over anything else.
What I'm objecting to is the tenor of this discussion. If other people were saying something like "What a silly argument" or "It's regrettable that Iraq is causing a diplomatic row over something so silly" that would be that. But so many commenters, you included, are bothered by "Iraq's religious fanatics".
Iraq was invaded by the US on false pretenses, its government toppled, and was occupied. The UN listened to the US. The US government's de-Baathification policy created a dangerously unstable situation in the country. The country was almost occupied by IS/ISIS/ISIL, an Islamist organization agitating to install a theocracy. Trying to cast Iraq's religious fundamentalists as if they're "religious fanatics" who should have just learned more about humanism and tolerance is ridiculous. If anything, it's justifiable for Iraqi citizens to be angry at the West.
Emigrants to the West are very different than those folks who still live in the Middle East. Their lives have been upended, their futures gutted, by decades of foreign intervention and proxy wars. It's easy to sneer at religious fundamentalists from safe Western regimes, but very different when you've been raised in instability and propaganda your whole life. The lack of empathy I see for this perspective is scary, and makes me think that very few people here have ever been to or have relatives in a much poorer country.
My friend and his family live in Iran. I don't condone the US invasion of Iraq. I'm not scornful of people peacefully practicing their religion.
There's no lack of empathy happening here. I will say that it is, however, poor form of you to be making so many negative assumptions to support your ill informed position.
You can remove my section on emigrants to the West and it won't change what I'm saying here. Tinpot dictatorships claim all sorts of things. Here's Cuba accusing the US of nuclear aggression on Jul 8. What I'm saying is that the tenor of criticism here against Islamic religious extremism is uncomfortably disproportionate compared to silly comments by other tinpot dictatorships and ignorant of the recent history in the region, namely US invasion and occupation in the last 20 years, making Islamic extremism more likely to take hold.
Anyway, I don't think we have any more to discuss here so we can end our back and forth here. Have a nice day.
I am reminded of John Cage's musical composition 4'33" during which the orchestra sits silently for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. The first performance angered a lot of people. It seemed pointless: what's the purpose of silence in music?
One interpretation is that silence—thought to be the opposite of music, of sound—is the fundamental yet unnoticed thing that structures sound into music. Without it, sound would otherwise be noise.
I'm also reminded here in the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that burning our flag, a sacred civic symbol, is protected symbolic speech and allowable conduct.
What's the purpose in burning a book? The activity seems to hold no productive purpose. If anything, it antagonizes people. But it is an important conceptual exercise in freedom. You do it to test and verify that you can do it; if you can't, then speech in the West is diminished.
Freedom of speech is like silence in music. It is invisible yet structures everything. It's really in extreme cases, like when one is subjected to nearly five minutes of silence, does it become visible. And from time to time, it has to be tested to show people that it's still there.
Which is fine, except why specifically the Quran? If you want to test freedom of speech, burn your nation's flag, or a copy of its charter document, something that'll piss off the powers that be in your own society. Don't single out a marginalized and politically fraught minority to make your statement. I'm all for proving the limits of expression, but the choice of the Quran as the target symbol is simply Islamophobia, largely inspired by right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric.
In short, if you want to burn a holy document that has nothing to do with you, be my guest. Just don't expect me to applaud, because I suspect you aren't a humanistic crusader, but rather an asshole.
I disagree to the utmost degree. There are profound civic implications at the core of the act and the liberty to do it. I think these people are humanistic crusaders: their act is an exercise of the very purpose of a free society.
The Quran is an excellent choice precisely because it is so contentious. There is no point in protecting ordinary speech; there is nothing to protect it from. No one cares if someone burns an Introduction to SQL book or announces what they had for breakfast. In a free society, we must be able to have contentious speech without fear of violence or suppression.
One already can burn a flag in the US or Sweden. It's been tested countless times. It is legal and protected.
But burning the Quran or depicting the Prophet are the frontiers of free speech. People have a theoretical right to do so, but it is meaningless unless it can be done so in practice. If it cannot be, then there is a serious problem. If aggrieved individuals can kill expressers, like extremists did with Charlie Hebdo, then the state has diminished monopoly over violence to guarantee free speech. If outside actors can pressure the state into silencing its citizens, then the state's sovereignty is diminished.
If individuals and outside states can say that so-and-so speech in our country is not allowed, and we cannot test it out of fear, then the integrity of our free society is diminished.
If you really believe in this, why don't you pick up a copy of the Torah and the Bible and go burn them outside your country's legislature?
Do you also support unionists in Northern Ireland dressing up and marching through Catholic communities, burning the Irish flag as they go as they are protecting their right to free expression?
I think that you're being disingenuous and not reading or engaging in good faith, and it is clear that you are new to Tildes from Reddit and should be reminded of the code of conduct. Rhetorical questions are discourteous and do not advance the conversation. They will go unanswered.
This kind of rebuke doesn't advance the conversation either. I've been on Tildes since 2019 and I've never heard of any kind of ban on rhetorical questions, nor any indication that using them is outside the norm of discussions on here.
I believe I am engaging in good faith. These are my opinions that I do really hold, and I understand that they can make white people uncomfortable, but I still think that they are valid.
I am sorry to have used a rhetorical question (although I did not see any reference to rhetorical questions in the code of conduct when I last read it, perhaps it has changed since then), having seen other users on the site use them I thought they were acceptable – my point is that while such actions against muslims are often seen as fine in the west, they are not treated the same if they are actions against (for example) Jews (who of course face a huge amount of hate, which is not to be minimised).
Nah, I think they're less "free speech crusaders" and just regular old crusaders, since they seem to be carrying on the long-time European tradition of hostility towards people who aren't the right kind of Christian. If someone in a Muslim-majority country did this, I'd have a lot more respect for the idea that it's a brave statement against religious intolerance and not just a stunt to get media attention that's stirred up far-right rhetoric on both sides. A single terror attack on Charlie Hebdo does not make Islamophobia in Europe and the Global North any less potent. No one should ever be attacked or censored for criticizing any religion, but if we really care about free speech, we should look at cases that aren't just the dominant cultural tendency reinforcing itself.
Some context to the original post
Another middle east theocracy is complaining about insulting their religion. I don't see why fire is all that bad, it could be worse like a time lapse of it decomposing in a pile of manure.
Their threat isn't even all that convincing and amounts to: "Capitulate and betray one of your country's core tenets or be kicked out of IRAQ and have a few frowny faces in the UN!" The idea a country would give in to such a threat is absurd and any leaders who'd give in to it should be removed from their position.
I don’t think that burning a religious text of a tiny minority group in Europe and the Global North proves anything about how free it is. If you challenge the dominant group and prevailing assumptions in society and you’re still left alone, that’s how you know your speech is protected. Attacking Islam in a country with a tiny population of Muslims doesn’t achieve much besides creating a spectacle that has unsurprisingly been embraced by the far right. I don’t think this man should be prevented from doing what he’s doing, but I think it’s an unnecessary stretch to make this into a litmus test for freedom.
Burn more just to send a message that Sweden will NOT be intimidated.
Its usually best not to spit in someone's face like that even if its over something like this. Nothing good can possibly come of it.