The law is a mess and basically a way for the politicians not to take any responsibility for their own laws by making everything super vague. In the extended law texts it is mentioned that the...
The law is a mess and basically a way for the politicians not to take any responsibility for their own laws by making everything super vague.
In the extended law texts it is mentioned that the religious symbol doesn't need to be from a well known or registred faith. So church of flying spaghetti monster or jedi order can theoretically claim protection as well. Also this law is basically aimed at one person, Rasmus Paludan, and he has already stated several silly ways he intents to circumvent this law proposal.
To make matters worse, a minister had ridiculed an ex-muslim artist who has criticized the law because she has used the Quran in one of her art projects.
I'm assuming you're referring to Hummelgaard: Telling an artist/protester how to make art... Yeah, that seems to fit into his purview as minister of justice 🤦♀️
I'm assuming you're referring to Hummelgaard:
"I would recommend she create something, write something, paint something, carve something in stone, make some music, who knows, instead of destroying things"
Telling an artist/protester how to make art... Yeah, that seems to fit into his purview as minister of justice 🤦♀️
If they're going to capitulate, why capitulate for free? They should at least come with some quid pro quo componant. "We'll pass a law protecting your holy book if you stop __________" with the...
If they're going to capitulate, why capitulate for free? They should at least come with some quid pro quo componant.
"We'll pass a law protecting your holy book if you stop __________" with the blank being something Denmark/Europe/First World values just as much as as the extremists value their book.
Since they'll never agree to it, then Denmark can claim they tried. If, by some miracle they do agree, then at least something of value was gained instead of just giving in for free.
That aspect really bothers me too. The demand for such a law comes from countries with serious problems with human rights and repressive states that makes life worse for millions of people. Yet,...
That aspect really bothers me too. The demand for such a law comes from countries with serious problems with human rights and repressive states that makes life worse for millions of people. Yet, it is us that need to adjust a law about freedom of expression.
Brice Laemle Against this backdrop of heightened tensions, Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard has championed a law designed to "prohibit the inappropriate treatment of objects of...
Brice Laemle
The French satirical weekly magazine is leading a protest against the return of a more than 300-year-old law, denouncing it as a regressive move influenced by authoritarian regimes and a threat to freedom of expression.
The newspaper is launching an appeal to "warn citizens committed to democratic values" alongside eight Scandinavian media outlets. Among them, seven Norwegian newspapers and online sites and one Danish media outlet are criticizing the return of this 334-year-old law, which was repealed in 2017.
In recent months, there has been one controversy after another in northern Europe, with Iraqi political refugees repeatedly burning Qurans in front of the press. The Scandinavian far right is exultant at other similar degradations carried out within its ranks. The emotion that swept through the Muslim world at these images of book burning led, for example, to a hundred people attacking the Swedish embassy in Baghdad on July 20.
Against this backdrop of heightened tensions, Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard has championed a law designed to "prohibit the inappropriate treatment of objects of significant religious significance to a religious community." Anyone publicly desecrating a Bible, Torah, Quran or religious symbols such as a crucifix will soon face a fine or up to two years imprisonment.
For the editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo, who were targeted by an Islamist attack on January 7, 2015, this "ad hoc legislation" is worrying. "It's serious that a European country should decide to reinstate a medieval offense," warned the publication's director, Riss, who sees it as all the more symbolically important given that Denmark was the scene of the Muhammad cartoons affair in 2005.
"In doing this, the Danish government is bowing to pressure from Muslim countries," complained Gérard Biard, the weekly's editor-in-chief. "With this scandalous law, the Danish government is being dictated to by authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Taliban Afghanistan. The vagueness surrounding this bill, which in reality concerns only the Quran, leaves the door open to all interpretations and therefore all penalties," even though the Danish minister of justice has assured that the law will not cover cartoons.
By embarking on this new battle, and at the risk of being accused of encouraging book-burners, Charlie Hebdo will surprise neither its supporters nor its detractors. "We're not trying to export French-style secularism but to support freedom of expression, which is threatened by this law. Everyone has the right to practise their religion, it's not about the Quran, it's about fighting religious fundamentalism," Riss said.
The newspaper is currently in difficulty. Only 17,000 copies were sold on newsstands per week in August, compared with 20,000 in January 2023 and 25,000 in May 2022. Subscribers still hover around 30,000, but this is 3,000 fewer than nine months ago, and 7,000 fewer than in May 2022.
Maybe they should have googled it first. Nobody is going to reinstate blasfemiparagraffen. What we're doing is extending § 110 e (the law against burning foreign flags)
The French satirical weekly magazine is leading a protest against the return of a more than 300-year-old law, denouncing it as a regressive move influenced by authoritarian regimes and a threat to freedom of expression.
Maybe they should have googled it first. Nobody is going to reinstate blasfemiparagraffen. What we're doing is extending § 110 e (the law against burning foreign flags)
Many people claim that it is being done in a way that effectively leaves the door open to reinstate blasphemy laws. I am not particularly informed on the matter. Why do you believe it is not, in...
Many people claim that it is being done in a way that effectively leaves the door open to reinstate blasphemy laws. I am not particularly informed on the matter. Why do you believe it is not, in effect, if not literally, doing that?
I just thought it was kinda funny how they wrote proud declamations about something they haven't bothered googling! But about the risk of blasphemy laws. Uhm, lets see. While there has been...
I just thought it was kinda funny how they wrote proud declamations about something they haven't bothered googling! But about the risk of blasphemy laws. Uhm, lets see.
While there has been several attempts, there are only two instances where blasfemiparagraffen had led to a sentence. The first was in 1938 where some Nazis distributed flyers claiming the Talmud instructed jews to rape non-jewish girls. Those fellows went in jail for several months. The second was slightly later, in 1946, where a couple dressed as priests babtized a doll at a karnaval. They recieved a fine.
When Jyllands Posten published their Muhammad carricatures in 2005, some folks tried to use Blasfemiparagraffen, but no dice. Still, I think this is why blasfemiparagraffen was removed. It's about standing by the drawings, freedom of expression and all that, and they are totally not racist. Blasfemiparagraffen became a sort of strawman enemy to Freedom of Speech.
But now they decided they needed the paragraph, right after they removed it. They couldn't just bring it back, that would make them seem like they were just not very smart. So instad they found another obscure paragraph they could use instead. (they could just have used racismeparagraffen, which include attacks on peoples beliefs. Would make sense, given how obviously racist Paludan is.)
Given that we already had an actual paragraph against blasphemy, and it wasn't used much, I'm not overly worried. Danes are a pretty atheist bunch. In 2015, there were a case where a priest talked about how she didn't literally belived any of the stuff written in the bible. This caused some controversy, but as it turned out, a third of Christian danes didn't believe in the resurection of Jesus. If we're talking practicality, I can't really imagine this leading to anything. Maybe Denmark is entirely different in 200 years, but if that's the case, they'd likely just make some new laws anyhow.
It sounds like you're saying that Denmark is doing what Charlie Hebdo is claiming--reinstating the laws in a roundabout way. Plus, the law that you are extending sounds like an awful violation of...
It sounds like you're saying that Denmark is doing what Charlie Hebdo is claiming--reinstating the laws in a roundabout way. Plus, the law that you are extending sounds like an awful violation of free speech to me. You're saying the only reason it won't be used to violate people's rights is because Danes are generally apathetic to these things. One reactionary politician could change that in a heartbeat.
We will see how this pans out, but the worrying part for me is that the new law is sort of a sub-law to the paragraphs dealing with national security and it expands in very vague terms what could...
We will see how this pans out, but the worrying part for me is that the new law is sort of a sub-law to the paragraphs dealing with national security and it expands in very vague terms what could be applied. Like even unregistered faiths can use this. Add to that, the politicians seems unwilling to provide any sort of guidelines for when the law should be used basically saying "We don't know, it is up to the judges". While true that all laws do need to pass trial at some point to set a precedent, judges look to what the lawmakers intent for the law was. The law proposal as it is now is very broad and vague, adding a huge uncertainty for protesters, artists and everyone else to what is actually allowed.
The law is a mess and basically a way for the politicians not to take any responsibility for their own laws by making everything super vague.
In the extended law texts it is mentioned that the religious symbol doesn't need to be from a well known or registred faith. So church of flying spaghetti monster or jedi order can theoretically claim protection as well. Also this law is basically aimed at one person, Rasmus Paludan, and he has already stated several silly ways he intents to circumvent this law proposal.
To make matters worse, a minister had ridiculed an ex-muslim artist who has criticized the law because she has used the Quran in one of her art projects.
I'm assuming you're referring to Hummelgaard:
Telling an artist/protester how to make art... Yeah, that seems to fit into his purview as minister of justice 🤦♀️
If they're going to capitulate, why capitulate for free? They should at least come with some quid pro quo componant.
"We'll pass a law protecting your holy book if you stop __________" with the blank being something Denmark/Europe/First World values just as much as as the extremists value their book.
Since they'll never agree to it, then Denmark can claim they tried. If, by some miracle they do agree, then at least something of value was gained instead of just giving in for free.
That aspect really bothers me too. The demand for such a law comes from countries with serious problems with human rights and repressive states that makes life worse for millions of people. Yet, it is us that need to adjust a law about freedom of expression.
Brice Laemle
Against this backdrop of heightened tensions, Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard has championed a law designed to "prohibit the inappropriate treatment of objects of significant religious significance to a religious community." Anyone publicly desecrating a Bible, Torah, Quran or religious symbols such as a crucifix will soon face a fine or up to two years imprisonment.
Link to the archived version
Maybe they should have googled it first. Nobody is going to reinstate blasfemiparagraffen. What we're doing is extending § 110 e (the law against burning foreign flags)
Many people claim that it is being done in a way that effectively leaves the door open to reinstate blasphemy laws. I am not particularly informed on the matter. Why do you believe it is not, in effect, if not literally, doing that?
I just thought it was kinda funny how they wrote proud declamations about something they haven't bothered googling! But about the risk of blasphemy laws. Uhm, lets see.
While there has been several attempts, there are only two instances where blasfemiparagraffen had led to a sentence. The first was in 1938 where some Nazis distributed flyers claiming the Talmud instructed jews to rape non-jewish girls. Those fellows went in jail for several months. The second was slightly later, in 1946, where a couple dressed as priests babtized a doll at a karnaval. They recieved a fine.
When Jyllands Posten published their Muhammad carricatures in 2005, some folks tried to use Blasfemiparagraffen, but no dice. Still, I think this is why blasfemiparagraffen was removed. It's about standing by the drawings, freedom of expression and all that, and they are totally not racist. Blasfemiparagraffen became a sort of strawman enemy to Freedom of Speech.
But now they decided they needed the paragraph, right after they removed it. They couldn't just bring it back, that would make them seem like they were just not very smart. So instad they found another obscure paragraph they could use instead. (they could just have used racismeparagraffen, which include attacks on peoples beliefs. Would make sense, given how obviously racist Paludan is.)
Given that we already had an actual paragraph against blasphemy, and it wasn't used much, I'm not overly worried. Danes are a pretty atheist bunch. In 2015, there were a case where a priest talked about how she didn't literally belived any of the stuff written in the bible. This caused some controversy, but as it turned out, a third of Christian danes didn't believe in the resurection of Jesus. If we're talking practicality, I can't really imagine this leading to anything. Maybe Denmark is entirely different in 200 years, but if that's the case, they'd likely just make some new laws anyhow.
It sounds like you're saying that Denmark is doing what Charlie Hebdo is claiming--reinstating the laws in a roundabout way. Plus, the law that you are extending sounds like an awful violation of free speech to me. You're saying the only reason it won't be used to violate people's rights is because Danes are generally apathetic to these things. One reactionary politician could change that in a heartbeat.
We will see how this pans out, but the worrying part for me is that the new law is sort of a sub-law to the paragraphs dealing with national security and it expands in very vague terms what could be applied. Like even unregistered faiths can use this. Add to that, the politicians seems unwilling to provide any sort of guidelines for when the law should be used basically saying "We don't know, it is up to the judges". While true that all laws do need to pass trial at some point to set a precedent, judges look to what the lawmakers intent for the law was. The law proposal as it is now is very broad and vague, adding a huge uncertainty for protesters, artists and everyone else to what is actually allowed.