• sarjalim@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Someone new got approved to burn another one outside the Iraqi embassy in Stockholm, that’s why there’s a new reaction.

    Tbh I personally don’t think it should be allowed to actively provoke and incite hatred against an ethnic group. Sweden already has a law specifically against this (incitement against ethnic group), which lists religious belief as a group covered by the law. However, there has only been one case that went to the courts trying specifically a Quran burning, and the context was a bit different so it was dismissed. The Quran burning previous to the one in the article has been reported to the police, and imo it should go to trial so we can test the limits of the incitement law. That Quran was burned directly as a statement outside a mosque, during Eid, which is a context that could be illegal under that law.

    To clarify, people should be able to burn whatever books and symbols they want and express whatever vile or justified opinions they have under freedom of speech in Sweden- but not in every context and forum everywhere, as direct provocation and incitement. This is actually the majority opinion of Swedes (source in Swedish).

    But we’ll see what happens. I discussed this with a lawyer I know, who agreed that it should be prosecuted and go to trial so we can see how it fares in court.

    • twitterfluechtling@lemmy.pathoris.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Controversial opinion of an atheist:

      Most religion is incitement to hate-crimes. While I think Sweden has probably bigger Christian societies and should probably rather burn bibles, the guy burning the Quran is an Iraqi, and therefore choosing the Quran is understandable. Afaik, he protested against his own former repression by Muslim religion whe still lived in Iraq.

      Religion is notoriously used to reduce other people’s freedom. Be it fundamental Christians e.g. in the US or Poland denying healthcare to pregnant women, be it the atrocities committed by the “moral police” in Iran, be it other religions killing people for their sexuality. I support the idea that religious law should be limited to followers of that religion, and no person should be forced in any way to follow or keeps following any religion. Those are fundamental human rights principles in my eyes.

    • Jack@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      which lists religious belief as a group covered by the law

      If followers of a denomination of the Invisible pink unicorn (bbHhh) are provoked by people wearing pink clothes because one of their holy books says such people should receive the death penalty, does that therefor make wearing pink clothes illegal in Sweden?

      • sarjalim@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, it doesn’t? Laws are interpreted by legal practitioners and judges, and the intentionality of the law is taken into account. One of the main intentions of this particular law is protecting Jews from persecution, and protecting Muslims from the same isn’t a huge stretch. Sure, you could argue that invisible pink unicorn followers are a protected group, but no one would take you seriously in Sweden. You are arguing an extreme interpretation in bad faith.

        • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but the law you proposed would allow that to happen. That isn’t a straw man, it’s your proposed idea not being very good.

          • sarjalim@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s not my proposed idea, it’s an actual, contemporary Swedish law which has existed since 1948. What is up for debate is how that law is to be interpreted in this instance, what constitutes “creed” (in, perhaps, a better translation of the original Swedish instead of “religious belief”), and what constitutes a “message” and whether burning a Quran is valid criticism of Islam or if doing it at that time and place is a hate crime targeting Muslims. It hasn’t been tried in the Swedish supreme court whether Quran burning in certain contexts like the recent events is illegal under that law or not.

            Technically, sure, you could argue that everything can be a religious belief/creed and any belief is covered under that law. But that is not how the law is interpreted and used in practice. I would consider that a strawman argument then, because it intentionally misrepresents the spirit of that law.

            • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              That makes sense. I guess I don’t really see the point of the law. If a message of hate goes too far, it would already fall other applicable laws against harassment or discrimination. Why does there need to be legislation specifically protecting against hate crimes?

      • prole@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you feign ignorance, and pretend that you don’t know the difference between a belief held by billions of humans, and some corny, uncreative shit you just came up with off the top of your head, does that therefore make you an actual dumbass?

        • maporita@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it were a Bible or a Torah that was burned we wouldn’t be having this conversation now because it wouldn’t have even made the news. There is only one major religion that reacts violently to incidents like this. I think that’s the point OP was making and it’s a valid one.

          • prole@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Way to completely miss (or ignore) the point I made.

            But you’re right, Christians have never committed violence in the name of their faith… Lol

    • appel@whiskers.bim.boats
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even the most peaceful person is going to get a little pissed if you burn something they hold sacred, mockingly, and then get ready to do it several times again. (After you’ve seen the distress it causes)