Isn’t this the government that hates non-white immigrants that’s now bending to non-whites abroad? What’s going on?
Governments consist of different people, different branches of government have different average views, someones views on immigration are not necessarily indicative of their views on hate speech and muslims do actually live in denmark
Can they still draw Mohammed though?
How about no?
It’s an exceptionally bad idea to get the state involved in picking which interpretations of a religion are going to be defended.
Cyprus pretty much has this kind of law, and the Chruch loves tormenting even dissenting Christian theologians or prominent people of faith who disagree with the Church with it, let alone critics who aren’t part of the religion at all.
I wanted to say that this is a hot take but it seems a lot of people in this comment section agree, It doesn’t matter what kind of book it is. Destroying books is and should very much be a big no no.
I feel bad every time I have to throw out a book. Because it’s not only a Symbol of wisdom and knowledge, it is also a testament to a world view, a thought process and identity.
Burning books is the very antithesis of what we consider a modern Society. It directly attacks fundamental rights, if only Symbolically. The right to think freely, to have a different opinion, the pursuit of knowledge to better ourselves and our Surroundings in pursuit of these world views.
To quote Heinrich Heine: “dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen” (Where one begins by burning books, one will end up burning people. )
PS: In search of the correct Quote I stumbled upon this quote by Arnold Zweig: “Wer Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt auch Bibliotheken, bombardiert offene Städte, schießt mit Ferngeschützen oder Fliegerbomben Gotteshäuser ein. Die Drohung, mit der die Fackel in den Bücherstapel fliegt, gilt nicht dem Juden Freud, Marx oder Einstein, sie gilt der europäischen Kultur, sie gilt den Werten, die die Menschheit mühsam hervorgebracht und die der Barbar anhaßt, weil er halt barbarisch ist, unterlegen, roh, infantil”
Roughly translated: “Whoever burns books also burns libraries, bombs open cities, shoots down places of worship with long-range guns or aerial bombs. The threat with which the torch flies into the pile of books is not aimed at the Jew Freud, Marx or Einstein, it is aimed at European culture, it is aimed at the values that humanity has laboriously created and which the barbarian hates because he is just barbaric, inferior, raw, infantile”
It depends on intent, context and scale.
Burning books to eradicate their content is bad, yes.
Burning a book which you just made yourself is completely harmless. Or single, mass-produced copies.
Some Muslims will take offense when you destroy a hard drive on which you copied the Quran.
This has nothing to do with the book burnings done by the Nazis. Their intent, context and scale was all about eradicating the books’ content.
Or if you want, the totalitarians this time are those who play victim. They seek to oppose their value system and rules onto others, if necessary by deadly force. You better obey Islamic rule and respect the Quran as holy, or else.
yes it has very much to do with the book burnings of the Nazis.
If one person is murdered in a hate crime it is not less of a hate crime because it lacked the scale.
The intent and the targeted escalation is the same. Also it is no coincidence that there is a islamic terrorist group called Boko Haram - books are sin. It is the same idea and the same motivitation and it is always outside of democratic discourse, where criticism of a religion or its institutions is of course permitted. But burning books is not motivated to be part of the democratic discourse, but to harm democracy.
Can you delete the Quran from the HDD once it is copied there, or is that blasphemy too? What about moving it from one HDD to another? Is that allowed? Or must it always leave behind a copy, like a virus?
It’s just a fucking book. In todays day and age a printed book means shit. Burn as many as you want. You wouldn’t change anything.
is this the same for flags?
Sending clear message that violence is an acceptable and working political tool. Climate protesters need to up their game.
They should, violence absolutely works. It’s just that no one knows what it’ll cost until it’s all over, and there’s no way to know until it’s done. Using violence is going all in, and only a fool thinks they can never lose.
I think it’s a good idea. No one gets anything from publicly burning a book other than maybe demonstrate some kind of opinion?
And it’s a good and easy way to prevent terrorists bombing themselves into heaven in some danish city.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with burning the quran but if it helps to reduce terrorism I am all for it.
Isn’t this just surrendering to terrorism? Isn’t it bad that forms of free speech get banned because others threatens to kill?
Yes, let alone how capitulating emboldens them. These politicians should’ve been shoved in to more lockers in high school, because giving in to a bully just gets you more bully attention.
Yes if it’s about the principle then you’re absolutely right we’re surrendering. But in practice I think this is more like a hostage negotiation. If someone threatens to kill someone because it doesn’t go their way you don’t just ignore them, you try to negotiate with them, comprise and find a solution. I think that’s exactly what the government does here and what anyone should be doing.
So governments should negotiate the demands of terrorists? What?
No you don’t! You fucking arrest them for conspiracy to commit murder, and then you deport them if they’re guests in your country.
It is never a good idea for a government to bend to the will of terrorists. They’ll just perpetrate more terrorism next time they want something changed for their benefit. Let’s be clear, by rioting after a Quran was burned, and then demanding legislative changes, they participated in terrorism.
How about banning public book burning in general? Not a lot of good memories related to that.
Want to keep burning books? Have waste collection services provide a pickup point. Then they can do it in some industrial incinerator so you’ll have your book burned but without providing media with an easy outrage (unless you wanted outrage?).
Book burning seems to be a tool of right wing extremism, even when it’s used against right wing extremists of some other kind, there’s very little benefit to the society.
Also obligatory, fuck organized religion.
I would just ban burning things in general. Seems like a fire hazard.
I’ve seen left wing people burn books too. Most notably Harry Potter books in the last few years.
Obviously there’s a philosophical question about whether the Quaran should have more protections as a “holy book”, but it’s something that runs the gamut these days.
are Potterheads a persecuted minority that face violence up to systematic murder in Europe? I dont think so. Meanwhile muslim people or people being deemed as muslims or “brown” are subject to extensive discrimination, hatred and violence.
deleted by creator
I don’t believe critique of JK Rowling is left wing extremism although book burning as a form of consumer boycott seems to be rather counterproductive.
Soooooo, did Danish government just announce that they will fold and accept any demand if enough people, not necessarily even living in Denmark, make threats of terrorism and murder? Because it kinda sounds like they did…
Woder if it would also work for, I don’t know, universal basic income, 3-day weekends or lower taxes?
3-day weekends? What are the 3 days left after the one-day workweek?
Apologizing and/or being afraid
They did it to curb carbon emissions… So many sacred books burned recently by people who can’t/won’t even read them. They could at least burn the thing AND plant a tree
Did you even read the article?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
This comes after a string of public desecrations of the Quran by a handful of anti-Islam activists sparked angry demonstrations in Muslim countries.
It will only aim at actions in a public place or with the intention of spreading in a wider circle,” Hummelgaard said, adding that it would be punishable by fines or up to two years in prison.
Hummelgaard told a news conference that the recent protests were “senseless taunts that have no other purpose than to create discord and hatred.”
Denmark’s government has repeatedly distanced itself from the desecrations, but has insisted that freedom of expression is one of the most important values in Danish society.
Last month, he said the government would seek to legally prevent burnings of the Quran or other religious scriptures, saying it “only serves the purpose of creating division in a world that actually needs unity.”
The three parties in the governing coalition control 88 seats and are also supported by the four lawmakers representing the semi-independent Danish territories of Greenland and the Faeroe Islands.
The original article contains 355 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 51%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Sooo… other countries burning flags of other nations in public is okay, but this is not?
Even if this has whataboutism-character and I appreciate the take of “making it better, even if others don’t”, I can’t deny there is some irony to that.
iirc burning flags of other nations is also not ok
And yet such non-EU countries don’t deliver consequences.
No, burning other countries flags is prohibited in denmark, burning the danish flag is ok
I’ve explicitly excluded denmark.
other countries burning flags of other nations in public
Sooo… other countries burning flags of other nations in public is okay, but this is not?
According to Danes, yeah seems like it. They don’t seem particularly bothered by those other countries burning their flag.
Governments should not be allowed to burn books.
Private citizens should be allowed to burn any books they own.
Neither governments nor private citizens should be allowed to harm or threaten people who burn their own damn books.
Example: you can purchase a dozen copies of “On The Origin of Species”, burn them, and I will very happily not threaten to behead you. Easy.
deleted by creator
I personally really do not like religion. And if you buy a quran and burn it at home, nothing will happen. Nobody will care.
But what is your desired outcome, if you take the book that is holy to some, and burn it infront of their eyes? There is only one answer to this and that answer is the reason for these laws. You cannot go to a pride parade and burn rainbow flags in front of their eyes either. It is rather obvious why.
You cannot go to a pride parade and burn rainbow flags in front of their eyes either. It is rather obvious why.
What are you talking about? This is pretty much what happened in Ottawa a few weeks ago, so there is no need to hypothesize. What happened to them? Nothing at all.
Queer folks don’t behead Muslims. Queer folks do not stone Muslims.
“The bill will make it punishable, for example, to burn the Quran or the Bible in public. It will only aim at actions in a public place or with the intention of spreading in a wider circle,” Hummelgaard said
Hummelgaard told a news conference that the recent protests were “senseless taunts that have no other purpose than to create discord and hatred.”
I agree with Hummelgaard. Those “protests” are used to create hatred. Even though it is also for me not comprehensible how people can be so sensitive about this, we all know the reaction it provokes. And even though we don’t agree and comprehend those feelings, we can still respect those feelings and just not senselessly create disruption. And hey… You can still burn as many Qurans in your private oven as you want.
The intent is secondary to the effect. If certain muslim people cannot put their religious sensibilities BELOW the secular human rights of their fellow country men, they LITERALLY need to leave. They are literally bad for us, and our social, secular order. EXACTLY like the hardcore christians are bad for human rights in the USA.
Are you asking the hardcore Christians to leave? Or is that reserved for those you deem as foreign?
“The bill will make it punishable, for example, for people of the same sex to kiss in public. It will only aim at actions in a public place or with the intention of spreading in a wider circle,” Hummelgaard said
I agree with Hummelgaard. Those “protests” are used to create hatred. Even though it is also for me not comprehensible how people can be so sensitive about this, we all know the reaction it provokes. And even though we don’t agree and comprehend those feelings, we can still respect those feelings and just not senselessly create disruption. And hey… You can still kiss as many people of the same sex in private as you want.
This isn’t an exaggeration: a few weeks ago in Ottawa we had anti-LGBT protests where rainbow flags were burned down – guess who was there? And while many of us were offended and appalled, nobody was threatened or beheaded in response, and we didn’t have politicians trying to pass a new law forbidding the burning of rainbow flags either.
The whole point of this is that in Europe we have fought for centuries in order to establish liberal democracies where freedom of speech and the separation of church and state are enshrined. We must not appease extremists who achieve change with threats of violence. There is a name for that.
In a democracy the act of burning a book, or a flag, is a canary in the coal mine: you know there is trouble when it dies.
The message is simple: we don’t threaten people who have different ideas.
you do realize that the people burning lgbt flags now, will burn lgbt people, or whoever they think to be lgbt, if they get the chance to?
Destroying symbols of a group is a step in the escalation to killing people of that group. Source: two millenia of antisemitism in europe. First you attack the symbols, then the places and finally the people.
you do realize that the people burning lgbt flags now, will burn lgbt people, or whoever they think to be lgbt, if they get the chance to?
Yes, that is part of the point I’m trying to make. I am queer and thus scared of our governments appeasing these dangerous idiots. It starts by banning burning their stupid books, and god knows where it ends.
People should be able to burn a stupid book without fearing for their lives. Just like they should be able to burn a flag or any other symbol.
People like me don’t harm Muslims. I wish I could say the opposite.
The common thread between both is religious extremism.
How is this blasphemy law different from the draconian anti-LGBT or anti-abortion laws in the USA? BOTH ARE JUSTIFIED with purely with religious feelings/opinions.
Burning books is not compareable with having the right to life your sexuality. You can life a happy and fullfilled life without ever burning a religious book. Having to closet your sexuality does not allow for that.
Also it is wrong to speak about blasphemy laws, implying the state would try to enforce its religion by forbidding criticism against it, you know like the actual blasphemy laws were about. This here is about preventing public hate speech, which serves nothing except to incite violence.
We can not have a modern society where people feel strongly about religion. And there is really no point in appeasement of fundamentalists - they don’t want a compromise they allays want it all.
I agree with that statement. However - the world is not a modern society in most places yet and we can´t expect the rest of the world to simply adopt our values because we would like them to. They have to get there by themselves, in a long painful process of social evolution - just as we did. We need to make sure to not allow any of our hard earned freedoms to be taken away, which are under constant attack from multiple sides, not just religious forces but also authoritarians of different political directions, capitalists and so on. At the same time we have to respect other cultures and their individual development. It´s a challenge and sometimes there might have to be compromise but I think not burning books in public is really acceptable and nobody will suffer from not doing it. Full expression of thought is perfectly possible just by speaking, no book burning required for that.
Imo it also should be considered that western colonialism often had a devastating effect on the social evolution of eastern countries. Just think of the history of Iran for example. Iran was on the way to become a lighthouse of democracy in the region by it´s own development and would now probably have been a democracy for decades if the west would not have intervened and prevented that (Operation Ajax). This caused Iran to become one of the worst theocratic dictatorships instead. That does not make the fundamentalists any better of course but it can also not be ignored in the context of this discussion.
Again there is no point in appeasing fundamentalist. They don’t want the finger or the hand, they want the whole state to run by their rules - they are not searching for a compromise. Sure, nobody sane is really in favor for burning books - but what is the point, they won’t be any happier with that and will work on the next thing that is offending their archaic views of the world.
Full expression of thought is perfectly possible just by speaking, no book burning required for that.
Where do you draw the line of what is considered acceptable form of expression?
It’s not that I like, I would say - I even despise people burning books. But in my opinion, everyone has the right to do so - since in the end no direct harm is caused to anyone.
One important point is imo that publicly burning the Quran as a provocation does not just offend the few fundamentalists but all believing Muslims in the world, also the moderate ones. That they don´t get angry and violent like the fundamentalists does not mean it´s not offensive to them. Because of this I consider not burning the Quran publicly simply as normal and polite behavior towards all Muslims -especially the moderate ones- and not at all as a form of appeasement to fundamentalists.
but all believing Muslims in the world,
Than all believing Muslims are fundamentalists. But we both know that that’s not the case. Moderate Muslims per definition don’t give shit. Like moderate Christians don’t care if you burn a bible. Or I don’t care if you burn a biography of Darwin. Sure I will think you are a dumb person to avoid. But ultimately it’s up to you, not my business.
Also where do you draw the line? Homosexuality and modern view of women rights is offensive to conservative Muslims. Therefore, I prefer to draw a line at actual direkt harm to other people. Burning books, dumb and provocative - but so is a good portion of art.
It´s not that simple. There is a wide spectrum between feeling offended and reacting with terrorism, don´t you agree?
yeah, clearly the compromise needs to be burning symbols of a group in public to stir hatred and violence against that group. That is totally the reasonable compromise. Clearly the people wanting the right to burn things in public are not fundamentalist, after all basically everyone burns a Quran, or Torah or Bible for breakfast amirite?
Look at the real-world consequences of mocking Islam, of drawing prophet Muhamed, or burning the Qur’an.
Compare them with the real-world consequences of mocking any other religion (or atheism), or burning their “sacred” books.
Are they comparable? Who is then the oppressor, and who is the oppressed?
The US conservatives and Hillary Clinton were calling for war against Iran because the people there burnt US flags. Trump then bombed a person invited on a diplomatic talk with the US, which is one of the worst crimes against diplomacy imaginable.
Or look at footbal fans hostile to each other, where symbols of the enemy team are burnt vice versa until it escalates to violence.
Attacking symbols of groups in hate causes escalations all the time.
Or look at footbal fans hostile to each other, where symbols of the enemy team are burnt vice versa until it escalates to violence.
Indeed, football fans are famously known for their acts of violence, such as flying airliners into skyscrapers, countless suicide bombings, etc. All in the name of football.
I have no interest in Muslims being harmed in any way. They are literally my neighbors. At the same time, one must recognize that among them there are people with a a willingness to support and commit atrocities that is unparalleled today.
People who deny this are blind to reality. All sides are not equal.
and among us civilised western europeans there are many fascists murdering muslims or people assumed to be such or deemed as supporters of them. Anders Breivik murdered over 70 teenagers because of his ideology of fearing a muslim takeover of europe. When you measure muslims by their worst, then you need to measure yourself by people like Breivik too.
I hope you see why that doesnt make sense in either case and is certainly no justification for allowing hate speech in the form of burning symbols of a group subject to discrimination.
Hmpf. In my opinion this is not as great a threat to atheism as it may seem. As far as I understand it is still allowed to defame Islamic text in other ways e.g. by shredding or exposure to extreme kinetic forces.
For those people who do not understand why this law was made it is because not that long ago in Denmark a crazy man burned the Quran which resulted in a lot of havoc which resulted in hundreds of cars that were either burned or destroyed so for something like that to not happen again they banned burning religious things
Or they could arrest the criminals that rioted…
If they burned bibles, would the same thing happen?
Wow, giving in to the threats of people from another side of the planet. Plus don’t they really have any idea what it says about non-Muslim people? Especially women? And of course children!?
