Scandinavian Thread

[Josquius]

Those two are the same and the Swedish discussion at least is centered around fear of violence and fear of retribution from Islamic countries.

I have no idea what they're saying in Sweden about it.
But for sure that's not how its regarded here when people speak about stopping hate speech. Its not about any other hate-mongers who might be offended. Its about stopping trouble being caused for no good reason. Cutting off a recruitment route for the Islamic extremists.

I don't care if they're happy, I care about them beheading enemies of their faith and that there are huuuuuuuuuge numbers of adherents to Islam that think that beheadings are right and proper. That they think that should not affect our laws. They in this case being foreigners. Swedish religious extremists should be handled by social services or the police if necessary.

And?
If a large number of people wanted to behead murderers would that make a law against murder wrong?
(Lets ignore the significant number want this part)

And yes. These extremists being handled by the police is exactly the point.

If you are born to racist/communist/whatever parents you are expected to rise above that by active choice.

Sure. But its still wrong to pretend you just choose to be racist from a completely neutral standpoint. We're all products of our upbringing. This is why a well educated westerner from a good background saying stupid racist shit is so much worse than some uneducated farmer from the arse of the world saying the same things.

There's nothing special about religion making it okay to demand special laws.

There is. We aren't talking about people being Islamic extremists here. Just being muslim. This is a pretty core part of the identity of adherents in a way being racist isn't.

[Razgovory]

I'm uncomfortable with such a law.  Sure, burning a Koran is to offend Muslims is being a knob, but making it illegal seems wrong.  Do other religious groups get carve outs to protect their holy items from desecration? 

[Razgovory]

Soumission, one bit at a time

That's like a type of cake right?  Some kind of French cake?

[Solmyr]

I'm uncomfortable with such a law.  Sure, burning a Koran is to offend Muslims is being a knob, but making it illegal seems wrong.  Do other religious groups get carve outs to protect their holy items from desecration? 

I believe Denmark passed laws against burning all holy texts, not just the Koran.

[Sheilbh]

I'm more on the American side of free speech, but if you're going to have laws that limit speech against say races or sexuality why not religion?


*edit* not so much blasphemy,  but more as incitement and the like.

Basically this - and I broadly support those laws in general.

[crazy canuck]

Here's a thread for random Scandinavian topics.

First topic:

As you may know, Denmark recently passed a law outlawing burning the Quran. Legally, I believe, the law outlaws the desecrating different religious objects in various ways, but the real intent is to prevent the burning of the Quran to protect the sensibilities of Muslims - in Denmark and abroad.

I think you got this thread off on the wrong foot by misdescribing the law.  It is not specific to the Quran.  Rather it is "inappropriate treatment of writings with significant religious importance for a recognised religious community"

[Jacob]

I believe Denmark passed laws against burning all holy texts, not just the Koran.

Yeah, the law prohibits "degrading treatment of texts of significant importance to recognized faiths", with an exception for "artistic works where the degrading treatment is a lesser part of the greater work." Those are my translations, by the way.

The law is fairly controversial inside Denmark as well.

[Jacob]

I think you got this thread off on the wrong foot by misdescribing the law.  It is not specific to the Quran.  Rather it is "inappropriate treatment of writings with significant religious importance for a recognised religious community"

Yeah, but the context is that it's about burning of the Quran.

The law is colloquially known as "the Quran law". It's passage was prompted by a massive backlash in Muslim countries triggered by someone burning copies of the Quran to stake out an anti-Muslim position. The only public voices in favour of the law are people speaking on behalf of Muslims (though not all Muslims support the law, different people have different opinions), people concerned about not alienating the local Muslim population, and people concerned about Danish exports to Muslim countries.

Other significant religious texts have been burned - someone did a thing where they burned a copy of the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran - and noone gave a damn except about the Quran burning.

While the law is phrased to be about "signifcant religious texts" of all (recognized) faiths, in actual practice it's about people burning copies of the Quran to provoke and denigrate Muslims, and about Muslim reactions to those provocations.

[crazy canuck]

Most of these posts are concerned about a law specific to the protection of Islamic relgious texts.  That is a valid concern.  But it is not valid if the law protects all relgious texts.

[Jacob]

Most of these posts are concerned about a law specific to the protection of Islamic relgious texts.  That is a valid concern.  But it is not valid if the law protects all relgious texts.

Only if the concern is about the specific language of the law (which is not specific to the Quran), rather than the actual social context (which is about the Quran).

[Sheilbh]

But you have to look at context, intent and effect too - laws aren't free-floating.

In the last few months there have been two rulings from the CJEU broadly saying it is not discrimination to ban workers from wearing religious symbols (and if they don't comply to not employ them). Now in theory that's a perfectly neutral decision applying to all religious symbols. In practice it's about hijabs and discriminating against Muslim women.

[crazy canuck]

Most of these posts are concerned about a law specific to the protection of Islamic relgious texts.  That is a valid concern.  But it is not valid if the law protects all relgious texts.

Only if the concern is about the specific language of the law (which is not specific to the Quran), rather than the actual social context (which is about the Quran).

In one fell swoop you have undermined the entirely of the Rule of Law.  Well done! 

[Threviel]

Laws have a purpose, spirit of the law in contrast to the letter of the law and all that.

The purpose of the law is to stop burnings of the Quran. The law is written with that in mind. It might not explicitly state it, but it is never the less the purpose of the law.

It is presumably yet to be tried in Danish courts of law and I assume that the wanker that usually goes around burning Qurans will see too it that it will be tried.

[The Brain]

I don't think it's unusual for lawmakers to be driven by the specific when making laws for the general. I don't know how this concept would be difficult or noteworthy.

[Threviel]

Isn't CC some kind of lawyer? I mean, this is really really basic stuff, high school level stuff.