To the people defending this proposed law - hypothetically, if I were to set up a white board outside a mosque and draw the prophet, would you also be in favor of the police arresting me for … drawing?
I think this may already be illegal. You would be inciting and degrading members of a legal religion in Denmark, which has been against the law there since 1939. Blasphemy Laws were taken off the books in 2017, but this is a step back in that same direction. But then there is amendments to the constitution, I don’t fully understand.
Hinduism often has a belief in, “sanctity of the cow, … the belief that the cow is representative of divine and natural beneficence and should therefore be protected and venerated” (Brittanica).
One could argue that eating beef is inciting and degrading to [probably a select few] members of Hinduism.
I think there’s a difference between eating beef in a place where that’s the norm and eating beef at a group of people to make them angry or mock them.
I’m asking what your intentions are behind drawing on a whiteboard outside a mosque in the scenario not what your intentions were behind posing this hypothetical scenario. That part is obvious.
Sure it is. Intent is what separates murder from manslaughter for instance. Intent definitely matters here. Why are you having trouble elaborating on that aspect of your hypothetical scenario.
Fine, two scenarios: first, I’m doing it because I’m Islamophobic. Second, I’m doing it to test the limits of free speech. Can you tell the difference? No. That’s why it’s not relevant.
What you’re saying here doesn’t make any sense. What you said previously made sense but lacked nuance or any deeper understanding of the situation you proposed yourself.
Perhaps you think blatant, ignorant bigotry and “testing freedom of speech” are the same thing, which explains your response, and shows you the reasoning behind mine.
Oh boy. No, I don’t think they are the “same thing” I’m saying you can’t infer motivation just by observing therefore the motivation isn’t relevant. Try and keep up, or don’t.
You’re discussing the law and being arrested. Intent absolutely matters in this context which is why I brought up other examples of where intent matters as murder/manslaughter, hate crimes, assault versus self defense, etc. You seem quite confused about a topic that you brought up on your own…
But you defined the intent in your previous comment and laws/courts take intent into account when determining whether they’ve been violated or not.
If it can’t be known then your entire question/scenario is irrelevant and pointless because it could never apply to the real world. For someone who keeps talking about confusion and not following the conversation, you seem to lack even a basic understanding of what’s being talked about.
Hate Speech laws get an L from me. Hate crime laws where a crime motivated by prejudice awards extra jail time is just a better solution. Think about what this is really saying - if you burn the Quran, muslims will riot… in Iraq. And the Iraqi government will condemn you. Really?
Seems logical considering that people who burn it aren’t doing it without knowing the repercussions. Not saying the reaction it gets is correct or anything, it just seems to me that it is something being used to trigger reactions while putting other people’s lifes at risk.
I agree. However how do we explain people that are most likely burning books for hate speech/xenophobic reasons that they should stop doing that? This is a really hard subject and I completely agree that passing laws for this can be a slippery slope for other things.
Plenty of good or interesting points being made by both sides so I appreciate the conversations. I’m not too sure of what the problem is though when the discussion and article mostly revolves around public spaces. Usually there are gathering/event requirements around anything that constitutes pyrotechnics or the use of fire in a performance as that can be a hazard and special precautions need to be followed (fire extinguishers, etc). I’m not too sure about the laws currently on the books of most countries but I doubt many places allow you to just walk up to a street corner and start a fire whether the item you’re burning is your property or not.
I’m also confused on the double standard of what constitutes public or private when it comes to online media. I think this is something that needs to be fleshed out more in this day and age. For instance the article references a current law Denmark has on the books,
The ban is expected to be added to a section of the criminal code that bans public insult of a foreign state, its flag or other symbol.
Is social media/the internet a public space? If so, does posting a video recorded on private property and then uploading it to said online public space nullify the private property? I’ve seen a lot of people use this double standard only when it benefits them. For instance, if you typed out something online that’s considered “free speech” but violates civil law because of it’s context then they are in the wrong. On the flip side, if you record a video of someone having a conversation at a private backyard bbq and upload it, has the person broken a law when they weren’t in “public” during the recording?
The ban above is a great example to use. I, myself, feel like the criminal code goes a little too far with no public insults of a foreign state. How does that work out with the scenario I presented when the video gets released. I’m not sure if the criminal code even touches on the digital aspect of it, or who is at fault (the uploader, the person making the statements, or the hosting site).
Another ironic stance I’m seeing is the freedom/protection of expression being used to allow the public burning of books and condemning those who are against it. There are specific and recognized groups which receive protections under the law from discrimination and targeting of hate speech (the Denmark suggested law also covers bibles so it’s not just a Quran issue). Are we picking and choosing who these protections are allowed for based on our opinion on whether we agree with them or not?
For example if religious text burning is allowed for a public display, are all forms of expression then allowed? Burning a cross in front of an historically African American church, burning a pride flag at a pride march, burning baby dolls in front of an abortion clinic, political rivals, medical clinics that perform care for transitioning, hell even nazis burning disney shit outside of disney world?
If you’re of the belief that all of this should be allowed under the umbrella of freedom of speech/expression, what do you feel should be the governments stance on protection of it’s citizens from harassment in public spaces? Should the government even address these problems, or is it the same as no one should expect privacy in a public space so therefor expect persecution and harassment as well? How does this not effect businesses and organizations from being targeted with hostile forces? I’m reminded of the civil rights era, groups of white nationalists armed and congregating outside of a business to intimidate anyone of color from using the premises or social services. Groups will maintain these tactics and multiply if there is no resistance from a governmental stance, this will only heighten confrontations when opposing groups are formed to combat these scenarios leading to civil unrest, physical harm/altercations, and potentially death of innocent bystanders if something were to escalate.
I am not of any of those targeted groups, not a policy maker, and have an indifferent stance so I’m open to honest debate on everyone’s side. I also feel like the remarks made by OIC needs to be investigated,
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called on its members to take appropriate action against countries where the Quran was being desecrated.
Any group that can be seen as calling for harm to members of that countries population should have legal ramifications in that country, but I’m unsure of what they mean when they say “appropriate action” which is why I said it should be investigated further.
Embassies are especially fair game (outside the grounds and in a safe fashion) . A protest in private is no protest at all.
So when the taliban make it illegal for women to go to school, citing the Quran….While I don’t think fire is the right thing to do, I absolutely agree it is a right to burn shit somewhere in front of the afghan embassy. If that includes a flag or religious text owned by the protestor, so be it.
However, people have the right to physically gain access to the buildings of use (service, home, food, etc) and safety first. Blah blah blah.
In general, the state should read public protest as a sign that local democratically elected officials are not aligning with the values of their constituents.
I don’t know about upholding time honored traditions, seems contradictory and subjective to me when your later stance includes an example of the Quran (another time honored tradition you don’t agree with). I don’t agree with making it illegal for anyone to attend school so it seems like a double edge sword that’s based solely on a personal morality which is hard to codify for an entire population.
I also agree a private protest is no protest at all, but it becomes complicated when you’re targeting a religious group’s texts just because bad faith actors are using it for control. Even burning their flag seems weird when it’s not the people of that country making the decisions but by the administration in charge (I’m not sure on what the target for the protest should be then in that case though).
Constitutionally you have to make a decision, I believe this has been debated and somewhat agreed upon though that access to a happy life (access to healthcare and freedom of religion) is more important than the right to “burn shit” as one has been documented and burning is not mentioned in most or any constitutions. Though freedom of expression is, which again becomes complicated when that expression is wished to be expressed through destruction of property (public/private). Again, I don’t have a particular stance on this subject but just pointing out contradictions in the arguments to better understand the ideology behind everyone’s thoughts.
But it’s old mud. You can squish it between your fingers just like they did in 1829. Kinda reminds me of the whole Geraldo Rivera and Jimmy Hoffa’s vault it whatever it was.
Police in Canada have brought an additional 12 charges against a man accused of supplying a poisonous chemical to people who died by suicide.
Detectives were “sharing information with law enforcement on a global scale”, he said, adding: “We will not tolerate criminal actions by those who prey on vulnerable people in our communities.”
Canadian detectives said Mr Law had run a number of websites offering equipment and substances to help people end their lives.
The charges come days after the National Crime Agency (NCA) in London said Mr Law was known to have sent packages to 272 people in the UK.
His father David Parfett told BBC News last week that he was angry at the failures of police to stop the trade in dangerous substances.
“It’s important for families to understand what has happened and why policing worldwide allowed this scale of deaths despite clear warning signs,” he said.
The original article contains 374 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 60%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
bbc.co.uk
Oldest