Sorry… just for the record - why was there a Russian war reporter in Ukraine again? Could it perhaps have anything to do with that war Russia caused in Ukraine? Someone please jog my memory for me.
“You’re not allowed to attack us if we have a journalist with us. That’s the rules. Now don’t mind us while we use civilians as target practice.” - Russia
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.
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?
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?
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.
Actually there may very well have been news about a public Torah burning, considering the rise in anti-Semitism across the world has a lot of people worried. And a bible burning could easily go viral on Christian nationalist social media and news stations across America.
That’s not the same argument. Christians rarely, if ever, commit violence because of a public demonstration like burning a Bible or creating a likeness of Jesus. Christians do commit violence for other reasons though, but not for something that many would interpret as protected speech in western countries.
If you shout “FIRE!” in a crowded building (e.g. a theater), you could be held liable for the panic that could ensue. Likewise, intentionally doing things that you know would encourage violence either locally or elsewhere in the world as a direct result of the speech could be held to the same standard.
So what’s being outlawed here isn’t the burning of the Qu’ran, but the intentional incitement, which is very similar to the charges against former President Trump WRT the events of Jan. 6. If you did the same thing in a Christian context (e.g. by parading homoerotic images of Jesus outside a Baptist Church on Christmas or something), you could likely be charged. It’s the intention here that’s illegal, not the specific act.
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.
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.
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?
I mean, that’s a matter of personal opinion (and you are entitled to yours). Legality aside, I personally think some groups should have special protections as they are often targets of discrimination or harassment specifically because of their affiliation with a certain group. That includes race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender identity etc.
Of course, these people are also individually protected from harassment and discrimination through other laws as you say, but the incitement law protects them as a group and from being targeted in certain ways. You are allowed to publicly protest against Judaism, but not to publicly wear swastikas (a symbol of the horror of the Holocaust).
I understand that mindset and agree with its validity (especially the Holocaust example). I think putting that into law effectively is extremely difficult, as many people would draw the lines differently as to what should be applicable.
I actually agree, it’s a problem. As other people also argued here, the existing law is perhaps too fuzzy even though I personally agree with the sentiment (and do believe it is applicable as-is in the recent Quran cases).
Laws can sometimes be intentionally written broadly as to cover future unanticipated cases, but for the recent events it’s not clear what is covered and what isn’t covered. That has to be tried in court to set a precedent then, and that hasn’t been done. And part of why it hasn’t been done seems to be that the prosecutors are unsure of how their case will go in court, so they choose not to prosecute… At least that’s how I have understood it.
I think it's stupid, moronic, and childish to burn Qur'ans and other associated acts of deliberate provocation, but (and this is admittedly the American in me speaking), I'd very strongly be against it being a crime. The ability to tolerate strong disagreements with your own closely held beliefs is a foundational pillar of a multi-cultural and tolerant society.
Countless acts of terror have been committed in the name of the Bible, and I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of being legally obligated to have any amount of reverence to it.
Let’s separate a hate crime (incitement against ethnic group) from blasphemy laws- we definitely do not want blasphemy laws in Sweden. Critique against religions is protected free speech, as it should be.
What isn’t protected, is your right to protest in EVERY way at EVERY place and EVERY time. Just like defamation laws are a specific reduction to the right to free speech, one can morally argue that if the intention of certain speech is to defame, grossly disrespect, provoke and incite certain protected groups of people, a reduction to the right to free speech is justified in certain contexts. I know lots of people disagree, all I’m saying is that there’s an argument for limiting free speech in some contexts.
Feel free to have a Quran barbecue in your own back yard, but don’t throw a bacon-and-Quran barbecue in front of a mosque during Eid. You are also, certainly, allowed to critizise Islam wherever and whenever you want, that is protected speech. It’s just no longer protected when the context, manner and purpose of an action or message tips the scales from critique to incitement or hate speech.
An example of someone who actually was convicted of incitement against ethnic groups in Sweden in 2020, was a junior high school student who carved a swastika into a desk. If that is covered under the incitement law, burning the Quran in the recent contexts should be too imo (in front of embassies to Muslim countries, or mosques during the biggest Muslim holiday).
America is extreme in it’s own right with regards to free speech laws compared to the rest of the Western world. I respect that position, but don’t agree with it.
To be clear, I think we both agree that there is a lot of nuance and grey area in these kinds of questions, and I think it's really just a matter of where we think the lines ought to be, which is a very hard question given the lack of any clear objective standards here. I might say that a swastika is a very clear expression of support for the idea that large swaths of society should be systematically murdered, and that's more than sufficiently past a line of permissiveness. Surely burning a swastika and any other expression of strong disagreement with literal Nazism should be completely protected.
At the same time, as a gay man, Islamist ideals represent a very direct threat to my own ability to safely exist in society. Should I not be able to express my disapproval of that? If I can, in what ways exactly should I be allowed to, where is the line I cannot cross, and why is there precisely? The Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, is an explicitly Islamist party with very specific policy goals. Its flag also features a Qur'an on it. If Muslims were to be grievously offended by its burning, should it thus be illegal for me to burn the flag of an organization that explicitly advocates my own murder? The Qur'an itself (not to mention the Bible) similarly advocates for my own personal harm. You mention "certain protected groups of people" in your comment; are LGBT not included in that? Do we not get to stand up against ideals that advocate for our own destruction?
I should add that I've spent a significant amount of time in Arab countries, speak Arabic myself, and have had many wonderful experiences with Muslims around the world. I actually made an indefinite move to Jordan after university, and while I didn't wind up being able to stick around, it was an excellent time, I always felt very welcomed and safe, and just generally speaking, I have a very warm and positive impression of Muslims. I'm very much not actually advocating for these kinds of protests, and I think the people who do them are being deliberately inciteful bigoted idiots. My only point here is that these kinds of question are very complicated, and to that end, I'm not personally super comfortable with the government unilaterally deciding what the answers to them are.
I also want to make it expliticly clear that I am very aware of how various Islamophobic groups try to use homophobia in Muslims as a wedge to try to advocate against immigration, multculturalism, and as proof that Muslims are somehow incompatible with western society, which is always amusing to see given that the people who do this are almost universally homophobic social conservatives themselves. I'm strongly against that as well.
Well spoken, I agree with almost everything you wrote.
As to your question regarding what other groups are protected under the same law:
[…] ethnic group or other such group of persons with reference to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation or transgender identity or expression […]
While I understand your hesitation, I fully feel that there are some groups that should be especially protected from deliberate persecution and harassment. Sweden has had a huge influx of Muslim immigrants in recent years, and prejudice is rampant. I would argue that you are much more exposed and discriminated against as an Arab or Muslim in Sweden today, than as a Jew, LGBTQ person, or black person.
That said, Islamism has absolutely no place in a democracy and the undercurrents of conservatism in the world (Islamism, the Republican party in the US, pro life movement, anti-trans sentiments etc) scare me. We should never sustain rules or practices in society based on religious commandments, especially when those infringe on the rights of other groups. Sweden is deeply secular, and I firmly hope we remain so.
For sure, and again, I'm absolutely not trying to deny the existence of prejudice against Muslims or Arabs. As I said - and this is very much my own American experience speaking here as well - I do have a level of discomfort with the government deciding where those lines of acceptable conduct are with issues that are as messy and controversial as religion, even if I strongly abhor the conduct in question. But then again, I can also understand the desire to protect vulnerable groups, and I won't pretend that "just grow a thicker skin lol" is a particularly useful policy prescription.
I suppose the closest analogue we've had over here are the "God hates fags" people from the Westboro Baptist Church from a decade and change ago. While that's activity that is very blatantly intended to grossly disrespect, offend and provoke people, I don't think it's an unjust expectation for society to place on us to maintain a level of civility and peace, even in the face of such explicit incitement. The correct thing to do in a civil society in such situations is to move on with one's life and ignore it (unless the activity escalates to actual violence or direct consistent harassment), and I'd simply apply the exact same standards in this situation. Just as I should be able to maintain self-control in the face of someone telling me I'm an evil perverted faggot who deserves to burn in hell for eternity, a Muslim should equally be able to remain peaceful in the face of some pieces of paper being burnt (even if, again, both actions are pretty vile).
As I said though, I acknowledge that there's a lot of nuance here and that different societies may have different standards and principles with things like this. At the very least, the intention is obviously to protect vulnerable and marginalized people, and I'll always support that in principle, even if the details get messy.
Yes, it’s definitely a very polarizing and personal question with no clear right or wrong. And I am also aware that there can be side effects to laws that unintentionally strike too broadly. It’s vital to protect the constitutional laws that protect our democracies, and limit restrictions to those laws.
I personally think you as a gay person absolutely should be protected from harassment from groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. My opinion is that they have the right to think that “God hates fags”, they have the right to say it, they have the right to proclaim it publicly (possibly; it depends), individuals might even have the right to say it to your face. What they shouldn’t have, is the right to picket in front of your home, place of work or LGBTQ meeting spaces, or follow you around. Then it becomes harassment and persecution. And in Sweden, possibly illegal, if done in a manner and context that violates you as a member of a protected group.
I think that’s a valid and reasonable limitation to free speech, but yes, it’s murky waters. There’s a lot of debate now (and no consensus) in Swedish media about the current limits to free speech and where the line should be drawn.
Ironically many of the people who are absolutist right now (we should always be allowed to burn Qurans everywhere every time, it’s free speech, the Muslims have such thin skin) are often the same people who want to ban “trans story hour” for children in libraries 🤷♂️
What they shouldn’t have, is the right to picket in front of your home, place of work or LGBTQ meeting spaces, or follow you around. Then it becomes harassment and persecution.
Totally agreed, though I'd mention that the mere act of burning a book that you yourself own is not any of those things. As you say though, there's a lot of legitimate debate to be had here, and I have to add, it's very refreshing that we've been able to actually have a conversation about these things in a respectful manner.
Ironically many of the people who are absolutist right now (we should always be allowed to burn Qurans everywhere every time, it’s free speech, the Muslims have such thin skin) are often the same people who want to ban “trans story hour” for children in libraries 🤷♂️
Yep, absolutely, which is why I'm always extremely skeptical of giving these kinds of people any light of day. I've seen way too many gay people get sucked down Islamophobic conservative rabbit holes simply because they're given a simple enemy to blame, and that's far easier than having to acknowledge the complexity and nuance in everything.
At any rate, I certainly wish you all the best in navigating these issues, and if people are able to actually maintain some level of mutual respect and civil dialogue, I'm confident we'll eventually figure it out. I'm actually going to be in Sweden next year for Eurovision, and I'm really looking forward to it!
I’d mention that the mere act of burning a book that you yourself own is not any of those things
I’m actually going to be in Sweden next year for Eurovision, and I’m really looking forward to it!
Of course, I’d toast you over a rainbow drink while we watched the Quran burn along with the “God hates fags” flyers, some 1950s books on how to be a good wife, possibly the book of Mormon, Torah, a Bible, a Taylor Swift poster and Harry Potter for good measure in my back yard! Just perhaps not in front of an embassy, mosque, synagogue, church etc… Just to be on the safe side legally 😊 Very nice and refreshing debate climate, and I really hope you enjoy Eurovision!
The swasitka anecdote is a false equivalency. Schools are not part of the public forum, so freedom of speech also should not fully apply there. What would have happened if said school boy would have drawn a swastika on, idk, the sidewalk of the street leading up to the school?
It would arguably be worse, since you are allowed to wear swastikas in private. You cannot wear them about town, that’s legally considered a hate crime.
A school is not a public place, and so that isn’t an equivalent example. If the sidewalk in front of the Masjid is a public area, you should legally be able to throw a bacon-and-Koran barbecue during Eid. There is no world where you can punish people for doing that and not end up on a slippery slope that jeopardizes freedom of expression.
I understand what you’re saying, but to actually act on that and try to put it into law would be foolish.
We already have that law, so the only thing up for debate is interpretation? Which legal experts are busy with debating now in public discourse in Swedish media, with no clear consensus except that it should be tried in court. I understand what you mean by slippery slope, but if everything is a slippery slope we would never be able to legislate anything. And let me remind you, both Sweden and the US have already imposed certain limits to the right to free speech. Defamation, for example, is not protected speech.
I disagree that a public school isn’t a public place, but you’re technically right. It doesn’t really matter in the eyes of the Swedish law though, arguably it would be worse legally if the student had carved the swastika on a public playground outside, rather then in a semi-public spot in a school.
My mistake, I thought he was proposing a change / new law. I personally just disagree with that law then, I don’t think that creeds should be protected from hateful messages. Unless the messages amount to harassment or breaking another existing, more general law, I don’t necessarily see the issue it’s solving.
If the sidewalk in front of the Masjid is a public area, you should legally be able to throw a bacon-and-Koran barbecue during Eid.
I kind of disagree. If you want to have a backyard bbq and burn Korans during Eid, go for it. But if you’re doing it on the sidewalk outside a mosque, your sole intent is to incite the people inside. It’s no longer about your ‘personal freedoms’.
I kind of agree, but I think it would need to be more than just burning a Qu’ran, you’d also need some inflammatory speech, like “death to Muslims” or something that would be intended to move them to violence.
Regardless, I do think there are circumstances where burning a holy book could be included as evidence in a hate crime case.
Thats a realistic interpretation of what those bbqers intent would be, but I dont think you can realistically make that illegal as the sidewalk is a public area. (I am assuming these bbqers are not breaking any other laws at all.)
Why would it being a public area prohibit making it illegal? There are tons of things that are illegal on a public sidewalk. Urination, intoxication, etc.
Because assuming theyre not breaking any other laws, I dont think you can differentiate the public place outside of a masjid from any other public place. Urination and intoxication are illegal in all public places.
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.
I mean, as a fellow atheist I don’t disagree. What I’m saying is that there are groups that are targeted (in Swedish society) specifically for their affiliation with a religion, their sexual orientation etc. Protesting religions is fine and IS protected speech.
But certain actions are only meant to provoke, disrespect and incite. The Iraqi guy is well within his rights to protest and criticize Islam; the question here is whether the manner of his “protest” was protected speech or if choosing that specific action, time and place for his protest, all taken together, tip the scales from valid and protected religious critique into something else. If the main intent was to incite, disrespect and provoke, it might not be protected speech.
That said, I’m not a fan of most religions. Specifically when religion is used as a justification to impose prescriptive and restrictive rules on others both within and outside of that religion (pro life, gender roles, prescriptive clothing like Muslim head coverings, prescriptive rules regarding birth control or sex, discrimination or persecution of LGBTQ people etc).
Why is being disrespectful towards religions even an issue? I do not respect them and have in fact strong contempt for religions. I consider islam a new cancer growing, after we finally managed to largely push Christianity out of policy making and into the realm of personal choice in the west.
I think every member of society is entitled to a minimum level of respect. Some groups of people in society face more discrimination and harassment than others due to some common attribute they have, and my opinion is that they should be legally protected from that.
You are in your rights to think Islam is a cancer, you are free to protest Islam publicly, whenever and wherever. The difference is that your critique of Islam is legal and valid, but you can’t target Muslims. Certain actions combined with a place and time can turn valid critique into incitement.
We queer people are a threat to the reproduction of labor. Literally, I will never reproduce. That means I’m not going to create more workers to feed the labor force, which means the labor market will become tighter because I have the audacity to not do my duty to the money line.
In order for wages to stay low we must be stopped from our assault on the labor force!
By that line of reasoning, I’m also not helping. I’ve got one kid and that’s good enough for my wife and I… which is a reduction from the two people who made her, so a 50% cut in the workforce! How will the shareholders ever keep their year over year profits increasing?!
Not so fast. You can do your duty to the Economy by adopting and raising children, reducing the children’s burden on the State and transforming them into productive adult drones who will work for low wages (and who might later reproduce)! Really, unless you adopted three children while reading this, you have been negligent.
reuters.com
Active