Copied my comment response from another post because I think it’s relevant to nuance the debate and combat disinformation:
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 provovation 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.
Define religion. Because everything and anything can be claimed to be protected under religion, i.e. the satanic temple. There is no reason 'traditional' religions should get special treatment
I agree. You shouldn’t be persecuted or harassed regardless of your religious beliefs, you should be equally protected regardless of if you are a Satanist, Wiccan, or whatever.
The actual wording of the law when translated from Swedish is closest to the English word “creed” I think, not “religious belief” as I wrote in my original comment, but I thought religious belief was a smidge clearer. I’m obviously not a native English speaker so I do my best.
And to further adress the “but what if I believe in My Little Pony would that count”, I mean… the spirit of the law does matter to the judges, you’d have to make a very strong case as to why you and your three friends should count as a protected “group” and why dismembering My Little Pony figurines is necessarily incitement against your group. I’m 99% sure no prosecutor would take you seriously. But I don’t know, I am not a legal practitioner. It’s up to the prosecutors to decide if a case seems to have merit, and then it’s up to the court to try what should and shouldn’t count as incitement under the law.
And to further adress the “but what if I believe in My Little Pony would that count”, I mean… the spirit of the law does matter to the judges, you’d have to make a very strong case as to why you and your three friends should count as a protected “group” and why dismembering My Little Pony figurines is necessarily incitement against your group. I’m 99% sure no prosecutor would take you seriously. But I don’t know, I am not a legal practitioner. It’s up to the prosecutors to decide if a case seems to have merit, and then it’s up to the court to try what should and shouldn’t count as incitement under the law.
That's the issue. You now have a very vague law that is entirely up to interpretation by the judge on a case to case basis. Three people might not a religion make, but what about 300? 3000? Those numbers are easy to reach if you have any sort of decent organiser behind a cause. It's just extremely open to abuse. There is no reason why religions should be granted any sort of protected status under the law.
Sure, that’s technically an issue, but not something that will probably ever become an issue in practice. Prosecutors who get a police report on their table evaluate the merit of the case and choose whether to dismiss it or prosecute it. So while this law could be abused because of a fuzzy definition of “creed”… It would have to be a very elaborate scheme where you’d have to fool both the public and the police that your case is within the spirit of the law, a prosecutor, and then finally a judge and five jurors (Sweden doesn’t have a jury system with regular citizens), for extremely little gain? Swedish courts tend to be conservative with punishments and fines. Just wildly guessing here, but a normal fine amount for this type of crime could probably range from $500 to $5000, and this is not awarded to the defendant. There can be damages awarded as well, though damages are generally very unimpressive in Sweden and of similar amounts to fines. There are other problems with the wording of this law that I think are more egregious, I’m not under any illusion that it’s a perfect law even though I agree with the sentiment and spirit.
The full law run through Google Translate:
Chapter 16, 8 § Anyone who, in a statement or in another message that is disseminated, threatens or expresses contempt for a national group or another such group of persons with allusions to race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender-transcending identity or expression, is sentenced for incitement against a national group to imprisonment for a maximum of two years or, if the crime is minor, to a fine.
Remember that, while the translation is actually very accurate imo, there are words that have a slightly different nuance in Swedish, and some words here that exist in Swedish but don’t have a full equivalent in English. “National group” isn’t very correct here as a translation of folkgrupp, and “creed” is an ok but not 100% translation of trosuppfattning. “Contempt” is close, but the nuance is a bit different in the original missaktning.
Some other issues: What is a “message”? What does “expresses contempt” mean here, what constitutes expressing contempt? Is a Quran burning a message, or does the context of the Quran burnings imply a message in this case? Where is the line drawn for “expressing contempt”?
Courts are very protective of the Swedish constitutional right to free speech, which is why the recent Quran burnings are characterized by many legal experts as legal and valid religious critique. But others instead argue that the main intent here was not to critique religion, it was to incite, provoke and disrespect.
It’s a fuzzy line to walk, but there is a pretty high bar for sentencing something as incitement under the cited law, when it stands in opposition to the constitutional right to free speech.
Turns out that if you get a job as leader of a failing party, and then do nothing to fix it, you will lose subsequent elections. Gosh, who’d have thought it?
Well, they seem to keep on winning despite terrible policy, corruption and messing up the economic future of the country. All the parties are basket cases.
How can you fix anything when you’re too busy attacking the LGBT+ community, breaking international immigrant / refugee laws, stealing privacy and civil liberty from your citizens?
They haven’t been doing nothing. They have been degrading democracy.
What I mean is that he does not appear to have done anything to convince the traditional Tory voters that he has a grip on things which is entirely what he was bought in to do.
They were concerned about the economy because of Truss. Yet we are now in a recession. And no matter how many times he blames the war in Ukraine the truth is that other countries in Europe are doing better.
They were concerned that the party image is being damaged by the inhuman handling of the immigration crisis. Well their current actions haven’t exactly helped their image in that regard have they?
They were concerned the brexit was not going to be dealt with. So is it fixed?
Well, your first mistake is to try and see logic behind that party’s actions. What we see from them is just a constant power shift. No one is being put in charge for their ability to lead.
why does the internet always get the truth so wrong?
I love how this is framed like it’s the fault of the internet, and not just people being people. The same conversations being had on Twitter and the like are also generally being had face to face by regular, everyday people.
Hello! Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “Stanford president resigns over manipulated research” (Similairity: ~74%).
BLEEP BLEEP this action was performed semi-automatically by a bot (:
I would say it is worse than simply in bad taste. It is reminiscent of Nazis burning books of Jewish authors in the Third Reich.
Burning the Quran is an act of hate towards certain ethnic groups, not a contribution towards political discourse or an expression of a constructive opinion.
I’m not going out and burning any books because I think it’s unnecessary and I have no desire to, but I also feel like there are only 2 fair and even somewhat reasonable positions to take on this:
A - No one is allowed to burn any books for any reason.
B- Anyone is allowed to burn any books for any reason.
Anything else is preferential treatment for religion legally, and there are secular books that hold just as much meaning to people on a personal level as religous texts. I think A would be a violation of people’s rights, so I support B.
Who cares if it’s a sacrilege? Excommunicate them from the religion then, that’s your recourse. Sleep soundly knowing they’re going to your version of Hell or whatever. Religious ideaology should not affect law or public policy.
Please stop talking to me in a way that implies I would be religious, or even sympathizing with religious fanatics. I have been an atheist my whole life, just as the rest of my family. The way you talk makes it sound like if I would be religious and that is offensive to me. I´m not in any way siding with the idiots who attacked the embassy, this is much more complex than choosing sides. I naturally condemn all aggressive and all violent actions on both sides. However -I was trying to make a point about sacrilege- so back on topic:
Think about it. Every civilized country has laws against offending people, so obviously there is a global consensus that the law should aim to protect people from being offended. You probably agree that what is considered offensive depends on the cultural background of an individual and is different from country to country. Now consider that to followers of a religion a desecration of the symbols of their religion** is the worst possible offense that is thinkable**. Why do you argue that certain (religious) people should be excluded from the protection by law against being offended - just because they were born into a different culture than you were and thus believe other things than you?
Burning sacred books of a foreign religion is a sign of intolerance and a poster-like act of aggression, offense and provocation that aims to cause an outrage in the targeted religious community. This fact can not be ignored when assessing events of this kind. It also does not excuse violent behavior by the offended community in my opinion but that is another topic.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that you personally are religious or that you are advocating for people storming the embassy by taking your position. I shouldn’t have used “your” in my hypothetical.
I personally do not believe there should be laws specifically against “offending” someone, and I don’t think not having that law makes a country uncivilized. I absolutely believe there should be harsher punishments for actual crimes motivated by prejudices, but what qualifies as “offensive” is incredibly subjective and open to exploitation. If a Nazi found Mein Kampf to be genuinely just as sacred to them as a religious text, would you agree that burning it should be illegal as to not offend them?
National socialism is objectively evil and is also not a religion so the example seems pretty far fetched to me. I could not care less about the feelings of nazis but Mein Kampf is important historical source material so it should definitely not be burned but instead preserved. I also think the impact of that book is generally overstated. Germans who voted for Hitler back then did not do so because of Mein Kampf but for several reasons including they felt the treaty of Versailles was unfair, that the new democratic system had failed them and because of the global economic crisis/inflation.
A civilized society does not necessarily require laws against offense in my opinion. Laws against incitement on the other hand are generally needed to keep things peaceful in most societies if you ask me.
I mean it’s 2023 and the internet exists, there’s no history lost by burning a single copy of Mein Kampf. So religion is just where you draw the line?
Some people have just as much fervor for nationalism as religion, is it incitement to burn a US flag in the US? What about burning another country’s flag?
If the Quran or the US flag gets burned to incite hate and violence makes no difference to me, both is the same kind of wrong. I simply don´t think that intentional incitement, especially of groups that are particularly easy to enrage is aiding humanity or is in general a good idea. There is so much violence in the world already, why do you think there should be a right to pour gas into the fire?
Same reason it’s legal in most western democracies. Freedom of speech, it’s not against the law to burn a book. Similar demonstrations (Quran burnings) happen just as often in e.g. Denmark and Norway, seriously loon it up, the reason I suspect Sweden suddenly gets a lot of attention for it is mainly political, with them trying to join NATO.
Having said that, there are laws against incitement against ethical groups. The reason this is not treated as such is that its considered religious critique which is always legal.
I’d personally argue that this has very little to do with religious critique. These people haven’t read a single page of the Quran in their lives. This is clearly to provoke an ethnical minority. So I could definitely argue that it shouldn’t really be allowed. Not because you shouldn’t critique Islam or any other religion, but simply because this is nothing but a provocation actively trying to hurt/offend an ethnic group and get a reaction of out of it, but that’s not how the courts interpret the law.
The law regulating what the police are allowed to forbid is very limited. They can deny permission for a demonstration due to traffic disruption, but not threats of terrorism or international relations. It’s currently being debated in the Riksdag (the supreme legislative body).
Secondly, the police are in their rights to deny permission for protests/demonstrations that are clearly illegal for some reason. The legislation regulating incitement against ethnic groups (which Muslims are covered under) is fuzzy however, and this is mostly uncharted territory. Context matters for the letter of that law, in legalese the law forbids certain “verbal statements or messages” with a purpose to incite ethnic groups. But is burning the Quran a “message”? Arguably yes (imo) in this context, but it hasn’t been tried.
There was a dismissed case tried in court with a Quran burning, but the context there was different. There have also been some police reports regarding other Quran burnings that were never prosecuted, because the prosecutors only put forth cases to trial that they are convinced that they can win (this is how the system is designed).
What we are waiting for is a case that fulfills, or seems to fulfill, the letter of the incitement law with regards to context, that will be prosecuted and tried in courts all the way up to the supreme court.
The previous Quran burning might fulfill those criteria (burned Quran outside a mosque during Eid). It has been reported to the police and we are waiting to see if the case will be brought to trial.
Hello! Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “Stanford president resigns over manipulated research” (Similairity: ~74%).
BLEEPERDY BLOOP this action was performed semi-automatically by a bot (:
G’morning, Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “Woman suing Texas over abortion ban vomits on the stand” (Similairity: ~70%).
ZZZzzzz… this action was performed semi-automatically by a bot (:
Have the mods clarified how to handle articles with content that is disingenuously or incorrectly represented in the title? I’ve asked before and still haven’t received any response.
Just like all rules, it’s up to the mods description to determine that. It might be nice to expand the 4th rule to make it more clear, but I’m not the creator of this community, so I won’t be doing that.
I (thekingoflorda) will not delete any posts which title do not match the article. I just wrote this bot to prompt people to check if their title is appropriate.
Hello! Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “Russia strikes Ukrainian port cities for third consecutive night” (Similairity: ~42%).
BING BONG this action was performed semi-automatically by a bot (:
Good news! This should no longer happen, as the bot now runs every 60 seconds, so it will clear your post at the moment you post it (and then ignore it in the scans after that). Thank you for letting me know that this was such an issue (:
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is part of the reason hate crime exists. “Is it something I don’t yet know or understand? Quickly, get me my head-burying sand bucket!”
It might be, or it might be not. Unfortunately you won’t know before googling/asking/etc. But hiding from stuff you don’t understand yet isn’t that good of a strategy in general.
It reads a lot like anti-intellectualism, and that never had a positive impact on societies.
This whole thread became hilarious. I literally stated I didn’t bother to look up a definition of some random word. Now I am being accused of hatred crimes and being shut up by mods lol oh well fuck you mods
one of them is saying people like me are doing crimes.
I must have missed it. Which one?
all my comments (even the “thanks!” got removed by a mod)
Yeah, mods tend not to like trolls very much. And you made it undeniable to even the most lenient mod that you’re trolling by just coming right out and saying it at least twice.
everyone else feels superior by pointing out how bad I am, how good they are, which is kinda funny.
No one likes trolls. You don’t get to gloat that you trolled people when you get pushback for saying something stupid and then turn around and act like you’re a poor oppressed victim because people don’t like the opinion you were totally pretending to hold to troll people.
“I’m not anti-intellectual about every topic, only the ones I find iffy” is kinda exactly the point here. Everyone has first-priority topics of interest. The issue is being open to understanding other ones.
Edit: the mods deleted this person’s comments, and I disagree with that decision. If someone with a similar worldview stumbles upon such discussions and finds some point in other comments compelling enough to change their mind, that’s a positive result in my book. And removing the other point of view from the comments doesn’t allow people to find associations. The comments should have stayed.
It literally took you like 20x longer to have this conversation than it would’ve taken to google the answer. If you worry about your time not being infinite you should manage it better.
My initial comment was a troll one. I got so much hate i the comments I need a week to digest it. Will think twice if I feel brave enough again to question social dogmas.
I mean, you do you, but you didn’t get hate for “questioning social dogmas” (you didn’t question shit, btw), rather for flaunting your pride for ignorance and being an asshole about it. Rephrase your original statement as a question, and you’ll get zero hate.
Asshole yourself to assume I must know every word in English.
I mean, if you want to know what a word means, you could just google it.
Or, if you feel like being an asshole: Announce that you won’t google it. Then proclaim multiple times that you were trolling. Then whine that you’re being oppressed when your comments are removed because you were trolling.
Or rather, you’re announcing your dismissiveness as scorn of things that greatly matter to a lot of people. Condescension drips from every word of your comment I just replied to and other ones you’ve made. And funny how people respond badly to it.
At any rate. I won’t be feeding you anymore, and I hope no one else does, either.
Nope, but "idk, I don't care to know, everything besides programming and whatever second thing you mentioned is second-class info, I won't google anything cause my time ain't infinite, but I'll spend an hour arguing about that" comes across pretty assholish. And btw, I'm arguing against the anti-intellectualism point of view specifically, not you personally.
No-one knows every word or every thing. But stumbling across something you don't know and figuring it out vs doubling down on your pride of not knowing it are pretty different behaviour patterns.
All I'm arguing for here is persistent curiosity vs ignorance.
Well my point is: “there is too much fad/buzzword/“engagement” out there of that concept, that googling/searching/… for all the terms that appear in headlines is a waste of time.” This is my non-troll, serious argument.
Sure. And googling about that climate change hoax is waste of time as well, there’s too much leftist propaganda there. Or stuff about some_group's human rights, these people feel iffy and I don’t want to drive engagement discussing them. Or lets slash women's healthcare because I have my Bible here and there's nothing else I need to know. Earth is flat too btw, why do I need to google what some NASA shill says, it's all CGI anyway.
It's a hyperbole and it should not sound reasonable, but this is what this type of thought process leads to. If you think your topics of choice are immune, you're kinda missing the whole point of this conversation.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.