December 19, 2024 - 10:00am
On Saturday, the Iranian singer Parastoo Ahmadi was arrested for performing without a hijab. Although she has since been released, the arrest has invited condemnation across the West. One such critical country was Denmark, where a politician from the Moderate Party called it “crazy” and many more condemned the move from the Iranian regime. But while warranted, denunciations of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s morality police can ring hollow in Denmark in 2024.
Two weeks ago, Denmark’s controversial Quran law celebrated its first anniversary. To mark the occasion, the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) praised the Danish government in the publication Politiken, stating that although only six people have been investigated under the law in the last year and no one has been charged, it works as a “strong deterrent and symbolic declaration against religious hatred”. At the time, many defended the law by claiming it protected Danish Muslims against Islamophobia. It was also argued that it would keep Danes safe abroad, although most weren’t keen to clearly state the source of the threat — with the exception of those who observed that the Quran law was brought in, among other reasons, “to appease the Iranian theocracy”.
On the anniversary, Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen proclaimed the law a “success”, as it ended the Quran burnings that were domestically unpopular and stoked tensions abroad. The far-Right politician Rasmus Paludan who burned cheap editions of Qurans across the country — once pouring buttermilk over it first to symbolise the “semen from Christian men and apostates” — made defending the bill look suitably sensible. Books should be read, not burned, said Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen at the time. While the Danish establishment continues to defend the law, in practice it prioritises religious sensitivities over freedom of speech.
One of the law’s sharpest critics is the artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan, who in 2023 — before the law was introduced — grated the Quran on a carrot grater outside the Iranian embassy in protest against the regime. But if Bazrafkan were to stage her protest again today in solidarity with Ahmadi, she would be investigated for blasphemy and could face a fine. When some point out this hypocrisy, it is dismissed as an overreaction. The government wants this law to be seen as a deterrent against acts such as Paludan’s book burnings, but all it reveals is a country that has lost its belief in freedom, and with that its courage.
By introducing the Quran law, Denmark forgot the unequivocal support it showed for blasphemers during the cartoon crisis of the 2000s, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten commissioned 12 satirical drawings of the prophet Muhammad. Despite an overwhelming backlash and the very real threat Danish ambassadors faced abroad, the government defended press freedom and was supported by the rest of the West. Denmark still leads by example, although no longer in support of free speech. In Britain, Labour MP Tahir Ali recently advocated for blasphemy laws similar to Denmark’s Quran legislation. This was met with sympathetic mutterings from Keir Starmer about being “committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division”, not the sharp rebuke for which supporters of free expression would hope.
When a singer is arrested in Iran for performing with her hair out, we in the West should have the courage to call that country what it is: an oppressive theocracy. Unfortunately, cowardice has set in and countries such as Denmark have capitulated to an Islamic understanding of blasphemy. Instead, they should be protecting those who challenge it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere’s probably nothing complicated going on here; the modern, cultural, centrist, ‘nice’ politician, is simply a coward.
Yes and no. They don’t want diplomats killed or expats seized. The situation is difficult but Denmark hasn’t got the balance right. I would have expected better from them.
Do, please calm down. It has long been illegal in Denmark to burn the flags of foreign nations, and there are laws against indecent exposure and sexual harassment. All of this was a limit to freedom of expression – and nobody ever felt it was a problem. If you choose to go ballistic about the prohibition on Koran burning, it does sound as if you think there is a special virtue in offending Muslims.
The law is limited to holy writings, and to public performances, in fact to ban exactly the kind of gratuitiously offensive happenings that Paludan is excelling in. He is still free to say what he thinks about Islam – as of course he should be. This all seems an excellent balance between the two worthy goals of protecting freedom of expression, and preventing people from offending and making trouble just for the hell of it.
Basically, you’re saying it should be illegal to hurt someone’s feelings. So, if you met someone who actually believed in Santa Claus, you would be prepared to go to prison on telling them it was a myth?
No, I am saying that In a society you need to make some kind of pragmatic arrangement where you consider the benefits and costs to various groups. Again: public nudity and indecent exposure. Here we are limiting people’s freedom to dress as they like without hurting anyone else, just to protect women’s feelings. Danish law already prohibited burning national flags, to protect the nationalistic feelings of foreign nations, and their governments. All cases where a limited cost to people’s freedom is counterbalanced by avoiding major offense to large groups of people. I think the very minor loss of the right to burn Korans is well worth avoiding giving major offense to lots and lots of Muslims- particularly since no one burns Korans except for the express purpose of giving offense. If the question was about e.g. pictures of Mohamed, i would judge differently.
You may not like it, but religious sentiment is particularly widespread and particularly strong, and earns some protections for that reason that we would not give to individual feelies.
Anyone who believes in any religion needs to have their bumps felt ….
There is indeed some thing special about offending Muslims, because only Islam operates a death penalty for critics – even those outside the faith, and outside Islamic countries.
True enough. But whether they are a religion of peace or not, the Danish law would still be a reasonable accommodation. Note that the law is limited to holy writings of acknowledged faiths, which is a small and controlled set. The Pastafarians cannot claim the same rights.
Alas, Rasmus, the Flying Spagetti Monster has taken notice of your insult, and will soon come to your door.
Current Islam…. Jan Hus (and some of his followers) died for criticizing indulgences only 500 or so years ago. Given the 600 year head start that Christianity had to get to its current state, some perspective is in order.
I am very supportive of the nudity laws. All those fat bellies hanging over mens hips and drooping breasts on elderly women. Please, please protect me from seeing those.
Causing gratuitous offence is now not only an offence against individuals or a community but an offence against the state.
When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire blasphemy became an offence not only against the Church but also against the state.
It’s presumably alright to burn Harlan Coben books, so why not any other book. The Quran is a work of fiction and should have no special protections.
So, the Koran was ghostwritten? It isn’t really a direct, long quotation from the big man in the sky? Yep, makes sense. 🙂
The Quran as we know it was compiled under the direction of the third Caliph, Uthman, by a group of scholars – starting in 644, 12 years after the death of the Prophet who left no written text. Their compilation was then made the standard text, and has continued to this day.
I agree that the Quran deserves no special protection, but to insult the book and its followers is unnecessary.
This was always where hare speech laws were headed, laws of free speech need to be completely free or else they always end up expanding into less freedom.
How about a Bible Law? Or maybe Torah Law? Or the Bhagavad Gita? Or anybody else’s Holy writings?
What about woke writings?
I am known as the author of transhumanism. How about a law making it illegal to criticize transhumanism? While that would be delicious given some of the nasty critics, I would be utterly opposed.
They are all covered equally, the law talks about ‘sacred writings of a recognised community of faith’.
I absolutely hate this
I presume you mean the Danish law, not this article.
How can the Danish politicians claim this law is a success when there may be hundreds of Danish women defiling the document concerned by holding it in the privacy of their own homes while menstruating? Or when there might be Danish men placing it on the floor at home?
Because the law is not about preserving the sacredness of the Koran. Danish voters or politicians do not care a fig for the supposed sacredness of the Koran. The law is about preventing rabble-rousers from fomenting intercommunity hatred and violence by using Koran-burning as a publicity stunt. And in this it seems to work.
Causing offence is now not only an offence against individuals or a community but also an offence against the state.
One person may try to cause offence. But for that to work, another must take offence. Not taking offence takes the wind out of the sails of the potential offender.