August 1, 2023 - 10:30am
In 1766, Sweden enacted its landmark Press Freedom Act, becoming the first country in the world to implement such protections. In 1770, Denmark outpaced this achievement by formally abolishing all forms of censorship. Despite intermittent setbacks, these pioneering acts cultivated a vibrant culture of free expression. The Scandinavian countries evolved into global symbols of democracy, freedom, equality and prosperity, underpinned by socially liberal and secular values. However, on Sunday Denmark and Sweden undermined these core values by yielding to pressure from some of the world’s most politically authoritarian and religiously oppressive states.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen stated that the Danish government would seek to enact legislation for “special situations where other countries, cultures, and religions could be insulted, potentially resulting in significant negative consequences for Denmark”. Sweden is considering similar measures. This rapid move to curtail free expression comes in response to a ragtag group of far-Right extremists in Denmark and an Iraqi immigrant in Sweden publicly burning Qurans.
There can be no doubt that book burnings are crude, deliberately provocative, and a poor substitute for reasoned debate. But when conducted by private individuals, they serve as non-violent symbolic expressions intended to convey a message — the essence of free expression. The appropriate response to such provocations is counter-speech or indifference. In fact, in July an Iranian citizen burned not only the flags of Denmark and Sweden, but also the Bible and the Torah in front of the Israeli embassy in Copenhagen, praising Ayatollah Khomeini in the process. This act was largely met with apathy from the Danish populace.
However, as Denmark discovered after a newspaper published cartoons of Muhammed in 2005, offending Islam is a high-risk venture. Indeed, the reaction to the Scandinavian Quran burnings has been intense. Turkey, for example, withheld approval of Sweden’s Nato membership for months. In Baghdad, the Swedish embassy was attacked by protestors, and the ambassador was expelled. A Danish NGO aiding refugees in Basra came under armed assault. The most coordinated pushback against Denmark and Sweden has come from the 57 member-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has long argued that insulting Islam equates to “hate speech”, prohibited under international human rights law.
The Danish government’s commitment to limit free speech was announced just a day before an OIC special session, intended to strategise a global ban on Quran burnings. Rasmussen even made a desperate phone call to the OIC to preemptively mitigate potential backlash. Regrettably for the Danish government, the organisation remained unappeased and released a strongly-worded statement admonishing Denmark and Sweden for failing to criminalise Quran burnings, pledging to pursue the matter further. The Turkish ambassador to Denmark also warned that the proposed Danish efforts were “insufficient”.
By yielding to the demands of the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the theocratic Shiite regime of Iran, Denmark and Sweden have validated the OIC’s approach, which relies on relentless diplomatic pressure and demands for concessions while offering nothing in return. As the OIC seizes this momentum, the cost to global free expression due to the feckless surrender of secular democracies is likely to be high.
Jacob Mchangama is the CEO of the Future of Free Speech Project, Research Professor at Vanderbilt University, and a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He is the author of Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media.
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.
SubscribeProtecting the feelings of an imaginary friend has taken precedence over protecting the human right for free speech! The world needs to stand together against the OIC. More pressure should be put on the OIC to reform Islam. Islam’s intolerance must not be tolerated at the expense of human rights.
Some one once said: We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that stupid people won’t be offended.
Protecting the feelings of an imaginary friend has taken precedence over protecting the human right for free speech! The world needs to stand together against the OIC. More pressure should be put on the OIC to reform Islam. Islam’s intolerance must not be tolerated at the expense of human rights.
Some one once said: We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that stupid people won’t be offended.
There are always bullies and there are always cowards eager to appease them. These Scandinavian countries will experience, again, the usual result. Bowing to violent tyranny only brings on more violent tyranny.
There are always bullies and there are always cowards eager to appease them. These Scandinavian countries will experience, again, the usual result. Bowing to violent tyranny only brings on more violent tyranny.
Is it illegal in Iran to burn the Bible? Just asking …
Is it illegal in Iran to burn the Bible? Just asking …
Ugh. Very disappointing.
Ugh. Very disappointing.
So will places like Iran ban the burning of other countries’ flags?
So will places like Iran ban the burning of other countries’ flags?
Prima donnas with beards.
Prima donnas with beards.
There seem to be many ‘liberal’ minded people in Europe who live and breathe, the hippy, one world nirvana. Let’s just all get on together. What does it matter if some people believe in gods, and some don’t. We all interpret the World in equally valid ways. Just take people on Unherd like Paul Kingsnorth! Intelligent, well read, articulate; all searching for meaning in their lives.
But utterly misguided. The project which started with the European Enlightenment led to a standard of living that previous generations simply couldn’t imagine. Reason over superstition is a superior (choose your own term) way of engaging with the world and our existence. If you prefer superstition that’s your choice, but as the saying goes, you can ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
I hope that the Danish and Swedish submission in the face of Islamic threats doesn’t begin a retreat from the intellectual revolution that was the Enlightenment.
‘I hope that the Danish and Swedish submission in the face of Islamic threats doesn’t begin a retreat from the intellectual revolution that was the Enlightenment.’
Sadly, the retreat started years ago and the craven attitude of our western politicians / academics appears unlikely to change.
‘I hope that the Danish and Swedish submission in the face of Islamic threats doesn’t begin a retreat from the intellectual revolution that was the Enlightenment.’
Sadly, the retreat started years ago and the craven attitude of our western politicians / academics appears unlikely to change.
There seem to be many ‘liberal’ minded people in Europe who live and breathe, the hippy, one world nirvana. Let’s just all get on together. What does it matter if some people believe in gods, and some don’t. We all interpret the World in equally valid ways. Just take people on Unherd like Paul Kingsnorth! Intelligent, well read, articulate; all searching for meaning in their lives.
But utterly misguided. The project which started with the European Enlightenment led to a standard of living that previous generations simply couldn’t imagine. Reason over superstition is a superior (choose your own term) way of engaging with the world and our existence. If you prefer superstition that’s your choice, but as the saying goes, you can ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
I hope that the Danish and Swedish submission in the face of Islamic threats doesn’t begin a retreat from the intellectual revolution that was the Enlightenment.
“But when conducted by private individuals, they serve as non-violent symbolic expressions intended to convey a message — the essence of free expression”
But the message might not be ‘Hate’ as you seem to suggest, it might just be that the defense of FofS *requires* making ‘deliberately provocative’ performances. Here’s an example: I’d not think of burning a Koran myself … *unless it was made illegal* in which case I’d burn one simply to convey my objection to that law. Use it or lose it. A Koran burning is a way of very explicitly exercising one’s FofS in the face of those who would slowly but surely erode that right.
“But when conducted by private individuals, they serve as non-violent symbolic expressions intended to convey a message — the essence of free expression”
But the message might not be ‘Hate’ as you seem to suggest, it might just be that the defense of FofS *requires* making ‘deliberately provocative’ performances. Here’s an example: I’d not think of burning a Koran myself … *unless it was made illegal* in which case I’d burn one simply to convey my objection to that law. Use it or lose it. A Koran burning is a way of very explicitly exercising one’s FofS in the face of those who would slowly but surely erode that right.
Nothing reveals better than cases like this how the development and maintenance of an open and tolerant society is not something which expresses the potentialities of a universal human nature when this is uncorrupted by social prejudices and the tyranny of custom, as liberals too often suppose, but is rather a precarious achievement which presupposes a certain self-confidence and maturity among the citizenry: a maturity, developed over centuries, which can distinguish genuine harm from mere offence, and which can shrug off the latter while prosecuting the former.
If a society should become so oblivious of the historical contingency of its fortunate situation as to unthinkingly import into its citizenry sufficient numbers of cultural aliens who have not been socialised from childhood into such self-confidence and maturity, it will be faced with an unappealing trilemma: either (1) it must abandon its hard-won toleration of dissent, however crudely expressed, or (2) it must become accustomed to increasing levels of antagonism and social unrest between faith groups who do not respect and cannot or will not tolerate one another (including the faith group of anti-religious secularists), or (3) it must make life so hard for one or more of those faith groups that they will have no choice but to emigrate. Probably it will opt for an ineffective blend of all of these, or else will shift uneasily from one to the other in an opportunistic fashion. In any case there is certain to be a severe escalation in faith-based violence along the way.
Nothing reveals better than cases like this how the development and maintenance of an open and tolerant society is not something which expresses the potentialities of a universal human nature when this is uncorrupted by social prejudices and the tyranny of custom, as liberals too often suppose, but is rather a precarious achievement which presupposes a certain self-confidence and maturity among the citizenry: a maturity, developed over centuries, which can distinguish genuine harm from mere offence, and which can shrug off the latter while prosecuting the former.
If a society should become so oblivious of the historical contingency of its fortunate situation as to unthinkingly import into its citizenry sufficient numbers of cultural aliens who have not been socialised from childhood into such self-confidence and maturity, it will be faced with an unappealing trilemma: either (1) it must abandon its hard-won toleration of dissent, however crudely expressed, or (2) it must become accustomed to increasing levels of antagonism and social unrest between faith groups who do not respect and cannot or will not tolerate one another (including the faith group of anti-religious secularists), or (3) it must make life so hard for one or more of those faith groups that they will have no choice but to emigrate. Probably it will opt for an ineffective blend of all of these, or else will shift uneasily from one to the other in an opportunistic fashion. In any case there is certain to be a severe escalation in faith-based violence along the way.
As at 14:31 BST. Where are the other FIVE comments?
ps. I don’t understand why UnHerd bothers to discuss Islam!
This happens on every occasion, and by the time the comments reappear, IF they reappear at all, the day will be over and the discussion thwarted.
True, discussions would be far more lively, if our comments weren’t vetted.
Given the power in both influence and finances of orgs, bikie billionaires, etc. willing to stifle independent journalism/freedom of expression, I admire Unherd’s courage to display e.g. my comments about Australia’s lawlessness at all.
Thankfully people need to be paid subscribers to even vote up/down our comments, let alone abuse us in counter comments.
We are paying the price for ignoring insanity assuming that it won’t prevail. It will be a hard job, if not impossible to reinstate the values and principles that made humans thrive in peace.
Peace being the existence of justice, not just the absence of war.
PS: several of my public LinkedIn posts expressing angst about Australia never having had functional law-enforcement, bikies making billions $ in the drug-trade yearly, and our dismal prospects, given Clare O’Neil’s* incompetent hubris/vanity have disappeared without a warning.
Tech, including cyber-tech far beyond what’s known to civilian experts at the time have been used against me since 2009 in an ongoing crime-spree in physical and cyber-space by an ex-coworker stalker organised-crime info source. I never even dated the stalker. Using tech not known to civilian experts in bizarre, seemingly pointless crimes is a long-established crime witness/victim discreditation strategy of Victoria Police officers and their accomplices. See Raymond T. Hoser’s brave publications about Victoria Police corruption.
The disappearance of my public LinkedIn posts that were possibly damaging to the ongoing risk-free operation of Australia’s bikie gangs has nothing to do with bikies doing victory-laps around my home since I discovered the disappearance. Of course not.
As a public servant witness to crimes punishable by 10 years in jail/worse, whom Victoria Police have been trying to silence since 2009, I will continue making public interest disclosures about Australia’s absurd crime reality via every possible platform, until I see positive, material changes to Australia’s crime fighting ability/willingness. Since Australia faked its way into Five Eyes, AUKUS, etc., and the Internet is everywhere, Australia’s lawlessness poses a significant global threat.
#ididnotstaysilent
https://www.linkedin.com/in/katalin-kish-38750b154/
—
* Australia’s Minister for Cyber Security AND Home Affairs no less since mid-2022.
PS: several of my public LinkedIn posts expressing angst about Australia never having had functional law-enforcement, bikies making billions $ in the drug-trade yearly, and our dismal prospects, given Clare O’Neil’s* incompetent hubris/vanity have disappeared without a warning.
Tech, including cyber-tech far beyond what’s known to civilian experts at the time have been used against me since 2009 in an ongoing crime-spree in physical and cyber-space by an ex-coworker stalker organised-crime info source. I never even dated the stalker. Using tech not known to civilian experts in bizarre, seemingly pointless crimes is a long-established crime witness/victim discreditation strategy of Victoria Police officers and their accomplices. See Raymond T. Hoser’s brave publications about Victoria Police corruption.
The disappearance of my public LinkedIn posts that were possibly damaging to the ongoing risk-free operation of Australia’s bikie gangs has nothing to do with bikies doing victory-laps around my home since I discovered the disappearance. Of course not.
As a public servant witness to crimes punishable by 10 years in jail/worse, whom Victoria Police have been trying to silence since 2009, I will continue making public interest disclosures about Australia’s absurd crime reality via every possible platform, until I see positive, material changes to Australia’s crime fighting ability/willingness. Since Australia faked its way into Five Eyes, AUKUS, etc., and the Internet is everywhere, Australia’s lawlessness poses a significant global threat.
#ididnotstaysilent
https://www.linkedin.com/in/katalin-kish-38750b154/
—
* Australia’s Minister for Cyber Security AND Home Affairs no less since mid-2022.
You don’t know why UnHerd discusses the world’s second largest and fastest growing religion, and the consequences of its adherents abroad and at home interacting with western societies?!
Why discuss anything then?
True, discussions would be far more lively, if our comments weren’t vetted.
Given the power in both influence and finances of orgs, bikie billionaires, etc. willing to stifle independent journalism/freedom of expression, I admire Unherd’s courage to display e.g. my comments about Australia’s lawlessness at all.
Thankfully people need to be paid subscribers to even vote up/down our comments, let alone abuse us in counter comments.
We are paying the price for ignoring insanity assuming that it won’t prevail. It will be a hard job, if not impossible to reinstate the values and principles that made humans thrive in peace.
Peace being the existence of justice, not just the absence of war.
You don’t know why UnHerd discusses the world’s second largest and fastest growing religion, and the consequences of its adherents abroad and at home interacting with western societies?!
Why discuss anything then?
As at 14:31 BST. Where are the other FIVE comments?
ps. I don’t understand why UnHerd bothers to discuss Islam!
This happens on every occasion, and by the time the comments reappear, IF they reappear at all, the day will be over and the discussion thwarted.
Why not ban all book burning? “Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also”.
Exactly my response. This legal shift is not about book-burning per se but specifically to make the Islamic Koran a special case. I cannot think of a worse response. Laws designed for ‘special circumstances’ i.e. exemptions by any other word, always end up bad law. I would like to see a law on book-burning adopted throughout Europe.
Rather pointless to ban Koran burning to appease Muslims as the book burners will presumably adopt ritually tearing or soaking and turning the Koran into pulp to achieve the end of expressing their disapproval and to wind up Muslims. To adopt the preferred response to ban any destruction of or act of disrespect to the Koran would have to be balanced by a similar ban on disrespect of any text regarded as holy by any religious group and would constitute a return to blasphemy laws.
It would certainly be impractical to extend a similar protection to all books.
Rather pointless to ban Koran burning to appease Muslims as the book burners will presumably adopt ritually tearing or soaking and turning the Koran into pulp to achieve the end of expressing their disapproval and to wind up Muslims. To adopt the preferred response to ban any destruction of or act of disrespect to the Koran would have to be balanced by a similar ban on disrespect of any text regarded as holy by any religious group and would constitute a return to blasphemy laws.
It would certainly be impractical to extend a similar protection to all books.
The reason might be that it is authoritarian to ban symbolic acts of protest such as book or burning. The Nazis famously burned piles of books, but whether this helped or hindered their rise to untrammelled state power, which is what actually enabled them to murder millions of people, is not at all clear.
Exactly my response. This legal shift is not about book-burning per se but specifically to make the Islamic Koran a special case. I cannot think of a worse response. Laws designed for ‘special circumstances’ i.e. exemptions by any other word, always end up bad law. I would like to see a law on book-burning adopted throughout Europe.
The reason might be that it is authoritarian to ban symbolic acts of protest such as book or burning. The Nazis famously burned piles of books, but whether this helped or hindered their rise to untrammelled state power, which is what actually enabled them to murder millions of people, is not at all clear.
Why not ban all book burning? “Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also”.
We are pathetically in thrall to this savage and utterly illiberal creed. It will never change because we pander to it in ever-increasing fear, but denial, of its essence.
We are pathetically in thrall to this savage and utterly illiberal creed. It will never change because we pander to it in ever-increasing fear, but denial, of its essence.
Something not mentioned: The Swedish government contains a lot of people who under other circumstances would be happy to defend the right to protest over the unhappiness of any number of Muslims. (And a good many who are saying exactly that right now.) The problem is that many of these politicians want to join NATO rather more than they want pretty much anything else, and as long as the burnings go on, Erdoğan won’t give Turkey’s approval. And this means that the people who are most interested in keeping Sweden out of NATO, are planning to keep on burning Qurans for as long as it takes.
Do try to keep up, Laura. Erdogan dropped his opposition weeks ago.
That was then, now we are hearing it is back again.
That was then, now we are hearing it is back again.
Do try to keep up, Laura. Erdogan dropped his opposition weeks ago.
Something not mentioned: The Swedish government contains a lot of people who under other circumstances would be happy to defend the right to protest over the unhappiness of any number of Muslims. (And a good many who are saying exactly that right now.) The problem is that many of these politicians want to join NATO rather more than they want pretty much anything else, and as long as the burnings go on, Erdoğan won’t give Turkey’s approval. And this means that the people who are most interested in keeping Sweden out of NATO, are planning to keep on burning Qurans for as long as it takes.
I assure you, Europe is filled with spineless jellyfish, and is only getting its just deserts.
I assure you, Europe is filled with spineless jellyfish, and is only getting its just deserts.
Sad news. A retrograde step, Appeasement.
Sad news. A retrograde step, Appeasement.
Plenty of Muslims were happy to burn the Satanic Verses. The thing is, in terms of the quality of the content, the Satanic Verses is a much, much, much, much, much … much x a million, better read. Are there ANY books that are worse reads than the Quran? I’ve not read any.
Anyway, isn’t this (burning the Quran) a case of Equal treatment, in the light of the alacrity in so many Muslims to burn the Satanic Verses?
Quran is actually not a bad read if you read it in the context of 7th century literature!
Yes, there are books that are worst reads than Quran. Any book by Deepak Chora would fall into the worst-reads category!
A matter of taste perhaps, but I read every word of the Koran and I found it to be a crushing bore. Endless repetitions of the same sermon exhorting the faithful to keep killing.
A matter of taste perhaps, but I read every word of the Koran and I found it to be a crushing bore. Endless repetitions of the same sermon exhorting the faithful to keep killing.
Quran is actually not a bad read if you read it in the context of 7th century literature!
Yes, there are books that are worst reads than Quran. Any book by Deepak Chora would fall into the worst-reads category!
Plenty of Muslims were happy to burn the Satanic Verses. The thing is, in terms of the quality of the content, the Satanic Verses is a much, much, much, much, much … much x a million, better read. Are there ANY books that are worse reads than the Quran? I’ve not read any.
Anyway, isn’t this (burning the Quran) a case of Equal treatment, in the light of the alacrity in so many Muslims to burn the Satanic Verses?
All done on purpose to bring in government censorship rules across the world! So easy to see
All done on purpose to bring in government censorship rules across the world! So easy to see
Yet again as at 0902 BST, 02.08.23.:
31 Comments recorded but ONLY 11 shown!
Where are the rest and WHY have they been censored?
Yet again as at 0902 BST, 02.08.23.:
31 Comments recorded but ONLY 11 shown!
Where are the rest and WHY have they been censored?
Let us all calm down a bit. Until a few years ago, Denmark at least had a law against blasphemy, which could have been used to stop this. At most we would be moving back to, say 1997, not 1769. There are already laws against hate speech that restrict argument and expression of honest (if unpopular) opinion. I think some of those go too far, but they have not caused armageddon yet. There are also laws against burning the flags of foreign nations. The freedom to publish the Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoons, or even Charlie Hebdo (much as I find it disgusting) is a hill worth dying on. The Koran burnings are neither expressions of opinion nor argument, but deliberately attempts to offend for the hell of it – much like those UK muslims a few years back who went to funerals of dead soldiers and loudly rejoiced that those men were now in hell. Good riddance to either. If Rasmus Paludan and company actually have anything to say, they can find another way of saying it. If they just want to provoke strife, let them do it in Syria or Pakistan, without demanding the protection of Danish police.
“The Koran burnings are neither expressions of opinion nor argument”
I disagree. They are expressions of hatred for whatever the burned thing represents. We lose our freedoms from the edges inward, no? Thus, if one is to defend freedom of speech, one must do it at the edges, where it is being attacked. Thus, in a nation where I’m free to burn the Koran, I’d not think of doing so, but in a nation that’s contemplating banning it, then I’ll feel obliged to burn a Koran just to assert my right to do so.
“The Koran burnings are neither expressions of opinion nor argument”
I disagree. They are expressions of hatred for whatever the burned thing represents. We lose our freedoms from the edges inward, no? Thus, if one is to defend freedom of speech, one must do it at the edges, where it is being attacked. Thus, in a nation where I’m free to burn the Koran, I’d not think of doing so, but in a nation that’s contemplating banning it, then I’ll feel obliged to burn a Koran just to assert my right to do so.
Let us all calm down a bit. Until a few years ago, Denmark at least had a law against blasphemy, which could have been used to stop this. At most we would be moving back to, say 1997, not 1769. There are already laws against hate speech that restrict argument and expression of honest (if unpopular) opinion. I think some of those go too far, but they have not caused armageddon yet. There are also laws against burning the flags of foreign nations. The freedom to publish the Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoons, or even Charlie Hebdo (much as I find it disgusting) is a hill worth dying on. The Koran burnings are neither expressions of opinion nor argument, but deliberately attempts to offend for the hell of it – much like those UK muslims a few years back who went to funerals of dead soldiers and loudly rejoiced that those men were now in hell. Good riddance to either. If Rasmus Paludan and company actually have anything to say, they can find another way of saying it. If they just want to provoke strife, let them do it in Syria or Pakistan, without demanding the protection of Danish police.
They are forever burning books. Soon they will burn men. Heinrich Heine
They are forever burning books. Soon they will burn men. Heinrich Heine
So nothing has actually happened to ban anyone from burning whatever books they feel like?
Still, the thought of burning Qurans sure gets the UnHerd crowd all excited – why not publish some clickbait nonsense?!?!?
No doubt the same folks get themselves in a frenzy when someone burns a US flag.
So nothing has actually happened to ban anyone from burning whatever books they feel like?
Still, the thought of burning Qurans sure gets the UnHerd crowd all excited – why not publish some clickbait nonsense?!?!?
No doubt the same folks get themselves in a frenzy when someone burns a US flag.
Public Koran burning is a non violent symbolic expression of what? Being a t**t? The game’s not worth the candle, Sweden’s accession to NATO is being held up because of someone’s urge to publicly insult someone else’s religion, and for what reason? Its not like its a rational critique of the shortcomings of Islam, that might have some value.
Making the issue about burning specifically the Koran, or not, is the problem. I don’t see book-burning anywhere by anyone as a defendable way to protest anything. We all know where book-burning leads us. They should – we should – simply ban book-burning.
You’re right
You’re right
Making the issue about burning specifically the Koran, or not, is the problem. I don’t see book-burning anywhere by anyone as a defendable way to protest anything. We all know where book-burning leads us. They should – we should – simply ban book-burning.
Public Koran burning is a non violent symbolic expression of what? Being a t**t? The game’s not worth the candle, Sweden’s accession to NATO is being held up because of someone’s urge to publicly insult someone else’s religion, and for what reason? Its not like its a rational critique of the shortcomings of Islam, that might have some value.
You’re getting ahead of yourself, Jacob. There is a proposal in Denmark to make such acts illegal but in Sweden, as of today, that’s just not the case. The government there have been keeping their heads down and are focusing right now on security for Swedish subjects. Changing the law is complicated since there is a conflict with the Grundlag (Basic Law/form of Constitution). Common sense would say that these demonstrations have more to do with intolerance/hate rather than freedom of speech/expression, so it would be reasonable to ban these, especially if the consequences affect issues of national security (embassies/NATO/foreign relations).
“ if the consequences affect issues of national security”.
If that is the case then the best course of action would to repatriate ALL Muslims currently living in Sweden and Denmark back to their place of origin.
Let’s face it, ‘they’ are completely incompatible with the Scandinavian way of life. Always have been, always will be.
Otherwise this will “end in tears”.
Please stop grovelling in the face of authoritarians. The fragility of a religion is in inverse proportion to it’s ability to be criticised, mocked even. Giving in to geopolitical blackmail would only lead to further demands, and those who seek to appease will not be appreciated by either side – and it is a cultural war.
Totally agree – these extremists are inciting religion hatred and damaging Sweden’s international reputation, there’s no need for it and it should be stopped.
Cower in the face of angry authoritarians if you want. The rest of us will stand up for free expression even by those we disagree with. Freedom is more important than good manners.
Freedom of speech/expression does not mean you can say or do absolutely anything. Inciting religious hatred is a crime.
That’s palpably absurd. If “freedom of speech/expression” does not mean one can say or do absolutely anything (save the immediately dangerous “fire” in a theater), it doesn’t mean anything at all. Inciting religious hatred is stupid, wrong, venal, and cruel. It’s also protected free speech. When it escalates to actual physical harm (largely the province lately, as it happens, of one particular religion – you know which one) then we punish the harm as a criminal act. Up until then it’s just an idea, and an making an idea a criminal act is literally right out of Orwell.
That’s palpably absurd. If “freedom of speech/expression” does not mean one can say or do absolutely anything (save the immediately dangerous “fire” in a theater), it doesn’t mean anything at all. Inciting religious hatred is stupid, wrong, venal, and cruel. It’s also protected free speech. When it escalates to actual physical harm (largely the province lately, as it happens, of one particular religion – you know which one) then we punish the harm as a criminal act. Up until then it’s just an idea, and an making an idea a criminal act is literally right out of Orwell.
Freedom of speech/expression does not mean you can say or do absolutely anything. Inciting religious hatred is a crime.
Cower in the face of angry authoritarians if you want. The rest of us will stand up for free expression even by those we disagree with. Freedom is more important than good manners.
Speech/expression is either free or it is not. It is never “reasonable” to ban them, no matter how “intolerant” or “hateful” they are. Doing so gives a heckler’s veto over your society to whatever group happens to get its feelings hurt. That’s not how freedom works. Sticks and stones.
Who gets to apply their common sense to deciding what is permitted and what is banned? An official censor? An Imam?
‘Common sense would say that these demonstrations have more to do with intolerance/hate rather than freedom of speech/expression’. That’s really opening up a can of worms. Just whose ‘common sense’ gets to define intolerance/hate?
Where I live right now, saying publicly – in person, or online – that you believe biological sex is immutable is regarded by the police as a hate crime and will always be followed up by them. Physically punching a woman for expressing that belief isn’t a crime though, as the unfortunate Julie Marshall discovered last week (Times, 27 July).
Shovelling koran-burning into the already overfilled doggy-bag of ‘hate crimes’ really isn’t going to help. Just ban all book-burning: a ‘fahrenheit 451 law’. That really would help. Destroying the written word really can’t claim to be helping expression of free speech. Whereas we all know where book-burning ends up.
Sinead o’Connor died last week. One of her most famous actions was tearing up a photo of the Pope on live TV. This will have caused pain to Catholics; ‘ban’ or ‘free speech’?
In the late sixties there were Vietnam War demonstrations outside the US Embassy in Grosvenor Sq.
A regular feature was the burning of the US flag. This will have caused pain to patriotic Americans.
‘Ban’ or ‘free speech’?
Where does book burning by private individuals end up? Are you saying it ends with government burning books? I’m just not sure what you are getting at.
Sinead o’Connor died last week. One of her most famous actions was tearing up a photo of the Pope on live TV. This will have caused pain to Catholics; ‘ban’ or ‘free speech’?
In the late sixties there were Vietnam War demonstrations outside the US Embassy in Grosvenor Sq.
A regular feature was the burning of the US flag. This will have caused pain to patriotic Americans.
‘Ban’ or ‘free speech’?
Where does book burning by private individuals end up? Are you saying it ends with government burning books? I’m just not sure what you are getting at.
“ if the consequences affect issues of national security”.
If that is the case then the best course of action would to repatriate ALL Muslims currently living in Sweden and Denmark back to their place of origin.
Let’s face it, ‘they’ are completely incompatible with the Scandinavian way of life. Always have been, always will be.
Otherwise this will “end in tears”.
Please stop grovelling in the face of authoritarians. The fragility of a religion is in inverse proportion to it’s ability to be criticised, mocked even. Giving in to geopolitical blackmail would only lead to further demands, and those who seek to appease will not be appreciated by either side – and it is a cultural war.
Totally agree – these extremists are inciting religion hatred and damaging Sweden’s international reputation, there’s no need for it and it should be stopped.
Speech/expression is either free or it is not. It is never “reasonable” to ban them, no matter how “intolerant” or “hateful” they are. Doing so gives a heckler’s veto over your society to whatever group happens to get its feelings hurt. That’s not how freedom works. Sticks and stones.
Who gets to apply their common sense to deciding what is permitted and what is banned? An official censor? An Imam?
‘Common sense would say that these demonstrations have more to do with intolerance/hate rather than freedom of speech/expression’. That’s really opening up a can of worms. Just whose ‘common sense’ gets to define intolerance/hate?
Where I live right now, saying publicly – in person, or online – that you believe biological sex is immutable is regarded by the police as a hate crime and will always be followed up by them. Physically punching a woman for expressing that belief isn’t a crime though, as the unfortunate Julie Marshall discovered last week (Times, 27 July).
Shovelling koran-burning into the already overfilled doggy-bag of ‘hate crimes’ really isn’t going to help. Just ban all book-burning: a ‘fahrenheit 451 law’. That really would help. Destroying the written word really can’t claim to be helping expression of free speech. Whereas we all know where book-burning ends up.
You’re getting ahead of yourself, Jacob. There is a proposal in Denmark to make such acts illegal but in Sweden, as of today, that’s just not the case. The government there have been keeping their heads down and are focusing right now on security for Swedish subjects. Changing the law is complicated since there is a conflict with the Grundlag (Basic Law/form of Constitution). Common sense would say that these demonstrations have more to do with intolerance/hate rather than freedom of speech/expression, so it would be reasonable to ban these, especially if the consequences affect issues of national security (embassies/NATO/foreign relations).