The decision follows a recent string of public desecrations of the Quran by a handful of anti-Islam activists, sparking angry demonstrations across Muslim countries.
Do you really want the state to recognize some things as sacred?
Fair question. Actually I don’t want things to be considered sacred by the state at all. Separation of state and religion is one of the biggest cultural achievements and the basis of a tolerant society imo. However that does in no way make it ok to publicly disrespect peoples personal believes in obviously malicious ways.
Where do we start and where do we stop?
How about we stop at obviously malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence?
Of course violence should be repressed, come on this is so trivial it doesn’t even need to be pointed out, except when talking to a bunch of troglodytes. However Incitement is a different topic and in my opinion incitement of masses of people should definitely be repressed too because it most of the time leads to violence.
What a feeble and easy to see through excuse. When did aggressive provocation by public desecration of holy symbols of a world religion stop being malicious?
Dude … here is this book … we know that millions of people consider the most holy thing in the world. What do we do with it? Obviously coming up with the idea to publicly burn such book is as malicious as it gets.
So publicly burning a certain paper that is the most holy item to millions of people in the world with the sole intent of provoking them by desecration is not malicious? ROFL you can´t be serious, you must be a shill for sure.
where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?
Cheap attempt to derail from the actual topic of malicious public Quran burning. Those things are on a whole different level and not part of the discussion here.
where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?
Obviously calling mass killings malicious is a diminution and I would strongly refuse doing so because of that. Mass killings are obviously far beyond malicious, more like really fucking evil. Terrorism is another topic because it depends very much on perspective since one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. However the actual question here seems to be why it is so important to you to derail from the actual topic of the discussion, which is the malicious public burning of holy symbols of a world religion to intentionally create more hate and violence in a world that already has way too much of it.
It’s kind of strange that some countries have laws and punishments dealing with libel, slander, and defamation of character (disrespect of individuals) but “malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence” (well said) makes some people throw their hands up and say “welp what can you do, it’s freedom”. The “Where do we start and where do we stop?” camp doesn’t seem to have enough mental tarmac to even take off in search of a solution.
Because libel and slander are targeted at individuals. Groups and worldviews do not enjoy the same protections as individuals by most law systems. That’s mostly a good thing.
I have no love for the right-wing nutjobs trying to incite intercultural violence but at the same time I don’t think what they’re doing can be made illegal in a liberal society.
In Germany, when a Neo-Nazi publicly praises national socialism or denies the holocaust you can simply call the cops on his ass because there is a law against incitement. When I learned that in the USA that kind of shit is covered by “free speech” at first I just could not believe it. So, does that mean there is no right to express your opinion in Germany - of course it does not - it simply means that there are legal limits to purposefully spreading hate, violence and ideologies that lead to it. I personally think the US American idea of free speech - that makes it for example legal to publicly deny the holocaust - is not particularly smart …
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Sounds reasonable to me.
The US first ammendment (“free speech”) protects citizens from reprecussions from the government if a citizen criticizes the government. That’s it. It doesn’t mean you can say whatever tf you want, as some people interpret it. In fact, in the US, some people who misinterperet the first ammendment will be summarily executed by someone who misunderstands the second ammendment!
Fair question. Actually I don’t want things to be considered sacred by the state at all. Separation of state and religion is one of the biggest cultural achievements and the basis of a tolerant society imo. However that does in no way make it ok to publicly disrespect peoples personal believes in obviously malicious ways.
How about we stop at obviously malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence?
Here in Russia we relatively recently had got a law for “protection of the rights of believers”. And boy, did it go wrong.
I am not promoting a law to protect religious believes but a law against incitement to hate and violence. Those are not the same.
Such a law would be from the same barrel. A tool to easy to abuse. Let speech be free. It’s violence what should be punished.
Of course violence should be repressed, come on this is so trivial it doesn’t even need to be pointed out, except when talking to a bunch of troglodytes. However Incitement is a different topic and in my opinion incitement of masses of people should definitely be repressed too because it most of the time leads to violence.
Is such an incitement not an offense in Sweden already? I know it is in France for example.
Burning the Quran is such an incitement and it seems to be a popular weekend activity in Sweden …
It should be a popular weekend activity in every civilised country.
Inciter …
The book burning was not malicious. It was a test to see if the other party is malicious.
What a feeble and easy to see through excuse. When did aggressive provocation by public desecration of holy symbols of a world religion stop being malicious?
Easy to see through? What are you talking about?
It’s not aggressive.
It’s only desecration if you believe Islamic law.
Dude … here is this book … we know that millions of people consider the most holy thing in the world. What do we do with it? Obviously coming up with the idea to publicly burn such book is as malicious as it gets.
Not even close to malicious as it gets. That brain dead take is the point of burning it.
If you think burning paper is as malicious as it gets, where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?
So publicly burning a certain paper that is the most holy item to millions of people in the world with the sole intent of provoking them by desecration is not malicious? ROFL you can´t be serious, you must be a shill for sure.
Cheap attempt to derail from the actual topic of malicious public Quran burning. Those things are on a whole different level and not part of the discussion here.
You said “malicious as it gets”. So can you please answer the question?
You mean that hypocritical question?
Obviously calling mass killings malicious is a diminution and I would strongly refuse doing so because of that. Mass killings are obviously far beyond malicious, more like really fucking evil. Terrorism is another topic because it depends very much on perspective since one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. However the actual question here seems to be why it is so important to you to derail from the actual topic of the discussion, which is the malicious public burning of holy symbols of a world religion to intentionally create more hate and violence in a world that already has way too much of it.
It’s kind of strange that some countries have laws and punishments dealing with libel, slander, and defamation of character (disrespect of individuals) but “malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence” (well said) makes some people throw their hands up and say “welp what can you do, it’s freedom”. The “Where do we start and where do we stop?” camp doesn’t seem to have enough mental tarmac to even take off in search of a solution.
Because libel and slander are targeted at individuals. Groups and worldviews do not enjoy the same protections as individuals by most law systems. That’s mostly a good thing.
I have no love for the right-wing nutjobs trying to incite intercultural violence but at the same time I don’t think what they’re doing can be made illegal in a liberal society.
In Germany, when a Neo-Nazi publicly praises national socialism or denies the holocaust you can simply call the cops on his ass because there is a law against incitement. When I learned that in the USA that kind of shit is covered by “free speech” at first I just could not believe it. So, does that mean there is no right to express your opinion in Germany - of course it does not - it simply means that there are legal limits to purposefully spreading hate, violence and ideologies that lead to it. I personally think the US American idea of free speech - that makes it for example legal to publicly deny the holocaust - is not particularly smart …
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Sounds reasonable to me.
The US first ammendment (“free speech”) protects citizens from reprecussions from the government if a citizen criticizes the government. That’s it. It doesn’t mean you can say whatever tf you want, as some people interpret it. In fact, in the US, some people who misinterperet the first ammendment will be summarily executed by someone who misunderstands the second ammendment!
Obviously there can´t be a democracy (or what we call a democracy) without that! Criticizing the government has to be legal - always - no exceptions!
ROFL - US culture seriously scares the shit out of me and I will probably never travel there