this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32088 readers
850 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sarjalim@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Jack@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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?

[–] sarjalim@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, but the law you proposed would allow that to happen. That isn't a straw man, it's your proposed idea not being very good.

[–] sarjalim@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] prole@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] maporita@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] prole@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Way to completely miss (or ignore) the point I made.

But you're right, Christians have never committed violence in the name of their faith... Lol

[–] Sir_Simon_Spamalot@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wasn't the Quran burning a while ago?

They're a bit slow, aren't they?

[–] Regna@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Another one was planned and given permission for today, Thursday, July 20th. So they were egged on beforehand.

[–] Sir_Simon_Spamalot@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Ah my bad, must've missed that then lmao

load more comments
view more: next ›