This is sad and unfortunate - by passing this law Denmark just announced to the world that threats of violence are a valid and effective strategy, ans that they do in fact negotiate with terrorists...
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
42 points (92.0% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Threats of violence and the following up of them have historically always been highly effective strategies. Denmark did nothing special here.
People trying to incite violence succeeded, but sure, let's put all blame on the assholes whose behavior was already a crime.
There's no shortage of ways to talk shit about a religion that do not threaten the lives of complete strangers.
Did Denmark ban inciting violence or did they ban burning books with this law?
Because there’s no shortage of ways to incite violence that do not involve burning books.
And none of them count unless they're all identical?
Denmark banned one way in which assholes were goading other assholes. They don't have to end either brand of asshole-ism for that to be sensible policy.
Come on, this is not about religion. This is about European superiority and the lack of respect of other cultures.
And trying to humiliate the minority of people with darker skin color by showing them that they don’t matter.
And part of that minority’s resistance against the humiliation marginalization by majority society.
Just to show who’s the aggressor in this case, a little six year old video: https://youtu.be/e7mqfmZS5xM?si=xTMrTNBXuXr2UDnO
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/e7mqfmZS5xM?si=xTMrTNBXuXr2UDnO
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This is just wrong. Why is it allowed to burn other books but not religious books? Denmark is a secular state. Bowing to the religious ideas of people is a step in the wrong direction. People should care less for religions and be less religious. There are no "holy books" or holy anything.
Denmark has a Lutheran state church officially recognised by the constitution.
They should have banned book burning for political reason. Like this they wouldn't have created a blasphemy law.
I hope the people on Denmark protest against this. I understand it is a sacred book for some people but the state and religion should be separate.
What counts as a religious text in this law?
I hope pasta recipes count.
I wonder how they phrased that. "innappropriate treatment of religious texts" sounds a bit vague and medieval / before the age of enlightenment.
And you have the usual issues determining what counts as text and what counts as religious. (And what is innappropriate.)
What if I think burning them is the appropriate treatment for religious texts? Seems pretty likely that someone would think that.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Denmark's parliament has banned the "inappropriate treatment" of religious texts - with a bill widely known in the country as the Quran law.
Denmark and neighbouring Sweden have recently seen a number of street protests over such incidents, raising security concerns in Scandinavia.
During Thursday's heated debates in Denmark's 179-strong parliament, the Folketing, many opposition MPs argued against the bill.
"History will judge us harshly for this, and with good reason... What it all comes down to is whether a restriction on freedom of speech is determined by us, or whether it is dictated from the outside," Inger Stojberg, leader of the Denmark Democrats, was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.
But the country's centre-right coalition government of Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen argued that criticising religion would remain legal, as the bill would only have a marginal impact.
Back in August, when the government was proposing the changes, ministers said they wanted to send a signal to the world after witnessing over a few weeks 170 demonstrations, including Quran burnings in front of foreign embassies.
The original article contains 275 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 36%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I am against the burning of books disguised as freedom of speech.
-
It is bad for the environment. Too much co2 production in the process. If you must destroy books, recycle them!
-
The Nazis did this very popularly. I always get reminded of that, when people burn books.
-
I feel it is a very marginal impact into freedom of speech. I can not remember a single occasion where I had to burn a book to be able to articulate my thoughts.
-
I think most countries ban burning houses, even if it is infringing the freedom of speech. Why should it be different with books?
But it's just religious books. You can burn Darwin's "The Origin of Species" or Kant's "Was ist Aufklärung". But you aren't allowed to burn a bible or the koran?
That's just stupid.
Why are we burning books at all.
Maybe the law should say „books must be carefully recycled by licensed recycling companies. Other means of disposal or destruction are illegal“ 😁
- It is bad for the environment. Too much co2 production in the process. If you must destroy books, recycle them!
The CO2 produced by this is extremely marginal. Some single occasions of this won't have significant impact. Despite that: books tend to rot after a while, thereby releasing the stored CO2 anyway.
- The Nazis did this very popularly. I always get reminded of that, when people burn books.
The Christians also burned books on multiple occasions. As did the communist revolution under Mao Zedong and a bunch of other lunatics throughout history. If we should agree that burning books (as a form of protest) is a bad thing, then include all books and not just some religious ones.
I agree with your third point. However, it's a very visual and "spectacular" (meaning it draws attention) way of protest.
- I think most countries ban burning houses, even if it is infringing the freedom of speech. Why should it be different with books?
Burning houses does significantly more damage and poses high risks of further collateral damage than burning a book. Moreover, houses usually don't carry and spread ideologic views.
Houses are not a medium to spread information. A book is , it means something so it is speech. Just like burning the US flag is allow because the first amendment allow us to judge and say fuck to our government.
in the US it is allowed. In many countries it is not alloeed to burn flags in public.
But in the US it also counts as free speech to bribe politicians and disrupt funerals for gay soldiers KIA so i am not sure the US has the best approach to free speech.