Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Nitro Fun]

http://www.thelocal.dk/20170222/dani...-for-blasphemy

A man who filmed himself burning the Quran has become the first person to be charged under Denmark's blasphemy law in 46 years.
The 42-year-old filmed himself burning a copy of Islam's holy book in his back yard in December 2015. He then posted the video on the anti-Islamic Facebook group, "Yes to freedom - no to Islam" along with the words, “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns."

Danish prosecutor Jan Reckendorff announced his decision to bring charges in a press statement issued on Wednesday afternoon.

“It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.”




Laughable, really. I thought western countries would have gotten rid of blasphemy laws but I guess I was wrong.

[Deleted]

Burning books is not really about free speech.

Or you want to tell me the Nazis just did "free speech" when they burned complete libraries in 1933?

[Nitro Fun]

Burning books is not really about free speech.

Or you want to tell me the Nazis just did "free speech" when they burned complete libraries in 1933?

He was charged with blasphemy. These kind of laws have no place in modern societies.

[Deleted]

He was charged with blasphemy. These kind of laws have no place in modern societies.

Actually, every basic law and every western constitution protects the right for religion. Which includes protecting its temples and holy books.

I dont see anything wrong about that.

[Nitro Fun]

Actually, every basic law and every western constitution protects the right for religion. Which includes protecting its temples and holy books.

I dont see anything wrong about that.

Do you know what blasphemy is?

The United Nations Human Rights Committee made it clear through the release of General Comment 34 in 2011 that Blasphemy laws are incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR is binding on signatory nations. Those countries that have signed the ICCPR and still have blasphemy laws are in breach of their obligations under the ICCPR.

Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.

Denmark has signed this.

[Deleted]

Do you know what blasphemy is?

Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, to religious or holy persons or sacred things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

[Nitro Fun]

Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, to religious or holy persons or sacred things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

Yes, and do you see why it is a problem that such laws exist in countries that claim to be modern?

[Everwake]

Actually, every basic law and every western constitution protects the right for religion. Which includes protecting its temples and holy books.

I dont see anything wrong about that.

What? No. Blasphemy laws are archaic nonsense that are only still relevant because a certain unnamed religion can't handle opposition and criticism in any form.

[Deleted]

I think we will survive if it is only every 46 years that we actually use it.

[Deleted]

“It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.”

This marks the fourth time in history anyone has been prosecuted under Denmark's blasphemy clause: four people were sentenced for posting posters mocking Jewish teachings in 1938; two people were fined for carrying out a fake baptism at a masked ball in 1946; and two programme leaders at Danish Radio were exonerated in 1971 for airing a song mocking Christianity.

I really do not see the problem here.

Yes, and do you see why it is a problem that such laws exist in countries that claim to be modern?

That is rich coming from a person from a Country that forbids people from holding Political office if they do not believe in a higher power. Maybe you Americans should worry about your own stew before meddling with the affairs of others?

[May90]

I thought western countries would have gotten rid of blasphemy laws but I guess I was wrong.

Maybe in 500 years... Blasphemy laws are far from the most anachronic elements Western societies are yet to get rid of.

[Deleted]

Denmark has signed this.

My country, germany, one of the most liberal democracies, has a blasphemy law since 1871. Which was changed to only matter if it was done in public. But still it is illegal to dffame or burn religious properties, books and temples in my country.

[Bakis]

I really do not see the problem here.

Dont you, Denmark is not as 'free' as the US /s

[Nitro Fun]

I really do not see the problem here.

Because religion should be shielded from criticism, dislike or mockery, right?

[Deleted]

Yes, and do you see why it is a problem that such laws exist in countries that claim to be modern?

I dont see a problem with that as religions are protected by human rights as well. I would see a problem if it was not about insults and violent acts to religions and its properties but about talking about them controversely. Which is quite different.

- - - Updated - - -

Because religion should be shielded from criticism, dislike or mockery, right?

No, but religion should be protected from insults, violence and riots.

See Reichskristallnacht.

[May90]

I dont see a problem with that as religions are protected by human rights as well. I would see a problem if it was not about insults and violent acts to religions and its properties but about talking about them controversely. Which is quite different.

What if I am a Hinduist and I worship cows, but on the nearby farm cows are being slaughtered daily? Should I sue the farm and expect the farm owner to be punished for blasphemy?

Laws should protect freedom of religious expression, not religious symbols. Freedom of religious expression also includes freedom to criticize religions, including burning religious books you own.

[Nitro Fun]

I dont see a problem with that as religions are protected by human rights as well. I would see a problem if it was not about insults and violent acts to religions and its properties but about talking about them controversely. Which is quite different.

There is nothing in the human rights declaration that justifies the existance of blasphemy laws.

No, but religion should be protected from insults, violence and riots.

Nope. Insult is way too subjective to be included in a law.

[Deleted]

Blasphemy?

Are we living in medieval times again?

[Deleted]

What if I am a Hinduist and I worship cows, but on the nearby farm cows are being slaughtered daily? Should I sue the farm and expect the farm owner to be punished for blasphemy?

Modern blasphemy laws only cover violence and insultive behaviour against religions and their properties, and do not order the government to turn religious laws into state laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. Insult is way too subjective to be included in a law.

No, insults are definied in every western democracy including even word lists. Also it is up to the court to make a wise decision covering both freedom of speech and protecting the right of religion.

[Nitro Fun]

No, insults are definied in every western democracy including even word lists.

No, it's not.

Also it is up to the court to make a wise decision covering both freedom of speech and protecting the right of religion.

"Right of religion"? Freedom of religion does not justify the existance of blasphemy laws, in fact, blasphemy laws goes against the principle.