Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Christan]

No. "Hate crime" requires a crime to be committed directly against a person or persons based on an applicable trait and is typically reserved for violent crimes.

Wrong based off what i was talking about before
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".[10] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.

Terms like "hate speech" and "sensitivity class" are typically created and used by those who are too naive or irrational to get a handle on their own emotions. Emotion has no place in rational law-making.

Even police officers have to take sensitivity classes, but if you must know that last part was meant as a joke, still saying what he did shouldnt entail jail time, but under the same agreement quoted as prohibiting blasphemy laws, allows for religious protections.

And maybe i did mispeak saying hate crime, but hate speech is a crime as well so still fits, and the literal hate crime laws, protect religions also.

I still submit that almost all current laws are based off protecting victims emotions. After all things were not always written as law.

Hell even this century it was okay to (edit...was a bit caustic) wife, after all living barefoot in the kitchen baking buns in the oven,
and her oven, meant children to carry on society, after all women didnt need to vote, logically men OR women could be allowed to vote, does not have to be both as long as a majority of represented...

But, their emotions, moral compasses evolved, and laws got changed, logically no laws need exist as long as everyone holds to morals, and morals exist as extensions of what makes that regions society feel good about themselves.

Simply said, if an action would cause a majority of a population to feel the EMOTION, of 'shame' the it is extremely likely that region/culture would write it into law as being illegal.

i'm done here though...no amount of logic will make someone talking about logic, actually SEE logic

[zorkuus]

So no exhaustive blasphemy laws in the context, just a simple basic one "dont piss other people off because of religion"

That's the thing, it's too simple and vague. Who gets to draw the line between criticism/comedy and defamation?

Maybe I'll start my own religion and make your life a living hell by getting offended over everything.

[kail]

So you can't burn your own property in Denmark?

- - - Updated - - -

If blasphemy laws help stem the tide of idiots antagonizing each other then I'm all for them.

It won't. In fact it will give an opposite result most likely.

[procne]

That's the thing, it's too simple and vague. Who gets to draw the line between criticism/comedy and defamation?

Same problem with hate speech and defamation laws. Ultimately someone makes the decision and judges both intention and the effect of the act in question.
All those laws violate the freedom of speech.

[zorkuus]

Same problem with hate speech and defamation laws. Ultimately someone makes the decision and judges both intention and the effect of the act in question.
All those laws violate the freedom of speech.

Sounds an awfully lot like a "two wrongs make a right" argument.

[Deleted]

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.

Hence why the judges will probably wont punish this guy (keep in mind, this article is about him being charged, not convicted).

Worst case scenario they refer it to a higher court.

[procne]

It won't. In fact it will give an opposite result most likely.

I think it was either working quite well so far, or at least it was a sign of generally accepted consensus to tolerate different religions. The fact people start to openly speak against this law is, for me, the sign that we no longer want to tolerate other religions. Slippery slope. Prosecuting of other religions (mainly islam) has already started in Europe. So far only individual cases, but I expect it to get worse soon, as more and more populist governments are elected into power.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds an awfully lot like a "two wrongs make a right" argument.

No idea where you got it from. I thought it's common sense that hate speech and defamation laws are needed and a good thing, despite them violating freedom of speech. So it would be more like "two rights and a third something similar to them"

[zorkuus]

The fact people start to openly speak against this law

People have been speaking against it as long as we have openly mocked christianity in the west. What are you smoking and can I have some?

I thought it's common sense that hate speech and defamation laws are needed and a good thing

That's not the part I critiqued per se but their vagueness.

[Alcan]

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 - - -



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

See Reichskristallnacht.

You see, there's a difference between burning your friends bible or quaran and your own. Yes if you go out and destroy a shop because the owner is Jewish or muslim ect. that is wrong. However if you purchase your own Quaran so that it is yours, you should be allowed to burn it. Things which you do not own should be protected as well as the safety of the individuals in society. Therefore blasphemy laws shouldn't exist as if there was any wrong doing it would have breached another law, for example, destruction pf property assault ect.

[Baneador]

When i read "charged with blasphemy" i can only think 2 things: spanish inquisition and a person being stoned, both old an barbaric things. Charged with blasphemy? really? we are in the dark age or some fanatic religion world?

religion should be protected from insults, violence and riots.

so, if i say "X religion is stupid" im blasphemous beucase i insult the religion, if i hit someone of x religion because in it being a rapist is ok im blasphemous, etc. Funny thing is religion has sparked insults, violence and riots throughout history and still doing it.

[procne]

What are you smoking and can I have some?

At that point I think the discussion is over. Goodnight.

[zorkuus]

At that point I think the discussion is over. Goodnight.

Seems you fit right in with the blasphemy crowd.

LALALALALALALA

[Mistame]

Wrong based off what i was talking about before
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".[10] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.

This merely describes what should be prohibited by law, not how "hate crime" is defined, which is what I was explaining. Additionally, none of the UN "declarations" are legally binding and in fact, are overruled by the laws and declarations of any nation to which their application is attempted.

Even police officers have to take sensitivity classes

These "sensitivity" classes do nothing but outline what "special" people have to be treated extra "special" because of "feels". They serve no rational purpose, as any potential officer that can't understand the basic concepts of civility and decency has no place being an officer to begin with.

And maybe i did mispeak saying hate crime, but hate speech is a crime as well so still fits, and the literal hate crime laws, protect religions also.

"Hate speech" is not a crime everywhere.

I still submit that almost all current laws are based off protecting victims emotions.

You seem to confusing "emotions" with "morals". These are two implicitly different concepts. The notion of laws that protect "feelings" is Orwellian at best. Individual freedom of expression trumps "feelings". There is no right to not be offended.

i'm done here though...no amount of logic will make someone talking about logic, actually SEE logic

That's fine. I honestly can't be bothered to continue debating the "logic" of emotion, given that it's an inherently irrational oxymoron.

[Deleted]

Seem to recall those people who were jailed for dissenting to immigration.

I cant really help you if you believe breitbart.

- - - Updated - - -

Heard of this group called AFD?
What does the A stand for in this uniform society you live in? (is it a mental ward perhaps)

The AFD is no challenge. Infact they already have been defeated. They get less and less %, they got 8% in the last poll.

[zorkuus]

Blasphemy laws shouldnt even exist in this time and age. One would think that all powerful god (if you believe in that kind of thing) would be able to fend for himself but no, you need a man made law for that.

If you read his book, you know he has an incredibly fragile ego.

[ranzino]

Jehoooovaa

/Life of Brian

[Klaiden Potugye]

No, but the holy books of a religion are the property of the religion and their believers.



In our country, holy books are protected under the blashpemy law. And, considering our history, burning these books is seen as violating our blasphemy law.

According to your [flawed] logic it is totally fine to bomb the shit out of the country who burns some other country flag.

[luc54]

If you read his book, you know he has an incredibly fragile ego.

That sounds just like Trump. Although in Trump's case you can also see his personal tantrum rather than just his acolyte's tantrum.

Alright now to blapshemy defenders. My world view is based on actual liberalism (with some limitations such as not inciting violence). Your defence of blasphemy offends me so maybe you should be persecuted for blasphemy as well. Shouldn't my fundamental world view in this case liberal secularism also be protected in such way as religion. /s

Now to what bullshit does blasphemy actually lead to? We had Indian guy flee to Finland as refugee, because he pointed the "crying" jesus statue wasn't actually divine phennomena, but a mere leaking pipe causing it. Had he stayed in India he would be arrested and put in prison for very said thing you are defending here.

- - - Updated - - -

There's also this problem with fact why give religion such a taboo status. Is because people are so convinced they are true? I mean lot of the political ideologies are like this. The followers are so convinced their world view is the only valid way that they ignore any evidence or facts that come their way that might point that their thinking has some flaws. Why is offending them alright even though they might have just as zealous following as do most of major religions? Just look at Trump supporters or the insane SJW brigade of radical members of Feminist, BLM or maybe some neo-nazi bullshit movement.

Indian man story in a Finnish newspaper:
http://www.hs.fi/sunnuntai/art-2000002910033.html

[Deleted]

According to your [flawed] logic it is totally fine to bomb the shit out of the country who burns some other country flag.

Thats just hyperbole. Noone should be killed for blashpemy. What about paying a small amount to the temple of the religion that was denounced? As like 10€ for the collect.

[zorkuus]

Thats just hyperbole. Noone should be killed for blashpemy. What about paying a small amount to the temple of the religion that was denounced? As like 10€ for the collect.

Well that can't possibly backfire.

You'll have a new scientology on your hands that will incite people for a reaction on purpose so they can sue for an income.