Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Deleted]

And the courts should automatically say "get lost" the moment they see "He insulted my religion" complaints.

So you're saying their freedom should be limited. Ergo, the irony.

[Deleted]

So you're saying their freedom should be limited. Ergo, the irony.

You think the courts should entertain, with the actual possibility of conviction, cases bought by religious individuals that say "He insulted my religion?"

That regardless of the general law, and prior precedent, individuals should be hauled to court to defend themselves over insulting Mohammad (if a complaint was made)?

[Deleted]

You think the courts should entertain, with the actual possibility of conviction, cases bought by religious individuals that say "He insulted my religion?"

That regardless of the general law, and prior precedent, individuals should be hauled to court to defend themselves over insulting Mohammad (if a complaint was made)?

We're not discussing my opinion on the specific matter. We're discussing your selective approach to what freedom actually is.

The law is pretty clear about it and it's not in line with what you think is acceptable or not.

[Deleted]

I have no idea how to break the post down in that kick ass way you did (i do not post that much here lol, 200 some posts in more than 5 years...) ill try my best to not make it look like its all over the place.

[ quote ] <text> [ / quote ] (without spaces)

Before anything, about your direct question. I have answered it twice. I have admitted my inability to provide a verdict and I have very clearly said that western ideals uphold the right for anyone to take their subject to court. This system works (inefficient though it may be). Some people might not be able to challenge your beliefs in an eloquent manner with words, some might not know the means, or be too intimidated to voice a difference of opinion. Thus this outlet affords those people the chance to voice their concerns.

When they are actually a victim of a crime.

Are you saying that the courts should literally hear every possible conceivable complaint?

And I will say again, if you are upset that the court may rule in their favor then thats a different arena itself.

In this particular incident, it'd be a case of the court actually ruling against free speech in favour of someone's feelings. It would be a huge attack on freedom of expression.

The examples I gave are in fact related. Those laws exist to maintain the peace. To keep people in line. Stopping some dumbo from blaring his music late at night, keeping everyone up or stopping some raving lunatic driving on the highway endangering the life of others doesnot take away their liberty.

I did not say it did. I said that we already consider noise pollution against the law. It's not comparable to insulting someone's religion which is protected by free speech.

If someone takes you to court over something hurtful/slanderous you said they have no taken your right away to say so.

Someone taking you to court for slander would imply your behaviour lost them some assets and employment opportunities, as well as sullying their name (and it would also mean they're telling the courts that you're lying about them). It's not akin to being insulted.

Just because you dont believe in something and thus you speaking negatively about it (because your end game is based on "cant hurt imaginary things") does not mean its imaginary to them and that they do not believe it But as I also said on this before, in cases like this, now a days especially it is better that in extreme circumstances like this courts sit both sides down and pick out which ones being dumb.

I don't care if it's real to them. It can go on being real to them. I am not bound by their imagination, or their romanticism, and in a secular society no court should back up that.

It takes a certain kind of mental individual to burn a book. There are extremists in the far east too doing all sorts of crazy things. It would be in poor taste if we go on about "we are civilized in the west" and then go about voicing our opinions by burning books or attacking.

An individual does not represent the government or the wider population. You are thinking in identical terms to how nations in the Middle-East think - that one citizen somehow speaks for his government and his people, and if this one citizen upsets us, then it is as if the entire nation upsets us.

No court (even the one that convicted that man) would send someone to prison for speaking their mind about religion. But the man didnt just voice his opinion and mind you he still can.

But you're saying that courts should have that power. That people should be able to, if a complaint is made, be taken to court over insulting religion. You want the floodgates to open.

Being convicted didnt take away your right to an opinion, just told you that certain actions have certain reactions.

This is newspeak.

If you are convicted for an activity, that is the states reaction to that activity. The state is de facto telling you to not do it.

Would you regard it as acceptable if someone was arrested for insulting Mohammad?

That will always be the case. The right to religious freedom also provides protection. It is one of the hallmarks, that anyone can be any religion and be protected. Question is, protected from what?

What "protection?" Their rights as people should be protected. Their religion should not receive special protection from the government.

I feel (I am assuming here, I do not mean any offense, correct me if I am wrong), that you do not intend for the law to protect people, but pick out special cases. Or that you somehow feel that freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want and get away with it too. Is that correct?

With the exception of incitement to violence and direct threats. Slander and Libel too, I guess, albeit they're more long-term things.

For the middle question you asked (i really need to learn how to break that quote thing up) how about another answer along with the one I gave. I believe that certain cases require more poking than just a simple yes or no. Say someone came to court and said, "I am offended by my neighbour because they eat bacon", it would be a swift "No", etc etc. Religion cannot and shouldnot be enforced. However one day a case like this happens, "hey my neighbour burnt the Quran in his backyard". That requires delving into, not because of religious fall out but because it tells me something about that person, that instead of using words, or protesting peacefully he chose one of the crudest methods possible. How far can he go? [though i will remind you, for this case, i truly feel something else is at play].

So what about if that neighbour just published a book that mocked and insulted Islam?

- - - Updated - - -

We're not discussing my opinion on the specific matter. We're discussing your selective approach to what freedom actually is.

The law is pretty clear about it and it's not in line with what you think is acceptable or not.

So according to you, if any court throws out a case on principle, it's against the liberty of the person who sought the case.

Would you regard it as an attack on an individuals liberty if they were prosecuted for insulting Islam?

- - - Updated - - -

Today I've learned that I should be able to take my neighbour to court for any reason I like. If the court refuses to hear me, then it's against my rights!

[Deleted]

Today I've learned that I should be able to take my neighbour to court for any reason I like. If the court refuses to hear me, then it's against my rights!

If that is what you learned, I'm not impressed with your academic mindset.

[Deleted]

If that is what you learned, I'm not impressed with your academic mind-set.

Well, according to you, if a court won't hear any frivolous complaint I could make, then it's an infringement of my freedom.

[Deleted]

Well, according to you, if a court won't hear any frivolous complaint I could make, then it's an infringement of my freedom.

If you take a quick gaze upon my replies in this thread, you will notice I've regularly said I support the constitutional decision of limiting freedom. You were the one opposing it. Now it's clear you only opposed it, because it was convenient in that particular situation.

Ergo, irony.

That was my last patient. à bientôt, have a great weekend everyone.

[Minikin]

<text>

(without spaces)


When they are actually a victim of a crime.

Are you saying that the courts should literally hear every possible conceivable complaint?


In this particular incident, it'd be a case of the court actually ruling against free speech in favour of someone's feelings. It would be a huge attack on freedom of expression.


I did not say it did. I said that we already consider noise pollution against the law. It's not comparable to insulting someone's religion which is protected by free speech.


Someone taking you to court for slander would imply your behaviour lost them some assets and employment opportunities, as well as sullying their name (and it would also mean they're telling the courts that you're lying about them). It's not akin to being insulted.


I don't care if it's real to them. It can go on being real to them. I am not bound by their imagination, or their romanticism, and in a secular society no court should back up that.


An individual does not represent the government or the wider population. You are thinking in identical terms to how nations in the Middle-East think - that one citizen somehow speaks for his government and his people, and if this one citizen upsets us, then it is as if the entire nation upsets us.


But you're saying that courts should have that power. That people should be able to, if a complaint is made, be taken to court over insulting religion. You want the floodgates to open.


This is newspeak.

If you are convicted for an activity, that is the states reaction to that activity. The state is de facto telling you to not do it.

Would you regard it as acceptable if someone was arrested for insulting Mohammad?


What "protection?" Their rights as people should be protected. Their religion should not receive special protection from the government.


With the exception of incitement to violence and direct threats. Slander and Libel too, I guess, albeit they're more long-term things.


So what about if that neighbour just published a book that mocked and insulted Islam?

- - - Updated - - -



So according to you, if any court throws out a case on principle, it's against the liberty of the person who sought the case.

Would you regard it as an attack on an individuals liberty if they were prosecuted for insulting Islam?

- - - Updated - - -

Today I've learned that I should be able to take my neighbour to court for any reason I like. If the court refuses to hear me, then it's against my rights!

Ah thank you! I will try to use that later.

The book example that you wrote. Someone is totally within their rights to type up whatever they want, say whatever they want and do whatever they want. I am in total agreement of that. But what I am adding on top is that every action also has a reaction. That reaction is decided by law or by court judicial parties. Someone taking you to them isnt robbing you of the right to say anything. You did something they reacted. Courts already do have that power, otherwise the Danish man would be in his home probably having a snooze (i dont know what time it is there right now its 9am here in canada!)

Back where I am from religious persecution does happen (Pakistan, now in Canada). With and against it. People are persecuted for being bad muslims, or non muslims, religious slander is used as a weapon to get someone thrown in jail. But in the west, civilization rules. Religion is not to be enforced and consequently you dont stuff someone else with hatred. Opinions are one things, harassing another. Honestly throughout human history it has been the same argument said in different ways. It needs to change and it wont until people stop being dicks to each other.

I think we are about to hit a circular argument bud. Because the way I see it, my point is simply that as long as the law exists and the current system of liberties remains intact, people can take you to court for such things and the court based on their set of rulings will decide prosecution or lack there of (e.g prosecution in the case of the Danish man). However laws change, are excised or dropped. When that happens the dynamics of this argument change. So literally this is revolving only because those set of laws do exist.

I think this is the point where we simply agree to disagree good sir. Thank you for the good debate! (i mean it).

[Forogil]

No son, I didn't confuse anything.

And the direct contradiction to that is your own previous statement where you created that blanket-statement as a strawman from your own imagination and this confusion between "X are Y" and "All X are Y".

This is false. Or do you happen to know every muslim? Blanket-statements are sign of ignorance.

And don't "son" me:

This isn't the first time I take the time to explain semantics, but it is the last. If you're not proficient enough to participate in civil conversation, please refrain from it.

I would advise you take your own advise, and you have not explained semantics correctly so far.

As explained above, "All Americans are humans" would be a fact; it's not vauge, nor does it express a premise without evidence. Blanket statements like the one you made, do.

As explained above it is a blanket-statement and currently a fact, but we could imagine a society in which it isn't.

And what blanket-statements have I made?

Exactly. Ironic that he's trying to protect his freedom of speech and expression but turns around and blurts out: "I'm saying that they shouldn't get to take me to court.

Ironic? Even Alanis Morissette has a better understanding of the semantics of that word.

Freedom of speech is the right of individuals to "speak" - not for government to act in what-ever-way it wants.
Taking someone to court (by the state prosecutor) is an action by the government.

Note: This isn't a civil case.

[Deleted]

And the direct contradiction to that is your own previous statement where you created that blanket-statement as a strawman from your own imagination and this confusion between "X are Y" and "All X are Y".

Believe whatever you want to believe. Your ignorance doesn't bother me.

And don't "son" me:

I will do however I please. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

As explained above it is a blanket-statement and currently a fact, but we could imagine a society in which it isn't.

No, it's not and I already explained why. But again, believe what ever you want to believe. I'm not your personal teacher.

Freedom of speech is the right of individuals to "speak" - not for government to act in what-ever-way it wants.

I don't think anyone said, or implied this.

Ironic? Even Alanis Morissette has a better understanding of the semantics of that word.

Maybe you could ask her to explain the lexical semantics, since it's evident that you're clueless.

I believe in facts as the one above. You should try facts, they are good. Your insult don't bother me, since everyone can see through you.
And please, please, do as you said and leave.

I never said I would leave, nor have I insulted you. Unless being ignorant = lacking certain knowledge is an insult. But I reckon you feel insulted due to a language barrier, which again is a consequence of ignorance.

You did, when you mixed the government bringing charges against someone with freedom of speech.

Nope.

Son, feel free to ignore me from this point on. I will do the same. You have absolutely no constructive value to this subject or thread and your objective has become exponentially intelligible with every reply.

[Forogil]

Believe whatever you want to believe. Your ignorance doesn't bother me.

I believe in facts as the one above. You should try facts, they are good. Your insult don't bother me, since everyone can see through you.

And please, please, do as you said and leave.

I don't think anyone said, or implied this.

You did, when you mixed the government bringing charges against someone with freedom of speech.

[Deleted]

If you take a quick gaze upon my replies in this thread, you will notice I've regularly said I support the constitutional decision of limiting freedom. You were the one opposing it. Now it's clear you only opposed it, because it was convenient in that particular situation.

Ergo, irony.

That was my last patient. à bientôt, have a great weekend everyone.

What are you talking about? How is a court not taking seriously frivolous complaints about victimless acts an infringement of anyone's liberty?

You might as well say I'm opposed to freedom because I also think courts should throw away cases whereby someone tries to get someone arrested for having a cat.

- - - Updated - - -

The book example that you wrote. Someone is totally within their rights to type up whatever they want, say whatever they want and do whatever they want. I am in total agreement of that. But what I am adding on top is that every action also has a reaction. That reaction is decided by law or by court judicial parties.

Yes, when it comes to illegal activity. Being rude about someone's religion is not illegal.

Someone taking you to them isnt robbing you of the right to say anything. You did something they reacted. Courts already do have that power, otherwise the Danish man would be in his home probably having a snooze (i dont know what time it is there right now its 9am here in canada!)

The Danes should not have a blasphemy law on the books. What you're missing here is that this guy was caught on a little-used piece of legislation. If a nation has no legislation against being rude against religion, then any case is dead on arrival. Because it isn't illegal.

I think we are about to hit a circular argument bud. Because the way I see it, my point is simply that as long as the law exists and the current system of liberties remains intact, people can take you to court for such things and the court based on their set of rulings will decide prosecution or lack there of (e.g prosecution in the case of the Danish man).

You mean so long as particular laws exist. If there is no law against insulting religion, then you can't be put in court for insulting religion.

[Forogil]

What are you talking about? How is a court not taking seriously frivolous complaints about victimless acts an infringement of anyone's liberty?

You will find that this case is worse than you imagined - it's not the court taking a complaint, it is the state prosecutor bringing the complaint to the court.

People who are in favor of freedom generally want freedom for the people; not the government.

[Deleted]

What are you talking about? How is a court not taking seriously frivolous complaints about victimless acts an infringement of anyone's liberty?

And the courts should automatically say "get lost" the moment they see "He insulted my religion" complaints.

Who are you, to decide whether a complaint is frivolous or victimless? People have the right to sue, as does the government. Whether the motivating reason is serious enough to you is irrelevant.

[Deleted]

You will find that this case is worse than you imagined - it's not the court taking a complaint, it is the state prosecutor bringing the complaint to the court.

People who are in favor of freedom generally want freedom for the people; not the government.

Indeed.

It's as if some people think you have the right for a court to hear any case you like, and even possibly rule in your favour.

- - - Updated - - -

Who are you, to decide whether a complaint is frivolous or victimless?

I'm not. The courts should be. If the courts see a case that literally says something like "This man insulted the Prophet Mohammad! Arrest him!" it should be dead on arrival.

Because, you know, being rude to religion should not get people prosecuted.

[purebalance]

Burn a bible and nothing would have happend. At least i can't imagine any christian to make a fuss about it.

Except now if someone does since there has been precedence showing that you can't burn the Quran, the people on MMOC would say "Awww do they need a safe space are they triggered" if someone tries to get the same charges on someone burning a bible.

Thankfully in the US I can burn a whole pile of bibles, Quran, and Harry Potter books in a bonfire and not have to worry about the law since it is freedom of speech in the US as cross burning is allowed for the KKK as long as it isn't on someone's lawn(like you can march with one or have one burning at a meeting).

[ranzino]

so, what IS the danish court doing about the case right now ? any news from denmark or is the case already dead ?

[tehealadin]

better than swinging a fist or bad mouthing back or just taking the "so called" harassment. because the court is the defining party we believe in, that can sit both sides down, hear their story, point to one and say "you are an idiot" and get them both to move along.

but again that is not my point. My point is that /shrug introduces a slippery slope in the sense that if we do not stop behavior that hurts others (large or small, it does not matter) then eventually smaller events will compound into a larger one. It should not be an unattainable goal that people should act decently and if they do not then it should not just be a "meh whatever".

And you don't see the slippery slope when you decide to enforce blasphemy laws? Legislating for hurt feelings is a very slippery slope, it is so subjective, and it opens a door for authoritarians to prevent people from being critical of ideas/practices. You cannot stop behaviour that won't hurt peoples feelings. What if someone doesn't invite me to a party? Is this a matter for the courts, since shrugging it off isn't the way to deal with it? It isn't a slippery slope, it is called being an adult. Now, to be clear, disrespecting someones beliefs is very different from making threats, and yes, this should be a matter for the courts. You have generalised this out to hurting of feelings, this is a quagmire. Part of being an adult is learning to deal with getting your feelings hurt. Even in your own analogy there, the court gets to say "you are an idiot", so do I get to take the court to court if they do this to me? And if in the end, they tell someone to move on, why do we need the expense of a trial?

Let me bring up another slippery slope (since the crux of your argument is based on those). Blasphemy used to be a crime in most places. Most places in the West abandoned it. Do we want to go back to a time like that? Where did that lead? Oh yea, the Inquisition. How many had to die, in order to protect the church from criticism? Or in the Middle East, or other theocracies, where expressing non belief is an act of blasphemy and can land you in jail. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Look at places that have abandoned blasphemy laws, if the slippery slope you speak of will lead us to there, instead of Iran, then why is this bad? We know what happens when you abandon blasphemy laws. In the UK, we don't have them. It aint that bad. We know what happens when you have blasphemy laws. It gave us such times as the Inquisition and other atrocities, and it isn't a coincidence that almost all (if not all) cases where someone is on trial for blasphemy is condemned by human rights organisations as an affront to freedom.

It depends on the situation, which is why we have a court of law that scrutinises all variables which either culminate in a sentence or in being cleared of charges.

What in your opinion constitutes unacceptable burning of holy books, and what does constitute acceptable burning?

[Forogil]

When asked to stop using "son":

I will do however I please. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

Maybe you could ask her to explain the lexical semantics, since it's evident that you're clueless.

At least "Isn't it ironic" doesn't claim that it is ironic that someone that defends freedom of speech is against the state prosecuting people for using that freedom.

And it is normal - not ironic: when people want freedom they want freedom for people to speak and act - not freedom for the government to prosecute people.

I never said I would leave, nor have I insulted you. Unless being ignorant = lacking certain knowledge is an insult.

Yes, stating that someone is ignorant is an insult. Especially if used as a reply instead of facts.
Using a nickname that people don't like is also generally seen as insulting.

- - - Updated - - -

so, what IS the danish court doing about the case right now ? any news from denmark or is the case already dead ?

Officially they haven't set a date yet.

[Deleted]

What in your opinion constitutes unacceptable burning of holy books, and what does constitute acceptable burning?

If the prosecuter can provide sufficient arguments that testify to incitement, intent to do harm, public scorn with precedent that leads to violence, breach of peace or that the public act's value is outweighted by the damaged caused.

I am not a lawyer, thank goodness, but I can imagine that the prosecutor in question didn't have a hard time during this particular case, especially considering the overal content of this public Facebook page. That said, I don't know why they had to invoke the ancient blasphemy law when there could've been enough evidence to evince hate speech.

According to my wife, who is a criminal lawyer, it could've gone both ways under the hate speech clause and evoking the blasphemy law was a convenient move, a cop-out.