Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Zecora]

It's his own property, he can burn it if he wants to. If people riot, that's on them and they're responsible for their actions.

If your post upsets me, and I punch my dog, who is at fault?

False equivalency. And as has been stated, it's not the burning that is being punished. It's the publicizing it and using it to make trouble.

The argument has gone circular at this point.

To sum up my stance: Much as I dislike them, if people are incapable of being civil and self-regulate themselves into not being dicks and trying to cause trouble, we may yet need laws such as blasphemy laws.

Stop being cruel to animals, have a nice evening

[Canpinter]

False equivalency. And as has been stated, it's not the burning that is being punished. It's the publicizing it and using it to make trouble.

The argument has gone circular at this point.

To sum up my stance: Much as I dislike them, if people are incapable of being civil and self-regulate themselves into not being dicks and trying to cause trouble, we may yet need laws such as blasphemy laws.

Stop being cruel to animals, have a nice evening

if someone else can incite you to violence by merely saying or acting a way you don't like without ever really hurting you, its YOUR fault for being a violent dick.

[Cancun]

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.

I feel sorry for the people who live in the EU, who lack basic human rights, such as free speech. Someone should help these poor people figure freedom out.

[Deleted]

False equivalency.
The argument has gone circular at this point.

Pretending that we're protecting the right to be a dick make it circular well in advance.

Nobody has an explicit right to be a dick. But we do have a right to protest. It simply has the consequence that people can legally be dicks and cause trouble. That you made those rights equivalent forced the circle you're decrying.

[Theodarzna]

I repeat: "Should people have a right to be a dick and cause trouble?". The specific dick in question here may or may not have caused trouble, but that is besides the point, as I was talking about people who get a kick out of destroying things that matters to other people in general.

Are non-Muslims to be requires to show reverence for an object or thing that they don't revere? Why.not simply require religious conversion?

[Deleted]

Hi, I want to introduce you to this thing called being civil. It means (among other) that you don't trample on other people's beliefs to make trouble, even if you dislike their beliefs.

Is 'civil' synonymous with legal?

Also, we live in a world where people threaten bloody murder because someone belongs to a different political party than they do. Do you REALLY think that pouring gasoline on a fire by removing laws that force people to at least try to be somewhat civil is a good idea?

I wholly reject that respecting the 'Quran' is included in being civil, no more than being respectful of Mein Kampf.

[Cancun]

We have free speech, more free speech than whereever you live.
And I can safely make that assumption because it's worse everywhere outside of Europe.

Did you not read the story??

[Fencers]

Kinda surprising there is a religious law in Denmark in modern times.

I have no idea how secular the laws in Denmark are as I am from the US. But when I visited Denmark it did not seem like people or customs were overly religious.

[Notdev]

I don't know if it was mentioned but burning the Quran is the correct way to dispose of one in Islam.

[Deleted]

We have free speech, more free speech than whereever you live.
And I can safely make that assumption because it's worse everywhere outside of Europe.

No US free speech is a whole lot better than EU, Fuck blasphemy laws.

- - - Updated - - -

False equivalency. And as has been stated, it's not the burning that is being punished. It's the publicizing it and using it to make trouble.

This distinction is meaningless, the act is the message.
Regardless, I'm sure i can find a clip of someone burning, as i'm on this tangent it seems, Mein Kampf.
Now as a Neo nazi this deeply offends me, clearly anyone insulting the memory of HH deserves to be locked up.
What's wrong with this line of thinking again?

To sum up my stance: Much as I dislike them, if people are incapable of being civil and self-regulate themselves into not being dicks and trying to cause trouble, we may yet need laws such as blasphemy laws.

I think its civil to mandate women wear Burkas.

[Theodarzna]

Which is a fair point, but more the book was his, it's not rare, he can do as he wishes with his property. Be that the Quran, Bible, or Lord of the Rings.

It also brings up a problem of "What if religions conflict?" Is a Christian required to respect the Koran? A book that is basically nonsense to him or her? What about a Pagan? A Jew?

[Deleted]

Kinda surprising there is a religious law in Denmark in modern times.

I have no idea how secular the laws in Denmark are as I am from the US. But when I visited Denmark it did not seem like people or customs were overly religious.

Its more than likely a law that is decades if not a century old.
at least i fucking hope so.

[Deleted]

Please don't blame this on the left. This is not a left ideology; this is a perversion of enlightenment ideals.

It's clearly not a left-right thing. If anything, protecting blasphemy laws is a conservative and traditionalist attitude.
Not sure if it's a perversion of anything. It's just power dynamics; churches are good at that game, and easily capable of dragging unaware propagandists (useful idiots) along.

[Deleted]

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.

I think this lawyer is really trying his hardest to make something of this.

[Zyrox]

sorry but not sorry if this offends anyone. Islam got no place in scandinavia, im from Denmark myself and this is just ridiculous, that a dane got charged for burning some book. Which is all fantasy and no i dont believe in jesus either, people can burn whatever book they want, to keep them warm at night for all i care.
Kinda funny how muslims pick what laws they wanna abide in certain countries and ignore the other laws.

[Citizen T]

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.

This is a fine example of the hypocrisy of the UN. The Human Rights Council has as memberrs: Saudi Ariabis, Iraq, UAE, Quatar, etc. Kinda shows that they don't really mean anything with that statement.

[Cancun]

You can't even swear on US media, so no.

- - - Updated - - -


Did you?
Or did you only read it on your main account?

I don't know what you are on about. Are new people not allowed here?

[Moratori]

Our biggest Christian party approves of our abortion laws.
Are you saying they aren't religious?

So what if they do? I bet your country is more secular than my home country which is like 95%+ buddhist. Either way, this has no relevance on the fact that abortion is banned in my home country due to religion.

[Theodarzna]

I agree, which is why blasphemy laws themselves are illiberal. No left leaning person should support those kinds of laws. Hurt feelings about your religion should not put people into prison.

Honestly I think the political spectrum has broken to pieces long ago. It's so hard to tell who is who, what is what.

[Slant]

How do you prove that though? Just take my word that his/her post made me punch my dog?

If his post is public, I can view it and since the law gives me objective measures to verify, I can determine if it is objectively incitement. I don't even give a shit about your word, incitement criminal code isn't aimed at dealing with specific instances of incited violence. It's designed to prevent the abstract danger inherent to such incitement. As such, whether or not it actually incited violence isn't relevant. What is relevant if it is designed and able to incite people to violence.