Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Captain Proton]

The only reason Islam and Christianity get so much privilege is because of the amount of people who follow it, you have many many more religions that
are mocked every day.

The most powerful god of asatru Thor was made into a cartoon character, and recently made into a woman. Yet nobody at marvel has been charged with blasphemy.

Jesus is/was a character on South Park, no one charged with blasphemy either.

[Nitro Fun]

While i agree that the law is outdated. With that being said why do think he did it if not trying to do so?

He can't discriminate against anyone even if he did try as he is in no position to do so.

[Aurgjelme]

Jesus is/was a character on South Park, no one charged with blasphemy either.

When I say privilege I meant taken seriously. And if you want to discuss Jesus and blasphemy, I could mention Life of brian etc...

[Xarkan]

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

Not our finest hour..

[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?

Oh but it is.. if you bought a book with your own money, its a copy and making a statement by burning it is free speech. Even if it was the original its still fine considering you bought it legally as its your property and you should be able to do with it as you please.

[alexkeren]

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.

Except Denmark's law in no way lifts one religion over another, so it technically doesn't violate the Covenant.

[Christan]

yeah I hate freedom of expression too! HOW DARE YOU MOCK A RELIGION!

Gonna guess drawing mohammad should come with a death sentence too?

A simple lol will answer that, stop baiting people, the first part of that comment i will answer, the second part is simply trying to get a rise out of me/inciting/ bad trolling(way to obvious maam/sir)

As to the first part anyone can legally do what they want in regards to mocking as long as it isnt public.
And, since you consider somethig like that "simply mocking" lets look at some other scenarios, even giving a real life, recent, example.

If someone takes symbology of a region/religion/race and burns it, lets give an example...say a symbolic headdress of a native american tribal chief. Would that be a hate crime?

How about a similar but extremely mild version of what that man did, bring in RL example, youtuber pewdiepie had made a joke about jewish people, even though he has jewish friends, all of a sudden he was in middle of a media shitstorm, disney dropped him, another one did, youtube canceled a season of scare pewdiepie or something like that.

Over a simple joke, about a religion.
From a person apparently known to push jokes considered bad form.

This guy, in all seriousness, not even joking, attacks an entire faith? I dont even specifically beieve in god, more of a traditional agnostic(i believe in a higher power, but whether god, gods, aliens, flying spaghetti monster, idgaf, idk)

So not even religious, and i am greatly upset by that pos, if he wants to burn a flag/book/headdress/whatever, in the privacy of his home with his friends, i wouldnt care, but publically doing that, in a non joking manner, going out of his way to buy a copy of the quran, filming and burning it, he was specifically trying to insult an entire culture of people, humans.

Saying religions dont matter for hate crimes, is like saying it doesnt matter if that guy/girl who is homosexual gets hazed, because even if sexuality is either/or a state of mind or genetic, it's singling out someone for their beliefs(religious or sexual) it's as bad as singling out (edited this out but insert stereotypes based off of region...it was a bit to...controversial for mmo-champion)

Thing is, he applied something that should only of applied to an extremely small portion of the worlds population(less that .00001% im positive) to the entire religion which accounts for nearly a quarter of the worlds population.

That is exactly like saying all athiests are heartless immoral pigs and should use /religious book/ as a moral guide.
Sure it may be true in a small small number of cases, saying all athiests are immoral(or put whatever word in there fits you)
Is just wrong, the same reason an athiest can have morals, is the same reason nealry all muslims are actually good, it comes down to free will, and the human condition. There are exceptions to that ideology in ever color creed nation and race, we call them people with the more severe forms of mental conditions, in short, the crazies.

A crazy X might do Y to someone who's a Z, whereas a sane person wouldnt do Y, because its heinous.

[Deleted]

Are you saying that burning a book supports dialogue?

In this context dialogue means expressing content.

Or are you saying that freedom of speech is only important for stuff you think that matters?

Free speech is about expressing content, not style.
I'm not in favor of the seven dirty words, but they don't inhibit your ability to express content.
I'm not legally allowed to express my opinions about Islam in most of Europe, but i'm allowed to say fuck on tv, or I'm allowed to say things like, This, - The irony over getting an infraction there amuses me, though it was fair, i should have said Islamist (though i have little doubts that wouldn't have resulted in an infraction anyway)
But i'm not allowed to say fuck on TV and instead must say intercourse or damn.
I'm going with the minor inhibition of style thank you.

[zorkuus]

That is exactly like saying all athiests are heartless immoral pigs and should use /religious book/ as a moral guide.

Not relevant because you are actually allowed to do that legally.

You are fine with hate speech laws but do not realize religions get a free pass on those sometimes.

[procne]

I think it's not a matter of burning a book, but the fact someone made an anti-religion manifest out of it.

The "blasphemy" laws are more about people not antagonising each other because of religion. And that's exactly what the guy did.

[Xarkan]

I'm not legally allowed to express my opinions about Islam

No (?) but in the context of this thread

In Denmark you can paint pictures of Muhammed with explosives and mass distribute them insinuating all muslims are terrorists

I may not be in favor of this particular law but lets not paint this thing as something it is not, Denmark is not how this thread present it

[Deleted]

No, but it should be protected from people who just use it as hate speech.

What's wrong with hating a, Totalitarian, Misogynistic, Misandric, Misantrophic, militant ideology?
Nothing.
There is nothing wrong in hating that.

[zorkuus]

I think it's not a matter of burning a book, but the fact someone made an anti-religion manifest out of it.

The "blasphemy" laws are more about people not antagonising each other because of religion. And that's exactly what the guy did.

Blashphemy laws are special privaleges for religion that we do not grant for anything else in law. No one's going to prosecute you if you say something horrible about homosexuals or atheists in the name of religion.

[Deleted]

How often do you see religious people being prosecuted for hate speech against homosexuality for example?

But only if you are a christian.
Then they take you to court.
(meanwhile no one gave a shit that some journos recorded Imams saying worse things regularly, nope ignore that).

[Deleted]

Yes to freedom...no to islam, sounds more like the burning of a religious book was more a hate crime against all of that faith versus against just isis / radicals.

Imho he is being charged with the wrong crime.

If he had done the same thing but said }%#% isis i hope your bodies burn as well as your pos book, i wouldnt care, but he targeted all of the islamic faith. Screw him.

You get that Core parts of Islam is fundamentally incompatible with what the west defines as freedom right?
Not just the militant ISIS wing, the rest of it.

[Christan]

Not relevant because you are actually allowed to do that legally.

You are fine with hate speech laws but do not realize religions get a free pass on those sometimes.

Not everywhere, some places in the eu, are designing laws that make it harder/impossible to say inflammatory comments designed to trigger people, it seems to me as an extension of anti-bullying laws.

I dont know denmarks laws specifically nor care to peruse them to find out, but you cant give a blanket statement like that when talking about other countries, it apparemtly IS illegal there, i am just saying it should be a hate crime, not a...blasphemy crime.
Or heh...maybe even both, religions deserve as much protections as anything else.

Btw, blasphemy under the law vs religious, could be as different as a wedding by signing a document in court vs in a church, completely serparate things with completely different meanings (court-you want taxes together and co-ownership of property vs, church-want souls to be linked/lifelong partners...meh plethora of promises)

I do not know the wording of the law, so i'm in no position to say, be positive if he can defend himself using international law that denmark is legally obligated to uphold he WILL.

Btw, when i say he should be charged, not saying he should serve time, maybe community service/ having to take a sensitivity class for the emotionally ignorant.


Like a...defensive driving course for your heart)

[procne]

Blashphemy laws are special privaleges for religion that we do not grant for anything else in law. No one's going to prosecute you if you say something horrible about homosexuals or atheists in the name of religion.

I'm not getting your point here. Are they going to prosecute you if you say that horrible thing, but not in the name of religion? As in the court?
What kind of law allows that? From what I know blasphemy laws are centered around disallowing people to deface religious symbols with the purpose of offending said religion. How does that apply to the situation you presented?

[Lupinemancer]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the problem!
Since when is it illegal to burn a book?

[Deleted]

Btw, when i say he should be charged, not saying he should serve time, maybe community service/ having to take a sensitivity class for the emotionally ignorant.

Just out of curiosity should he have been charged if he burned a copy of Mein Kampf?
Yes/no?

[Xarkan]

If burning the Quran is considered hate speech due to Blasphemy laws, then Death for drawing mohammad is also a penalty for a blasphemy crime.

Fine, point to once instance of Muhammed drawings in Denmark resulting in a blasphemy charge and add to that the last occourance of the death penalty in Denmark (preferably for a religous crime)