Swedish embassy in Baghdad stormed, set alight over Koran burning
Swedish embassy in Baghdad stormed, set alight over Koran burning plans
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/614691
Video: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-66252974
Someone new got approved to burn another one outside the Iraqi embassy in Stockholm, that's why there's a new reaction.
Tbh I personally don't think it should be allowed to actively provoke and incite hatred against an ethnic group. Sweden already has a law specifically against this (incitement against ethnic group), which lists religious belief as a group covered by the law. However, there has only been one case that went to the courts trying specifically a Quran burning, and the context was a bit different so it was dismissed. The Quran burning previous to the one in the article has been reported to the police, and imo it should go to trial so we can test the limits of the incitement law. That Quran was burned directly as a statement outside a mosque, during Eid, which is a context that could be illegal under that law.
To clarify, people should be able to burn whatever books and symbols they want and express whatever vile or justified opinions they have under freedom of speech in Sweden- but not in every context and forum everywhere, as direct provocation and incitement. This is actually the majority opinion of Swedes (source in Swedish).
But we'll see what happens. I discussed this with a lawyer I know, who agreed that it should be prosecuted and go to trial so we can see how it fares in court.
I think it's stupid, moronic, and childish to burn Qur'ans and other associated acts of deliberate provocation, but (and this is admittedly the American in me speaking), I'd very strongly be against it being a crime. The ability to tolerate strong disagreements with your own closely held beliefs is a foundational pillar of a multi-cultural and tolerant society.
Countless acts of terror have been committed in the name of the Bible, and I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of being legally obligated to have any amount of reverence to it.
Let's separate a hate crime (incitement against ethnic group) from blasphemy laws- we definitely do not want blasphemy laws in Sweden. Critique against religions is protected free speech, as it should be.
What isn't protected, is your right to protest in EVERY way at EVERY place and EVERY time. Just like defamation laws are a specific reduction to the right to free speech, one can morally argue that if the intention of certain speech is to defame, grossly disrespect, provoke and incite certain protected groups of people, a reduction to the right to free speech is justified in certain contexts. I know lots of people disagree, all I'm saying is that there's an argument for limiting free speech in some contexts (which we already do).
Feel free to have a Quran barbecue in your own back yard, but don't throw a bacon-and-Quran barbecue in front of a mosque during Eid. You are also, certainly, allowed to criticize Islam wherever and whenever you want, that is protected speech. It's just no longer protected when the context, manner and purpose of an action or message tips the scales from critique to incitement or hate speech.
An example of someone who actually was convicted of incitement against ethnic groups in Sweden in 2020, was a junior high school student who carved a swastika into a desk. If that is covered under the incitement law, burning the Quran in the recent contexts should be too imo (in front of embassies to Muslim countries, or mosques during the biggest Muslim holiday).
America is extreme in it's own right with regards to free speech laws compared to the rest of the Western world. I respect that position, but don't agree with it.
Controversial opinion of an atheist:
Most religion is incitement to hate-crimes. While I think Sweden has probably bigger Christian societies and should probably rather burn bibles, the guy burning the Quran is an Iraqi, and therefore choosing the Quran is understandable. Afaik, he protested against his own former repression by Muslim religion whe still lived in Iraq.
Religion is notoriously used to reduce other people's freedom. Be it fundamental Christians e.g. in the US or Poland denying healthcare to pregnant women, be it the atrocities committed by the "moral police" in Iran, be it other religions killing people for their sexuality. I support the idea that religious law should be limited to followers of that religion, and no person should be forced in any way to follow or keeps following any religion. Those are fundamental human rights principles in my eyes.
I mean, as a fellow atheist I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that there are groups that are targeted (in Swedish society) specifically for their affiliation with a religion, their sexual orientation etc. Protesting religions is fine and IS protected speech.
But certain actions are only meant to provoke, disrespect and incite. The Iraqi guy is well within his rights to protest and criticize Islam; the question here is whether the manner of his "protest" was protected speech or if choosing that specific action, time and place for his protest, all taken together, tip the scales from valid and protected religious critique into something else. If the main intent was to incite, disrespect and provoke, it might not be protected speech.
That said, I'm not a fan of most religions. Specifically when religion is used as a justification to impose prescriptive and restrictive rules on others both within and outside of that religion (pro life, gender roles, prescriptive clothing like Muslim head coverings, prescriptive rules regarding birth control or sex, discrimination or persecution of LGBTQ people etc).
which lists religious belief as a group covered by the law
If followers of a denomination of the Invisible pink unicorn (bbHhh) are provoked by people wearing pink clothes because one of their holy books says such people should receive the death penalty, does that therefor make wearing pink clothes illegal in Sweden?
No, it doesn't? Laws are interpreted by legal practitioners and judges, and the intentionality of the law is taken into account. One of the main intentions of this particular law is protecting Jews from persecution, and protecting Muslims from the same isn't a huge stretch. Sure, you could argue that invisible pink unicorn followers are a protected group, but no one would take you seriously in Sweden. You are arguing an extreme interpretation in bad faith.
what if the world was made of pudding
Honestly the hatred incited is a personal problem and not that of the book burners…
Jokes on them, there were like ten korans in that building.
burning a holy book is very disrespectful. Sadly, you missed the point
Being disrespectful is generally not, nor should it be, a crime.
I completely agree its disrespectful, Kinda like some would say burning down a building is a bit disrespectful...
Someone being disrespectful isn't even close the being the government's business. You can be as disrespectful as you want, burn a Koran every day if you please, and the government should not (or be able to) do anything about it.
Most religions try to impede the rights even of nonmembers of that religion. That is disrespectful as well. Burn any book or other goods you want, if you want to protest any of my convictions. TuX-puppets, books about string theory, the FSM, my national flag, I don't give a shit as long as you own those things and you don't physically harm others.
So is calling for death to dissenters and unbelievers. Actual murder of them is morally abhorrent. That god and that prophet are no more special than the thousands of others remembered and forgotten.
Religion poisons everything.
Boo hoo
Superstitious barbarians.
Yeah what kind of magic do they think is going to be released from burning a book?
Great way to beat the Islamophobia allegations
The religion of peace strikes again?
Please don't reopen the camps.
German spotted. Shouldn't you be a bit more careful about inciting hatred towards religious groups?
Even the most peaceful person is going to get a little pissed if you burn something they hold sacred, mockingly, and then get ready to do it several times again. (After you've seen the distress it causes)
Meanwhile, these people routinely chant “death to America”, and I, an American, am supposed to take it in stride.
they got permission to burn the embassy as form of freedom of expression
Live pics from Sweden.
Image source: Book Burning in Berlin
Lmao. Surely this just proves we must burn all Quran's.
Wasn't the Quran burning a while ago?
They're a bit slow, aren't they?
Another one was planned and given permission for today, Thursday, July 20th. So they were egged on beforehand.
Ah my bad, must've missed that then lmao
I think we should not burn Qurans
I think we should not burn buildings.
I agree!
There cannot be topics forbidden to be made fun of in a free society. If we cannot make fun of Muslims and Islam in any way without causing religious riots and violence then current form Islam has no place in a free society. The difference between Islam and the other monotheistic abrahamic religions is that the older two of the three have had enough time to go through cycles of reformation and ideological modernization, making them somewhat compatible with a modern pluralist society. Islam still insists a bunch of fables from when the book was written are literally true and valid today, and not just apocryphal advice on how to be a decent person.
And before someone brings up the inevitable American evangelicals as comparison, they are equally incompatible. Luckily that scourge is largely confined to the United States and not my problem.
Topics can be forbidden while still allowing for a free society. It's called the paradox of tolerance and is why Germany bans the free speech of Nazis. The thing about satire of Islam is that the events that get a big reaction like this are not "making fun of Muslims and Islam" but flat-out hate speech. Look at real political cartoonists like Eli Valley and Stan Kelly to see that you can joke about and even be kind of mean to people without calling them pedophiles or burning sacred books. You say that Islam hasn't had time to become compatible with modern society. What a ridiculous statement contradicted by your own exception. The rise of American Christian fascism as well as the arch-conservative Christians in modern-day Uganda prove that time has nothing to do with how strict a religion is. This is further contradicted by Islamic society being much more progressive in the Medieval era compared to Christian society despite being younger. The fact is, you just hate Muslims.
You know, you never see edgelord atheists "proving a point" by burning Bibles in public to trigger Christians... I guess I don't have to wonder why - the way it looks is the way it is.
