Ministers propose the ban after a series of Quran burnings led to uproar in Muslim countries.
  • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works
    2014·
    10 months ago

    Why not just make a law against inciting acts of aggression? Filming yourself burning religious texts is purposely trying to piss people off. That way it would cover anything that has the same goal without being just about religion. Freedom of expression, unless it’s just trying to make others angry.

    Lets the law handle each case individually.

    • lukzak@lemmy.ml
      284·
      10 months ago

      How about we strive for a society where people can burn their own property without having to worry about violence?

      The islamists that react violently are only proving the point of the people burning the books. Tbh if you try to hurt someone for just burning SOMETHING THEY OWN, maybe you don’t deserve to live in a first world country.

      • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works
        719·
        10 months ago

        And if you purposely antagonize people who are known for killing people who disagree with them, you don’t either. It’s like yelling fire in a crowded room, for any reason other than there being a fire.

        Yeah it’s ridiculous, but they aren’t just burning their own property. They are filming it with the purpose of causing problems. And it did. They can’t do whatever they want if it endangers others. In an ideal world no one would react with physical violence to words. But we don’t live in that world.

        I’m not a fan of that law existing, but I can see why they would want it.

        • lukzak@lemmy.ml
          183·
          10 months ago

          The burners are not causing problems. They’re exposing a sickness that these individual people have in their minds. A healthy person doesn’t try to hurt someone just because they’re offended.

          These sick people who would hurt someone for burning a book are the same sort that would throw acid on a woman for some bullshit medieval family honor, for example.

          Better to incite them and get them arrested and perhaps even deported before they’re allowed to hurt anyone. It shows you won’t tolerate it in your society.

          Hell, it may even encourage more moderate Muslims to move to that country if they know that the society doesn’t tolerate the actions of the small, insane minority. The Muslims that believe in liberal ideals like freedom of expression are exactly the type of immigrants that make a society stronger and we should encourage them.

          All this law will do is allow that unhinged mental illness to rest, in secret, before coming out in some other toxic way.

          I’m not saying that the book burners are being entirely altruistic here. I wouldn’t be surprised if they honestly hated all Muslims. But it is their right to express it without hurting anyone. This feels more like a “broken clock is right twice a day” sort of situation.

            • lukzak@lemmy.ml
              2·
              10 months ago

              They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark.

              If we let them, especially external actors, influence our domestic policy, then they win. Look at what happened to the USA after 9/11. The terrorists won and it’s proof that terrorism works. Not only do the people capitulate to the terrorists, but bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

              The alternative is just laying down and letting medeival assholes decide domestic policies of the secular world. Don’t let terrorism win.

              • Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com
                1·
                10 months ago

                Personally this feels like a contradiction.

                They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark… bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

                State surveillance measures taken after 9/11 is part of the anti-freedom agenda to me. To effectively screen or establish connection to an extremist groups requires enhanced surveillance for effectiveness and arresting anyone with even a distant connection seems dubious (what type of connection, family, friends, being tricked into going to one meeting, etc). The people defining what an “extremist group” is can also be nefarious if bad actors are in play (think of the anti-communism/socialism scare that is portrayed in the recent Oppenheimer flick).

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            2·
            10 months ago

            They’re exposing a sickness that these individual people have in their minds. A healthy person doesn’t try to hurt someone just because they’re offended.

            Exposing and healing are not the same thing. They are fanning the flames, reducing neither the behaviour nor its causes. They’re handing out meth to junkies.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      201·
      10 months ago

      I argue that law should be used against those who react to these burnings in an aggressive manner. Violence is already covered.

      If they stop taking unnecessary offense, I assume the burnings will stop too.

      • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        7·
        10 months ago

        Not necessarily, if I were to burn a Bible and no one cares but they still continue revoking abortion access (and further bigotry) then I will probably keep burning bibles ib protest of the christofascists.

      • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works
        31·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, but it’s making other people aggressive outside of the country. So its not very helpful, you can’t police people in other countries. This whole thing is like pedestrians walking in a crosswalk without looking for cars. Yes, the pedestrian has the right way, and the car should stop. But being right doesn’t really matter if you’re dead.