Hundreds of protesters stormed the Swedish embassy in central Baghdad in the early hours of Thursday morning, scaling its walls and setting it on fire in protest against the expected burning of a Koran in Sweden.
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?
If you feign ignorance, and pretend that you don’t know the difference between a belief held by billions of humans, and some corny, uncreative shit you just came up with off the top of your head, does that therefore make you an actual dumbass?
If it were a Bible or a Torah that was burned we wouldn’t be having this conversation now because it wouldn’t have even made the news. There is only one major religion that reacts violently to incidents like this. I think that’s the point OP was making and it’s a valid one.
That’s not the same argument. Christians rarely, if ever, commit violence because of a public demonstration like burning a Bible or creating a likeness of Jesus. Christians do commit violence for other reasons though, but not for something that many would interpret as protected speech in western countries.
If you shout “FIRE!” in a crowded building (e.g. a theater), you could be held liable for the panic that could ensue. Likewise, intentionally doing things that you know would encourage violence either locally or elsewhere in the world as a direct result of the speech could be held to the same standard.
So what’s being outlawed here isn’t the burning of the Qu’ran, but the intentional incitement, which is very similar to the charges against former President Trump WRT the events of Jan. 6. If you did the same thing in a Christian context (e.g. by parading homoerotic images of Jesus outside a Baptist Church on Christmas or something), you could likely be charged. It’s the intention here that’s illegal, not the specific act.
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.
It’s not my proposed idea, it’s an actual, contemporary Swedish law which has existed since 1948. What is up for debate is how that law is to be interpreted in this instance, what constitutes “creed” (in, perhaps, a better translation of the original Swedish instead of “religious belief”), and what constitutes a “message” and whether burning a Quran is valid criticism of Islam or if doing it at that time and place is a hate crime targeting Muslims. It hasn’t been tried in the Swedish supreme court whether Quran burning in certain contexts like the recent events is illegal under that law or not.
Technically, sure, you could argue that everything can be a religious belief/creed and any belief is covered under that law. But that is not how the law is interpreted and used in practice. I would consider that a strawman argument then, because it intentionally misrepresents the spirit of that law.
That makes sense. I guess I don’t really see the point of the law. If a message of hate goes too far, it would already fall other applicable laws against harassment or discrimination. Why does there need to be legislation specifically protecting against hate crimes?
I mean, that’s a matter of personal opinion (and you are entitled to yours). Legality aside, I personally think some groups should have special protections as they are often targets of discrimination or harassment specifically because of their affiliation with a certain group. That includes race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender identity etc.
Of course, these people are also individually protected from harassment and discrimination through other laws as you say, but the incitement law protects them as a group and from being targeted in certain ways. You are allowed to publicly protest against Judaism, but not to publicly wear swastikas (a symbol of the horror of the Holocaust).
I understand that mindset and agree with its validity (especially the Holocaust example). I think putting that into law effectively is extremely difficult, as many people would draw the lines differently as to what should be applicable.
I actually agree, it’s a problem. As other people also argued here, the existing law is perhaps too fuzzy even though I personally agree with the sentiment (and do believe it is applicable as-is in the recent Quran cases).
Laws can sometimes be intentionally written broadly as to cover future unanticipated cases, but for the recent events it’s not clear what is covered and what isn’t covered. That has to be tried in court to set a precedent then, and that hasn’t been done. And part of why it hasn’t been done seems to be that the prosecutors are unsure of how their case will go in court, so they choose not to prosecute… At least that’s how I have understood it.
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?
If you feign ignorance, and pretend that you don’t know the difference between a belief held by billions of humans, and some corny, uncreative shit you just came up with off the top of your head, does that therefore make you an actual dumbass?
If it were a Bible or a Torah that was burned we wouldn’t be having this conversation now because it wouldn’t have even made the news. There is only one major religion that reacts violently to incidents like this. I think that’s the point OP was making and it’s a valid one.
Way to completely miss (or ignore) the point I made.
But you’re right, Christians have never committed violence in the name of their faith… Lol
That’s not the same argument. Christians rarely, if ever, commit violence because of a public demonstration like burning a Bible or creating a likeness of Jesus. Christians do commit violence for other reasons though, but not for something that many would interpret as protected speech in western countries.
If you shout “FIRE!” in a crowded building (e.g. a theater), you could be held liable for the panic that could ensue. Likewise, intentionally doing things that you know would encourage violence either locally or elsewhere in the world as a direct result of the speech could be held to the same standard.
So what’s being outlawed here isn’t the burning of the Qu’ran, but the intentional incitement, which is very similar to the charges against former President Trump WRT the events of Jan. 6. If you did the same thing in a Christian context (e.g. by parading homoerotic images of Jesus outside a Baptist Church on Christmas or something), you could likely be charged. It’s the intention here that’s illegal, not the specific act.
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.
Yes, but the law you proposed would allow that to happen. That isn’t a straw man, it’s your proposed idea not being very good.
It’s not my proposed idea, it’s an actual, contemporary Swedish law which has existed since 1948. What is up for debate is how that law is to be interpreted in this instance, what constitutes “creed” (in, perhaps, a better translation of the original Swedish instead of “religious belief”), and what constitutes a “message” and whether burning a Quran is valid criticism of Islam or if doing it at that time and place is a hate crime targeting Muslims. It hasn’t been tried in the Swedish supreme court whether Quran burning in certain contexts like the recent events is illegal under that law or not.
Technically, sure, you could argue that everything can be a religious belief/creed and any belief is covered under that law. But that is not how the law is interpreted and used in practice. I would consider that a strawman argument then, because it intentionally misrepresents the spirit of that law.
That makes sense. I guess I don’t really see the point of the law. If a message of hate goes too far, it would already fall other applicable laws against harassment or discrimination. Why does there need to be legislation specifically protecting against hate crimes?
I mean, that’s a matter of personal opinion (and you are entitled to yours). Legality aside, I personally think some groups should have special protections as they are often targets of discrimination or harassment specifically because of their affiliation with a certain group. That includes race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender identity etc.
Of course, these people are also individually protected from harassment and discrimination through other laws as you say, but the incitement law protects them as a group and from being targeted in certain ways. You are allowed to publicly protest against Judaism, but not to publicly wear swastikas (a symbol of the horror of the Holocaust).
I understand that mindset and agree with its validity (especially the Holocaust example). I think putting that into law effectively is extremely difficult, as many people would draw the lines differently as to what should be applicable.
I actually agree, it’s a problem. As other people also argued here, the existing law is perhaps too fuzzy even though I personally agree with the sentiment (and do believe it is applicable as-is in the recent Quran cases).
Laws can sometimes be intentionally written broadly as to cover future unanticipated cases, but for the recent events it’s not clear what is covered and what isn’t covered. That has to be tried in court to set a precedent then, and that hasn’t been done. And part of why it hasn’t been done seems to be that the prosecutors are unsure of how their case will go in court, so they choose not to prosecute… At least that’s how I have understood it.