2y ago

Denmark to look for 'legal tool' to prevent Koran burnings

www.reuters.com

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/866267

Archived version: https://archive.ph/BkCUO
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731033846/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-look-legal-tool-prevent-koran-burnings-2023-07-30/

16 comments

Good luck finding a reason to prevent people from burning stuff in a liberal democracy. What's next? Policing your breakfast menu?
- Fire bans are pretty common around here!
  
  Just means I have to get a permit and let the local fire department know I’m doing a controlled burn. Then I’ll fill my 50 gallon drum full of religious texts and have myself a nice controlled burn
  
  I don`t think this is about the literal fire tho.
  
  If we wait long enough there will be a constant dry period I guess...
- Sure. Danes already have their breakfast policed by the European Food Safety Authority.
I remember when Oslo's mayor (iirc?) said something along the lines of "this is something a free society has to live with if it doesn't want to surrender their freedoms" after Breivik's attack.
We need more politicians like that. People who are capable of telling how it is: There is no sane way to prevent anyone from burning books. We can only invest in education and hope that people get the message that burning books doesn't do anything of value.
- Man I agree with the sentiment (particularly how you've applied it) but I dont think that the mass murder of children for ideological reasons actually is something that a free society should have to put up with in order to maintain freedom.
  
  It shouldn't, but I don't see how to prevent something like that? Lone wolf, used legal material, didn't arouse much suspicion. (It's been a few years since I dove deeper into it though.)
- There's a big hurdle in communicating something like that to the religious people in the middle east, versus informing a domestic population.
  The issue is that both the senders and recipients of the "message" seem to believe that the actions are representative of the nation even when it is clearly not. Especially because both parts have an interest in believing that it is.
  It ought to already be illegal for individuals to deliberately interfer in international relations. It's not like they can plausible deny that they're aware of the consequences.
  Personally I think that if they really believe they have a message to the Muslim priests that they should then go to the Muslim priests in the middle east and burn the books, instead of hiding behind "freedom of speech" in a safe country. They won't do that because they know of the consequences. They just don't want to deal with the consequences of their own actions, but by doing it this way, everyone else has to deal with their shit.
  
  Personally I think that if they really believe they have a message to the Muslim priests that they should then go to the Muslim priests in the middle east and burn the books, instead of hiding behind "freedom of speech" in a safe country.
  The message is "this is allowed here, and it will stay that way". There would be no message doing it in a country without free speech, only violence.
  I'm not saying I like that they did it, but I definitely want to live in a society where it's allowed to do so. There is no place in a modern society for relics. If people want to worship a book that's their private decision and should be without consequence for the rest of society.
I have an idea. Make a new summer solstice celebration in the Nordics, where instead of burning wood, we burn copies of every religious text in existence - including the Qur'an, but also every version of the Bible.
Make it an all or nothing affair. Then I bet a whole crapton of politicians would find a way real quick.

16 comments