Riots in Malmo, Sweden as people burn the Koran

[loomer]

Simple answer: It doesn't. It's stupid and counter productive but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden as it would violate freedom of speech. If someone wants to burn his copy of the quran to make a statement then so be it. It's his property and he can do what he wants with it. Answering with riots and damaging other people's property =/= free speech.
No religion or ideology should be above criticism.

Okay. But where do you draw the line between legitimate criticism and the deliberate intimidation of a people?

Openly calling for murder or violence, making false accusations or slander against a person,...
I fail to see how burning a quran equals intimidating people. A religious symbol isn't a person and burning a quran fall more under blasphemy, and blasphemy most certainly falls under freedom of speech.
I don't see why Islam should deserve special treatment simply because its fanatics are more likely to respond with violence whenever they feel offended. I don't think that we should drop the bar on what's allowed by the standards of religious fascists who feel offended by pretty much everything anyway.

Freedom of speech/expression also means having the freedom to offend.

It's odd that you think I'm suggesting Islam deserves special treatment, when I've made no comment of the kind - perhaps your biases are showing. Let me give you another example of burning something that your criteria rules out as intimidation: burning crosses on the lawn of Black folks. Would you care to distinguish or are you content that this too is not intimidation?

As to your last point, freedom of speech does mean having the freedom to offend, but that freedom does not extend to hate crimes or hate speech. This is a well-settled point of theory and law alike. Would you care to disagree?

[ray245]

I feel that focusing on 'legitimate criticism' is the wrong tack to be taking. An anti-immigrant racist burning the Quran isn't going to make Swedish Muslims any less uncomfortable or angry than me burning the Quran because I'm an atheist who thinks that Muhammad was a lying fraud who made the whole thing up and I want to spite some jackass who threatened to beat my ass if I ever disrespected a Quran. So I think the intentions of the person doing it are irrelevant compared to the fact that Sweden is a secular country with religious freedom, and where religious freedom means you can mock and insult religions you object to without fear of reprisal. You don't have to be right about how evil the Catholic Church is be able to draw pictures mocking the Virgin Mary and expect to not have your house burnt down or something. Muslims who feel intimidated by Quran burnings have a duty to get over that because that's part of what's expected of people living in a secular country like Sweden. If they collectively can't, well...I'm not going to start agreeing with anti-immigrant right-wingers, but that's legit evidence that there is a problem with Muslim immigrants there.

Or to put it more succinctly

Yes it does. Someone criticising Islam in a Islamic majority country because they are not Muslim ( hence marginalised) or they are LGBTQ is an entirely different dynamic from a far-right protester burning the Qua-ran in front of a marginalised Muslim community. I think people certainly should be able to voice against religion especially if said religion is the dominant religion in a country.

There is no legal distinction between the two categories when we are talking about free speech, but the social dynamic is entirely different. Asking a marginalised community to "get over it" when they are heavily marginalised in terms of life opportunities simply cannot work. No amount of demanding they accept it is going to work.

If the publicity stunt works well enough to spark riots then clearly there’s a real problem with some of the Muslim population that he was able to exploit.

And really, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that the rioters were acting out of fear rather than anger and a desire to punish people for insulting their religion.

Because they are marginalised to begin with? Marginalised community already felt unwelcomed and perceive a sense of hostility towards them even in daily conversation. What you just posted can be seen as being unwelcoming and threatening to them. Before one can think that the criticism of Islam in the West by the far-right is equal to say an atheist voicing their dislike of religion and Christianity as equal, one needs to see if the power-dynamics between religion and community is equal.

[ray245]

It's odd that you think I'm suggesting Islam deserves special treatment, when I've made no comment of the kind - perhaps your biases are showing. Let me give you another example of burning something that your criteria rules out as intimidation: burning crosses on the lawn of Black folks. Would you care to distinguish or are you content that this too is not intimidation?

As to your last point, freedom of speech does mean having the freedom to offend, but that freedom does not extend to hate crimes or hate speech. This is a well-settled point of theory and law alike. Would you care to disagree?

That is a very good point. No one is saying Islam should not be criticised, but there is very much a grey area where criticism of Islam is used by the far-right to garner support. If one cannot separate the distinction between the two, then they are falling for the far-right rhetoric and allowing their personal bias to come to play.

Statements like there must be something wrong with the Muslim community are statements that are not useful to anyone but the far right. It completely and utterly ignores the social and economic circumstances that the majority of those people would have felt in contrast to the rest of the population.

This is not to say we should not tackle the issues WITHIN those communities, but merely demanding them as a White-established-European to accept the social norms of the country while not ensuring that those communities have the equal life opportunities simply cannot help. It's not problem solving. It's running away from the problem or simply having the kind of wish-fulfilment politics that right-wing politics embrace.

[wautd]

Okay. But where do you draw the line between legitimate criticism and the deliberate intimidation of a people?

Openly calling for murder or violence, making false accusations or slander against a person,...
I fail to see how burning a quran equals intimidating people. A religious symbol isn't a person and burning a quran fall more under blasphemy, and blasphemy most certainly falls under freedom of speech.
I don't see why Islam should deserve special treatment simply because its fanatics are more likely to respond with violence whenever they feel offended. I don't think that we should drop the bar on what's allowed by the standards of religious fascists who feel offended by pretty much everything anyway.

Freedom of speech/expression also means having the freedom to offend.

It's odd that you think I'm suggesting Islam deserves special treatment, when I've made no comment of the kind

OK, my bad

burning crosses on the lawn of Black folks. Would you care to distinguish or are you content that this too is not intimidation?

In a country with a recent history where the cross-burners were racists who went out to lynch/murder people because they had a darker skin color? Sure, I can see that as intimidation. In fact, I consider it a death threat.
But as far as I know, Sweden doesn't have a recent history where lynch mobs murdered or beaten people because they had a darker skin or followed a different religion.

As to your last point, freedom of speech does mean having the freedom to offend, but that freedom does not extend to hate crimes or hate speech. This is a well-settled point of theory and law alike. Would you care to disagree?

Agreed

[Ralin]

Second, you are mistaking 'religious freedom' to mean that you may do anything you wish without consequence. This is also incorrect - it simply means you are free to practice any religion you please, or no religion at all, without the fear of state consequences, in the same way that freedom of speech allows you to say dumb shit but does not insulate you from criticism or reprisals from private citizens.

It damned well shields me and others from being subjected to violence because some jackass thinks they’re entitled to punish anyone who disrespects their religious scriptures or other symbols of their religion. Or anyone else from being on the receiving of said violence when the religious shitheads in question decide to start rioting and burning things.

Is it? You can, of course, demonstrate that the values of a secular country require people not to feel anger and fear at active insults to their identity, religion, and culture, right? And you can, of course, demonstrate that the values of a secular country permit people to induce that anger and fear on the basis of a person's identity, religion, and culture, yes?

Get over it in the sense of recognizing that they can’t stop it with violence or threats of violence and have no right to expect otherwise.

Let’s be clear, do you think it’s justified for Muslims to riot in response to someone burning a copy of the Quran in the city they live in, or for them to attack people who do?

That's peculiar, because your explicit tack here is pretty much the antithesis of what secular democracy is actually about, so you'd get on swimmingly with them!

I wouldn’t think so. [These] Anti-immigrant right-wingers try to paint Muslims in general as violent, criminal and impossible to integrate into Swedish society. I think they’re racist shitheads, but I think there is a subset of the Muslim population that fits the stereotypes the right-wingers draw on in their propaganda. I think they’re a minority and support Muslims (and other people) being able to immigrate to Sweden and other places, but how big that subset is an open question and stuff like this is a mark in the bad column there.

And you have yet to produce any evidence that there was no fear, nor that the purpose of the burning was not to produce it or even to incite rage at a deliberate and flagrant insult to people's culture, religion, and identity taking place in the context of long-standing anti-immigrant and anti-Islam sentiment.

My proof is that they decided to riot and burn things in response to someone burning the Quran. I can only interpret that as an attempt to lash out at anyone seen as complicit in doing so or as an attempt to intimidate others into not doing so in the future.

It depends who is the one burning the book. Would you say it is acceptable for Nazis to burn the Torah?

What, are you saying we should stop people from burning their copy of the Torah if they want to?

That sounds eerily similar to what Trump and many Republicans would say about Blacks in America.

Yes or no Ray, do you consider violence against people who publicly burn the Quran justified? Either as retaliation or as a warning to others?

And that blanket mentality and public perception towards Muslims in Sweden will hinder their life opportunities, make it seem like the world is set against them, and discourage integration.

Please clarify Ray, is it state-enforced gender equality that you think is a hinderance to Muslim integration in Sweden or religious freedom? What aspects of religious freedom or gender equality do you believe Swedish society should compromise to facilitate this ‘two-way street?’ Or did you mean something else entirely?

There is no legal distinction between the two categories when we are talking about free speech, but the social dynamic is entirely different. Asking a marginalised community to "get over it" when they are heavily marginalised in terms of life opportunities simply cannot work. No amount of demanding they accept it is going to work.

Yeah I can. Because barring radical changes Sweden isn’t going to outlaw burning Qurans or other things considered blasphemous by many Muslims. The Swedish Muslim community can’t force Sweden to change that and they will fail if they try.

Because they are marginalised to begin with? Marginalised community already felt unwelcomed and perceive a sense of hostility towards them even in daily conversation. What you just posted can be seen as being unwelcoming and threatening to them. Before one can think that the criticism of Islam in the West by the far-right is equal to say an atheist voicing their dislike of religion and Christianity as equal, one needs to see if the power-dynamics between religion and community is equal.

No I really don’t, because God isn’t real and Muhammad wasn’t visited by the archangel Gabriel who dictated the Quran to him. The Quran is not a miraculous text composed by God and destroying or disrespecting a copy of it is no more immoral than doing so to any other book. That’s true everywhere no matter how marginalized or well-off the local Muslims are and I have no obligation to refrain from saying so or acting on that, anymore than gay rights advocates should censor themselves to spare the sensibilities of poor immigrant Catholics in the US.

[Nicholas]

A question for those arguing that the burning of the Koran should have been illegal as an expression of intimidation or a threat.

Should the protest itself have been illegal on those grounds? A large number of people entering the area where your families live and making speeches saying your culture is unwelcome can certainly be understood as a threat.

I would also be interested in your opinion of the similar issues involved for "marching season" in Northern Ireland or the legality of Neo-Nazis staging events in Jewish neighborhoods.

Nicholas

[loomer]

burning crosses on the lawn of Black folks. Would you care to distinguish or are you content that this too is not intimidation?

In a country with a recent history where the cross-burners were racists who went out to lynch/murder people because they had a darker skin color? Sure, I can see that as intimidation. In fact, I consider it a death threat.
But as far as I know, Sweden doesn't have a recent history where lynch mobs murdered or beaten people because they had a darker skin or followed a different religion.

You are correct, but you also seem to be labouring under the assumption that only the most severe forms of violence are sufficient to elevate an act into a threat. Are you aware that in 2016, 66% of all Mosques in Sweden were targeted in some way? That there has been a significant spike in hate crimes targeting Muslims - especially women - since 2010? That over the last five years there have been a significant number of attacks with people beaten or stabbed requiring hospitalization?

All of these things must be taken into account, and indicate that burning a quran in this context was an act of deliberate intimidation, particularly in the context of enormous global anti-Muslim sentiment. Do you disagree?
[/quote]

[loomer]

Second, you are mistaking 'religious freedom' to mean that you may do anything you wish without consequence. This is also incorrect - it simply means you are free to practice any religion you please, or no religion at all, without the fear of state consequences, in the same way that freedom of speech allows you to say dumb shit but does not insulate you from criticism or reprisals from private citizens.

It damned well shields me and others from being subjected to violence because some jackass thinks they’re entitled to punish anyone who disrespects their religious scriptures or other symbols of their religion. Or anyone else from being on the receiving of said violence when the religious shitheads in question decide to start rioting and burning things.

Actually, what shields you from that are other laws built on principles around other individual rights, and not the principle of religious freedom. The religious freedom of a secular democracy is simply the freedom of religion or no religion at all.

Is it? You can, of course, demonstrate that the values of a secular country require people not to feel anger and fear at active insults to their identity, religion, and culture, right? And you can, of course, demonstrate that the values of a secular country permit people to induce that anger and fear on the basis of a person's identity, religion, and culture, yes?

Get over it in the sense of recognizing that they can’t stop it with violence or threats of violence and have no right to expect otherwise.

I trust you feel that all efforts to address a serious perceived wrong through violence or threats of violence are illegitimate and that people should 'get over it' whenever they confront systemic bigotry?

Let’s be clear, do you think it’s justified for Muslims to riot in response to someone burning a copy of the Quran in the city they live in, or for them to attack people who do?

Nope, but I also don't think your nonsense position that it's perfectly acceptable to intimidate a community because of 'religious freedoms' and tough guy 'I wanna burn one too!' bullshit are legitimate. I think the riots indicate a fundamental failure in the system itself.

That's peculiar, because your explicit tack here is pretty much the antithesis of what secular democracy is actually about, so you'd get on swimmingly with them!

I wouldn’t think so. [These] Anti-immigrant right-wingers try to paint Muslims in general as violent, criminal and impossible to integrate into Swedish society. I think they’re racist shitheads, but I think there is a subset of the Muslim population that fits the stereotypes the right-wingers draw on in their propaganda. I think they’re a minority and support Muslims (and other people) being able to immigrate to Sweden and other places, but how big that subset is an open question and stuff like this is a mark in the bad column there.

And yet your stance on secular democracy seems to boil down to 'fuck 'em, religious freedom means I can do anything I please and they have to tolerate it'. You have far more in common with them than you're willing to admit.

And you have yet to produce any evidence that there was no fear, nor that the purpose of the burning was not to produce it or even to incite rage at a deliberate and flagrant insult to people's culture, religion, and identity taking place in the context of long-standing anti-immigrant and anti-Islam sentiment.

My proof is that they decided to riot and burn things in response to someone burning the Quran. I can only interpret that as an attempt to lash out at anyone seen as complicit in doing so or as an attempt to intimidate others into not doing so in the future.

I'm sorry, your proof that there wasn't fear or that this was not an attempt to intimidate them is that they rioted? That's not proof. If you would like to submit it as proof, you'll need to actually form an argument to that effect, demonstrating that their response is incompatible with the possibility of fear and the intent of the demonstration to deliberately incite rage in a context of systemic ill-treatment.

[loomer]

A question for those arguing that the burning of the Koran should have been illegal as an expression of intimidation or a threat.

Should the protest itself have been illegal on those grounds? A large number of people entering the area where your families live and making speeches saying your culture is unwelcome can certainly be understood as a threat.

Any deliberate attempt to intimidate a person or group of persons on the basis of their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexuality or ability should be unlawful, yes. If you look, the protest was in fact illegal and the men responsible for burning the Quran were arrested on precisely that ground.

I would also be interested in your opinion of the similar issues involved for "marching season" in Northern Ireland or the legality of Neo-Nazis staging events in Jewish neighborhoods.

Nicholas

Both events meet my set of criteria. Where the intent is to intimidate a person or group of persons on the basis of these characteristics, it should be unlawful.

[ray245]

What, are you saying we should stop people from burning their copy of the Torah if they want to?

Socially acceptable or legally acceptable? Also in what context? Burning it in front of a Synagogue is entirely different from burning it in private. I don't think the legal trade off of prohibiting criticism is worth the cost.

Do you or do you not see an act of burning the Torah in front of a Synagogue by neo-nazis as an act of intimidation?

Yes or no Ray, do you consider violence against people who publicly burn the Quran justified? Either as retaliation or as a warning to others?

That's side-stepping my point. Violence is not justified, but that does not prohibit us from understanding the wider socio-economic conditions that led to such acts. It is the same socio-economic conditions that result in looting and etc in US cities when Black community in the US felt they have been pushed to the brink and violence erupts.

Please clarify Ray, is it state-enforced gender equality that you think is a hinderance to Muslim integration in Sweden or religious freedom? What aspects of religious freedom or gender equality do you believe Swedish society should compromise to facilitate this ‘two-way street?’ Or did you mean something else entirely?

I never said Swedish society should compromise anything. This is why you are failing to understand my points. What I am saying is the perception of Muslims as not respecting religious freedom or gender equality becomes a real socio-economic barrier, which in turn makes it difficult for the marginalised community to integrate with the wider community.

Yeah I can. Because barring radical changes Sweden isn’t going to outlaw burning Qurans or other things considered blasphemous by many Muslims. The Swedish Muslim community can’t force Sweden to change that and they will fail if they try.

Has that worked out well in terms of integrating those population?

No I really don’t, because God isn’t real and Muhammad wasn’t visited by the archangel Gabriel who dictated the Quran to him. The Quran is not a miraculous text composed by God and destroying or disrespecting a copy of it is no more immoral than doing so to any other book. That’s true everywhere no matter how marginalized or well-off the local Muslims are and I have no obligation to refrain from saying so or acting on that, anymore than gay rights advocates should censor themselves to spare the sensibilities of poor immigrant Catholics in the US.

That's your personal belief. Society as a whole does not operate by your personal belief whether you like it or not. But do you think there should be no hate speech laws? If you think so, then we have nothing to discuss.

I see that Loomer has started addressing your points. I will let him debate with you on that.

[ray245]

And yet your stance on secular democracy seems to boil down to 'fuck 'em, religious freedom means I can do anything I please and they have to tolerate it'. You have far more in common with them than you're willing to admit.

Especially if it is someone coming from a relatively privileged position saying it.

[Ralin]

Actually, what shields you from that are other laws built on principles around other individual rights, and not the principle of religious freedom. The religious freedom of a secular democracy is simply the freedom of religion or no religion at all.

Semantics.

I trust you feel that all efforts to address a serious perceived wrong through violence or threats of violence are illegitimate and that people should 'get over it' whenever they confront systemic bigotry?

No? But avenging an insult to your religion’s scriptures isn’t grounds to do that. If we go down that route any religious group can decide they perceive themselves as having been wronged by someone not 'respecting' their beliefs.

Nope, but I also don't think your nonsense position that it's perfectly acceptable to intimidate a community because of 'religious freedoms' and tough guy 'I wanna burn one too!' bullshit are legitimate. I think the riots indicate a fundamental failure in the system itself.

Please, tell me what you would consider an acceptable way for a Swedish person or group opposed to Islam to publicly burn a copy of the Quran that would not be sufficiently threatening to Muslims feelings to warrant a riot in retaliation.

And yet your stance on secular democracy seems to boil down to 'fuck 'em, religious freedom means I can do anything I please and they have to tolerate it'. You have far more in common with them than you're willing to admit.

Not at all. But do go on about how not accepting that certain religious people are justified in rioting in retaliation to someone insulting their religion is a right-wing position.

I'm sorry, your proof that there wasn't fear or that this was not an attempt to intimidate them is that they rioted? That's not proof. If you would like to submit it as proof, you'll need to actually form an argument to that effect, demonstrating that their response is incompatible with the possibility of fear and the intent of the demonstration to deliberately incite rage in a context of systemic ill-treatment.

My point is that given that the public burning of a Quran isn’t any sort of physical threat to them means that I can only interpret their motivation as being to either try and punish the ones who did the burning or just tear shit up and hurt people as a warning to anyone else who might do the same in the future.

What do you think their motivation for rioting was if not that?

[wautd]

burning crosses on the lawn of Black folks. Would you care to distinguish or are you content that this too is not intimidation?

In a country with a recent history where the cross-burners were racists who went out to lynch/murder people because they had a darker skin color? Sure, I can see that as intimidation. In fact, I consider it a death threat.
But as far as I know, Sweden doesn't have a recent history where lynch mobs murdered or beaten people because they had a darker skin or followed a different religion.

You are correct, but you also seem to be labouring under the assumption that only the most severe forms of violence are sufficient to elevate an act into a threat. Are you aware that in 2016, 66% of all Mosques in Sweden were targeted in some way? That there has been a significant spike in hate crimes targeting Muslims - especially women - since 2010? That over the last five years there have been a significant number of attacks with people beaten or stabbed requiring hospitalization?

All of these things must be taken into account, and indicate that burning a quran in this context was an act of deliberate intimidation, particularly in the context of enormous global anti-Muslim sentiment. Do you disagree?

[/quote]

I was not aware of these things, and if true then these are all criminal offenses that should be persecuted by the state.
So I can understand that some people will feel intimidated by it, but I'm not convinced that burning a quran in public should be banned or considered a criminal offense.
I'm sure that a lot of Swedes will also feel intimidated when extreme right Islamists are flying the ISIS flag, but that's legal in Sweden too.

[ray245]

I was not aware of these things, and if true then these are all criminal offenses that should be persecuted by the state.
So I can understand that some people will feel intimidated by it, but I'm not convinced that burning a quran in public should be banned or considered a criminal offense.
I'm sure that a lot of Swedes will also feel intimidated when extreme right Islamists are flying the ISIS flag, but that's legal in Sweden too.

Should people feel intimidated in public spaces because of freedom of speech?

[loomer]

Actually, what shields you from that are other laws built on principles around other individual rights, and not the principle of religious freedom. The religious freedom of a secular democracy is simply the freedom of religion or no religion at all.

Semantics.

Yes, and semantics are actually rather important when we're discussing the nature and limitations of rights, as you'd know if you'd ever actually studied them. They're also rather important for logic to work!

I trust you feel that all efforts to address a serious perceived wrong through violence or threats of violence are illegitimate and that people should 'get over it' whenever they confront systemic bigotry?

No? But avenging an insult to your religion’s scriptures isn’t grounds to do that. If we go down that route any religious group can decide they perceive themselves as having been wronged by someone not 'respecting' their beliefs.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that this action took place in a vacuum without a larger context of anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant sentiment in Sweden and Malmo? Because you seem to think it can be reduced entirely to 'they insulted Islam', and have produced no proof that this is the case.

Nope, but I also don't think your nonsense position that it's perfectly acceptable to intimidate a community because of 'religious freedoms' and tough guy 'I wanna burn one too!' bullshit are legitimate. I think the riots indicate a fundamental failure in the system itself.

Please, tell me what you would consider an acceptable way for a Swedish person or group opposed to Islam to publicly burn a copy of the Quran that would not be sufficiently threatening to Muslims feelings to warrant a riot in retaliation.

Well, for a start, not doing it at a far-right rally attended by neo-nazis in an area that's had repeated arson attacks against its mosque and terrorist shootings against its community might be a start?

And yet your stance on secular democracy seems to boil down to 'fuck 'em, religious freedom means I can do anything I please and they have to tolerate it'. You have far more in common with them than you're willing to admit.

Not at all. But do go on about how not accepting that certain religious people are justified in rioting in retaliation to someone insulting their religion is a right-wing position.

Except, of course, that I have made no such statement. I have asked how burning a Quran respects the spirit of a modern secular multi-cultural democracy, disagreed with you about what religious freedom entails, asked you to demonstrate why the values of secularism permit you to publicly attack and demean others in a way that is deliberately intended to target a protected characteristic, and questioned why you seem to feel that intent is irrelevant. I'm sure you can show me where I've declared that only certain religious persons are justified in rioting in response to systemic ill-treatment - perhaps at the same time as you address some of my questions that you've tried to dodge?

I'm sorry, your proof that there wasn't fear or that this was not an attempt to intimidate them is that they rioted? That's not proof. If you would like to submit it as proof, you'll need to actually form an argument to that effect, demonstrating that their response is incompatible with the possibility of fear and the intent of the demonstration to deliberately incite rage in a context of systemic ill-treatment.

My point is that given that the public burning of a Quran isn’t any sort of physical threat to them means that I can only interpret their motivation as being to either try and punish the ones who did the burning or just tear shit up and hurt people as a warning to anyone else who might do the same in the future.

What do you think their motivation for rioting was if not that?

I'm sorry, but again, are you suggesting that the burning of the Quran took place in a vacuum?

[Ralin]

Should people feel intimidated in public spaces because of freedom of speech?

Do you doubt that religious people will try to spin any significant public insult to their religion as intimidation if you go down that route?

[loomer]

In a country with a recent history where the cross-burners were racists who went out to lynch/murder people because they had a darker skin color? Sure, I can see that as intimidation. In fact, I consider it a death threat.
But as far as I know, Sweden doesn't have a recent history where lynch mobs murdered or beaten people because they had a darker skin or followed a different religion.

You are correct, but you also seem to be labouring under the assumption that only the most severe forms of violence are sufficient to elevate an act into a threat. Are you aware that in 2016, 66% of all Mosques in Sweden were targeted in some way? That there has been a significant spike in hate crimes targeting Muslims - especially women - since 2010? That over the last five years there have been a significant number of attacks with people beaten or stabbed requiring hospitalization?

All of these things must be taken into account, and indicate that burning a quran in this context was an act of deliberate intimidation, particularly in the context of enormous global anti-Muslim sentiment. Do you disagree?

I was not aware of these things, and if true then these are all criminal offenses that should be persecuted by the state.
So I can understand that some people will feel intimidated by it, but I'm not convinced that burning a quran in public should be banned or considered a criminal offense.
I'm sure that a lot of Swedes will also feel intimidated when extreme right Islamists are flying the ISIS flag, but that's legal in Sweden too.
[/quote]

Burning a quran in public should not necessarily be illegal, and that's not the argument. What is a problem is when symbols of religious identity are weaponized in a context of systemic ill-treatment as a tactic of intimidation, which is why they burned the Quran in this context. That should be unlawful regardless of whether it's Islam, Christianity, or Jainism for the simple reason that it is incompatible with democracy on a core level.

As to the ISIS flag, you won't get any disagreement from me that it's an act of intimidation incompatible with the fundamental values of a democracy and should therefore not be lawful.

[Ralin]

Yes, and semantics are actually rather important when we're discussing the nature and limitations of rights, as you'd know if you'd ever actually studied them. They're also rather important for logic to work!

I do not find this particular semantic distinction significant.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that this action took place in a vacuum without a larger context of anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant sentiment in Sweden and Malmo? Because you seem to think it can be reduced entirely to 'they insulted Islam', and have produced no proof that this is the case.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, but given that this was all touched off by burning a religious symbol that’s what I’m focusing on. The original article quoted a local as saying it happened because they burned the Quran and I’m taking that at face value.

Well, for a start, not doing it at a far-right rally attended by neo-nazis in an area that's had repeated arson attacks against its mosque and terrorist shootings against its community might be a start?

So if it was a left-wing, pro-immigrant group would it be alright? Or is burning the Quran in that area completely verboten? Are we going to say that there are neighborhoods where destroying a Quran is a crime and others where it isn’t?

I have asked how burning a Quran respects the spirit of a modern secular multi-cultural democracy,

It doesn’t, but being able to do so and expect to not be physically attacked for it is a consequence of having a secular state with those traits. Ditto for not having to deal with riots in reaction to someone else doing so.

asked you to demonstrate why the values of secularism permit you to publicly attack and demean others in a way that is deliberately intended to target a protected characteristic

Because religious people can and will choose to interpret any slight to their religion as hate speech if they are able to get someone punished or silenced for doing so.

I'm sure you can show me where I've declared that only certain religious persons are justified in rioting in response to systemic ill-treatment

Systemic ill-treatment? We’re talking about a riot in direct response to someone burning the Quran. Are you claiming the riot would have happened anyway if the right-wingers hadn’t burnt a Quran?

I'm sorry, but again, are you suggesting that the burning of the Quran took place in a vacuum?

Nothing takes place in a vacuum. That doesn’t mean you get to burn shit and hurt people because someone insulted your religion.

Now, the far-right rally in general, that's another thing. I'm not saying free speech doesn't have limits. But my initial comments were aimed at the guy quoted as saying it was in response to burning the Quran.

[ray245]

Should people feel intimidated in public spaces because of freedom of speech?

Do you doubt that religious people will try to spin any significant public insult to their religion as intimidation if you go down that route?

Sure, some will. But is it worth the trade-off of people feeling intimidated?

[wautd]

I was not aware of these things, and if true then these are all criminal offenses that should be persecuted by the state.
So I can understand that some people will feel intimidated by it, but I'm not convinced that burning a quran in public should be banned or considered a criminal offense.
I'm sure that a lot of Swedes will also feel intimidated when extreme right Islamists are flying the ISIS flag, but that's legal in Sweden too.

Should people feel intimidated in public spaces because of freedom of speech?

I guess not but it's not like it's a clear and objective line to determine at which point people will feel intimidated. Where or how would you draw the line on that? What if some people already feel intimidated by a cartoon or a rainbow flag?
If the line has to be set to appease the loudest screaming fascists, religious or otherwise, you might as well abolish free speech all together. Because at that point nothing will be allowed anymore.

Sure, some will. But is it worth the trade-off of people feeling intimidated?

Is it worth tearing down freedom of speech and expression over it?

[ray245]

I guess not but it's not like it's a clear and objective line to determine at which point people will feel intimidated. Where or how would you draw the line on that? What if some people already feel intimidated by a cartoon or a rainbow flag?
If the line has to be set to appease the loudest screaming fascists, religious or otherwise, you might as well abolish free speech all together. Because at that point nothing will be allowed anymore.

That is true. Which is why there is a need to work out what exactly constitute as hate speech and why legislating on it is so difficult.

Is it worth tearing down freedom of speech and expression over it?

It depends on what the society wants. But also a need to consider the value of free speech and what exactly is its function in society. Freedom of speech is most useful when it is used to challenge existing and established ideas and authority. But without limits, it can be abused and weaponised as a tool of hate. But my general principle towards freedom of speech and criticism has always been to aim it at the people at the top rather than people at the bottom.

Also, I think there is an important effort to understand freedom of speech and criticising of religions like Islam works best when its coming from inside the community than criticism from the outside. Women and LGTBQ members from Muslim communities in Europe using their freedom of speech to critique and question their community and faith is far more helpful at challenging some of the attitudes in the community than a white-European male telling them how they are being mistreated.

[Jub]

I suppose the real question here is should a nation which otherwise treats its citizens justly change itself to benefit outsiders who have chosen to immigrate? My opinion is that if you come to another state it is on you to make the effort to integrate and that so long as the state doesn't provide undue barriers to said integration that their obligation has been met. [Note: This wouldn't apply to refugees where the state must take steps to ensure that they are given the best possible chance at integration.]

[Formless]

I suppose the real question here is should a nation which otherwise treats its citizens justly change itself to benefit outsiders who have chosen to immigrate? My opinion is that if you come to another state it is on you to make the effort to integrate and that so long as the state doesn't provide undue barriers to said integration that their obligation has been met. [Note: This wouldn't apply to refugees where the state must take steps to ensure that they are given the best possible chance at integration.]

You are assuming that the Swedish government has to change anything about its laws in order for these people to fit in, as opposed to Swedish culture, where people feel irrationally threatened by The Other where muslims are concerned. That's the actual problem, that's why riots broke out.

And you guys do realize that if this had happened in the US, where there are no hate speech laws, the guys who burned a Quran still could have been arrested under Incitement to Violence and Incitement to Riot, right? Because they knew burning a Quran would cause a riot, and a riot did in fact break out. Its that simple. If you are intending to cause violence, it doesn't matter who acted violently, you are still responsible for causing it. That's the difference between a legitimate critic of religion, and racist assholes like these. Did they say ANYTHING about Islamic theology? Anything at all? If not, or if their criticisms don't pass a fact test, then its just fucking racism, pure and simple.

[Jub]

You are assuming that the Swedish government has to change anything about its laws in order for these people to fit in, as opposed to Swedish culture, where people feel irrationally threatened by The Other where muslims are concerned. That's the actual problem, that's why riots broke out.

I specified the nation, not merely its government, that would include immigrants respecting cultural norms of their new home. Should it not be expected that you will make every attempt to fit in with the culture of your new home? If not, or if such a burden is conditional, how do you justify this?

To be clear, my position on immigration is that I welcome people to Canada but strongly feel that people who make our country their home should learn one of our official languages and respect our customs. I'm happy to have them build their own communities, churches, listen to their music, etc. so long as their practices aren't antithetical to the views of the community they're integrating into.

[Formless]

Justify what, exactly? Culture isn't sacred, and muslims have no obligation to stop practicing Islam just because they entered another country where that is a minority religion. Yet that is what these dipshits are asking from them when they burn a Quran. There is no other way to interpret that act. Even if it is legal to burn such an artifact, the statement in itself speaks for itself.