This does sound like appeasement. If I buy a book, be it a copy of the Koran, 50 Shades of Gray, or anything else then it’s my property and I should be able to do with it as I wish. If someone else gets offended, that shouldn’t be my problem.
We shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant.
deleted by creator
But didn’t this recent influx of burnings start when an Iranian refugee burned the quaran in protest against the government he fled from? This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with skin color.
Laws shouldn’t be written to appease any religion.
They absolutely shouldn’t but laws occasionally have to be written to prevent racism.
One upside to the crazy rednecks in the US is that a bill like this would likely see a large uptick in Quran burnings.
Are the Danish generally supportive of something like this? I would be pretty upset about a harmless form of protest being banned because some people in another country were mad about it.
I wouldn’t say generally, no.
I read that as “Korean burning” and I was like wow that really got out of hands
Let’s step back and see what this teaches people:
If you threaten violence, and are known to actually commit violence over something stupid, governments will bend to your will.
Is this REALLY the message we want to send? Instead of pandering to these religious clowns, come down hard on anyone who threatens violence - zero tolerance for this shit. Either enter the 21st century and turn your back on ass-backwards caveman thinking, or go back to the the shithole countries that you came from where murdering people over a stupid book is allowed.
Sweden and Denmark love the Saudi money.
Sweden I can get, they need Turkeys approval for NATO membership. Denmark I don’t get.
Fucking assholes and idiots.
It isn’t a slippery slope when you are on it, it is just a slope at that point.
If I don’t like a student’s work, would I be allowed to burn a copy of it in front of their peers? Nope, it would probably get me fired as it would be seen as personal animosity towards a student.
How about the work of another academic? Sketchy ground - I’d have to genuinely hate them to consider their work as worth nothing more than smoke. Then again, I should probably burn a copy of the original anti-vax “paper” to make a point to students about bad studies and how scholars feel about such authors. I suspect my inbox would be filled with anti-vax hate by the end of the day if it reached social media.
Overall, I’d argue that book burning shouldn’t be banned, but also that it isn’t effective. All it does is hand corrupt theocracies the cry of “see, those heathen book burners hate you all - you should purge them in holy fire”. It doesn’t drive change towards a more progressive government, and merely ensures that the rule of dictatorship finds its way to our shores.
It is a protest that defeats itself.
Burning someone’s work would most often just make you seem deranged. But don’t muddy the waters here, the key point is it must be legal. And if someone wants to make it illegal, that’s the rare good reason to actually do it.
On that we agree!
Private sector backlash != state backlash
The USA protects burning and stomping our own flag, as it should in my opinion. Free expression of dissent against a symbol and what it represents to that person.
Same should hold true for other things. Same with art too, “Piss Christ” made a lot of Christians very angry, but it was protected as artistic expression.
If you feel that the only way your message can be received and understood with its full intended impact is to disrespect a sacred/beloved symbol, you should be allowed to do it.
Stomp a flag, piss on a cross, burn a Koran, spit on a relic. If you own the property, and you aren’t tresspassing or directly intimidating somebody, go for it 100%
So they really fell for the boycott
deleted by creator
I suspect that you could burn Korans all winter and suffer no ill effects as long as you didn’t go out of your way to tell people you are doing it.
So what we’re really talking about is being deliberately provocative to a particular immigrant population.
I don’t like religion, any religion but I think that you can’t police what goes on between people’s ears.
Also, I don’t like racists pretending it’s about the religion when it’s about the skin colour.
deleted by creator
Come again, boss?
I don’t have the full story on what the hell is going on with the Qur’an, but I personally think it’s the right thing to do to stop people from being able to burn holy texts as I not only oppose book burnings in general but it’s disrespectful to burn a holy book as it is- to me at least- a sign you do not respect that culture the book comes from.
I’m definitely not religious and really don’t care if you are or aren’t, but it’s also really trashy in my opinion when you specifically do it in front of practicers of that religion or their holy site.
I can’t believe people are arguing for burning books here like medieval morons. Torah, Quran, Bible, Encyclopedia, doesn’t matter. If it incites violence and civil unrest, it should be controlled and people should be discouraged from it. This is no different than literally any other law. Wtf?
“The government should control all of our actions to prevent civil unrest, it’s for the greater good!”
Can people stop trying to reduce the real world to absurd black and white positions??
Like you could use this smooth brained argument to the extreme to protest literally any law ever.
Good, any law should be able to be scrutinized and protested by the citizens the law affects.
“The government should allow me to shoot people in the face, because otherwise it’s stepping on my personal freedoms”
Stop trying to justify xenophobia and/or dislike for religion.
Don’t be absurd. In what way are you impairing anyone else’s rights by destroying your own property?
This isn’t about personal property. It’s about curbing and stopping acts that cause civil unrest.
Stop trying to guise this as some personal property/rights infringement non-sense.
The fact that people are arguing for it here just shows that some of these folks here don’t really believe in equal rights and a just society. If you’re religious and/or Muslim, and a law introduced to protect your sentiments, then it is “unfair”.
Some people believe that women should be under the supervision of a man at all times. Not doing so might incite civil unrest. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at no appeasements because unless people have it their they will keep complaining. Teaching them that outrage gets results is a moral hazard.
People can chose to believe whatever they want. It’s the actions and the consequences that matter in a society. If burning a book becomes an act of inciting violence, then it should be reviewed, discussed and a law should come out of it as a consequence which discourages such an act. That’s how civilized societies should work which deem equality as a fundamental right for everyone.
Your hypothetical scenario is just that and we can spend days going back and forth. We are talking about a real problem here.
Ok so in your views the consequences of appeasement are hypothetical. And we should continuously consider what needs to be changed and empower those who commit violence to effect more changes to suit their beliefs.
In reality the consequences can be more severe than whatever you sought to prevent
I said what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to pick apart my words in an attempt to forge an argument which has no merit.
I am content with showing to others how well meaning but shortsighted (due to arrogance or incompetence) policies like what you propose are extremely dangerous
Edit : and to be clear I didn’t “pick apart your words” that is a very lazy way to dismiss an argument without confronting it. It’s similar to how you advocate for a policy but dismiss the potential negative effects. it’s delusional.
So if I cause enough of a problem I can bend the will of the government.
I’m going to create a religion that gets offended that you exist, and we’ll riot until that’s illegal then?
Do you really think those 2 positions are equivalent?
Like the difference between somebody being racist and somebody being offended by an action designed to offend them? Also plenty of religions don’t like certain groups and protest about them but we don’t give in because the world is not black and white like that. Conceding that maybe allowing people to burn religious texts of the biggest religions in the world for the sole purpose of offending those people is not a productive thing to allow in a modern society does not mean we must then concede every demand any religious body makes.
If there’s a group of people with a legitimate concern, a government should hear you out and make an assessment.
You as a single person can choose to do whatever you want within reason and what’s permitted by law.
You can continue to misconstrue this further however you like, but burning books is barbaric. We’re past that point as civilized society. But feel free to continue to argue for it behind the veneer of “freedom” or whatever else you can come up with.
Burning individual instances of a book for artistic or political purposes, or just because you want to, is not barbaric.
Burning all copies of a book to remove it from circulation and prevent the spread of those ideas is barbaric.
Loud concerts are actual form of artistic expression yet there are laws in some cities that prevent loud music past 9/10pm.
Why? Because it bothers people and interferes with their lives. This is no different.
Also, I find it amusing that you think burning a book is an “artistic expression”. What’s next? Taking a shit is an artistic expression?
People do that too.
Loud concerts are about proximity. I’d definitely say no burning a Bible in front of a church. But if you can be easily ignored by the offended party, then you shouldn’t be stopped.
burning books is barbaric
Yeah should be punished by stoning or something…
Context and words must be hard for you. Sorry to heat that. Would you like a tissue or a shoulder to cry on?
The violence is already there, this just somehow compels it to show it.
