Yes if it’s about the principle then you’re absolutely right we’re surrendering. But in practice I think this is more like a hostage negotiation. If someone threatens to kill someone because it doesn’t go their way you don’t just ignore them, you try to negotiate with them, comprise and find a solution. I think that’s exactly what the government does here and what anyone should be doing.
I think it’s a good idea. No one gets anything from publicly burning a book other than maybe demonstrate some kind of opinion?
And it’s a good and easy way to prevent terrorists bombing themselves into heaven in some danish city.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with burning the quran but if it helps to reduce terrorism I am all for it.
Isn’t this just surrendering to terrorism? Isn’t it bad that forms of free speech get banned because others threatens to kill?
Yes if it’s about the principle then you’re absolutely right we’re surrendering. But in practice I think this is more like a hostage negotiation. If someone threatens to kill someone because it doesn’t go their way you don’t just ignore them, you try to negotiate with them, comprise and find a solution. I think that’s exactly what the government does here and what anyone should be doing.
So governments should negotiate the demands of terrorists? What?