Hundreds of intellectuals and artists are concerned about its implications for freedom of expression, while police, lawyers, and prosecutors consider it too imprecise.
Tbh, I kind of think it should be. Not de facto illegal, like if you accidentally burn it somehow, but if you intentionally do it to piss people off then that intention isn’t exactly right itself. If you’re putting on a public display purely to incite and antagonise people by destroying things they hold dear, then you’re not merely exercising your freedoms but actively seeking to harm others.
It’s all very grey area though, and any punishment should reflect that the harm is not physical and relatively low. This law almost definitely goes too far.
If i went into the street and condemned people for whatever choices they make, without harassing them, that would be legal. You’re not harming anyone by burning a book and you wouldn’t hurt anyone either by just pissing them off. The problem is a very vocal part of the world have been brainwashed to incite violence when this specific area of their feelings get hurt.
It’s only made a gray area because you can’t tell them that they can in fact just learn to ignore it and practice their religion in peace and expect it to work. Their beliefs are not built upon letting others express their views freely if they react with violence when someone burns their printed holy word. Their actions would be justified if there was only one copy or a building was burnt down, but it’s a worthless material thing, and the disrespect it signifies will not go away just because you disallow people to express it.
Sorry, long rant to say I actually agree that this law goes too far.
If you went to the streets with posters or speeches that talk about how you believe the teachings or religious organizations to be wrong that is perfectly legal.
If you cannot think of civilized ways to express critique and opposition, than it is your problem and not that of the people that rightfully fear the burning of symbols to escalate into violanece against the people, like it did many times in history.
If you think burning religious books in public should be legal you also think that burning a Torah in a former concentration camp, or in front of a synagouge should be legal. If these ideas make you uncomfy, then you should ask yourself, why you want muslims to be treated differently from other religions.
Your last point is wrong and I don’t think you should assume those are my views. Behavior in concentration camps should obviously be policed, because it’s significant and not recreatable and should therefore be preserved as a place for the people it is significant to. A privately owned printed book is not, so you should be able to attempt to piss other people off by burning it, if that is your perogative. If we’re getting specific, I don’t think you should be allowed to start a fire anywhere near buildings you don’t own, unless it’s to light a cigarette or w\e
Other than that, I agree you should find a civilized way to express your beliefs, but we shouldn’t, for good reasons, police the way people express themselves. A law like this sets a precedent for religious organizations; that they can have their way if they (re)act violently. It will lead to more violence down the road so we need a better solution.
A privately owned printed book is not, so you should be able to attempt to piss other people off by burning it, if that is your perogative.
How is it your right to upset people? Freedom of speech is for speech towards the government, not everyone else. It isn’t about what you’re doing to the government, but to other citizens. You do not have a right to hurt or upset people, be it physical or non-physical.
Other than that, I agree you should find a civilized way to express your beliefs, but we shouldn’t, for good reasons, police the way people express thenselves. A law like this sets a precedent for religious organizations; that they can have their way if they (re)act violently. It will lead to more violence down the road so we need a better solution.
We shouldn’t police peoples’ expressions, but we should police their harmful actions against other people.
The law in this article is wrong, absolutely. It goes way too far and protects the symbol, which like you say the religion could then expand their symbols to cover more things. I’m saying the symbol shouldn’t be protected, however it would be reasonable for the law to recognise the harmful intent against others and police that.
So, if you were to privately burn books or destroy religious symbols, that would be fine. However if you did it in public in front of religious people, then that could only reasonably be done with intent to cause harm, so it would be illegal.
We do not agree on what constitutes harm. I believe you should be free to try to upset others by expressing your views any way you want as long as it doesn’t harm them. Getting upset is not getting harmed.
I would say targetting individuals when trying to upset them should be policed, however this is not about individuals but a large group.
If you, say, bankrupted someone’s company so they had to sell all their possessions and then went up to them and burned the Quran they got from their now dead father as a present as a child or that had been in their family for generations right in front of them, that would be something that should be illegal as targetted harassment.
However here we are talking about criticism of a religion by burning a symbol of the religion, not one particular person’s possessions.
But then you could always pretend to be offended by something to get it banned. I understand that by your definition it would only include things done to spite other people but the line is thin. And it would create a dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression.
I might become offended by people wearing a tie. If it becomes well-known, should we ban ties?
I agree that in an ideal world, people shouldn’t be assholes and burn Qur’ans just to antagonise people. But it should also be clear to the offended people, that this actually harms no one. It’s like burning a dictionary. It’s idiotic but harmless. If you expect to live in an open society, you have to realise that the book of your religion is just an object.
What I’m getting at is not the victim’s view of it, but the perpetrator’s intent. If you can prove that harmful intent, then there would be a crime. Granted, that would be incredibly easy to subvert and get around, and kind of rightly so - it can only be a relatively low level of non-physical harm.
But it is still harm, in the form of causing emotional distress. People aren’t burning Qurans because they feel oppressed by Qurans or what they represent, they’re not disposing of possessions they no longer want, they’re doing it to upset Muslims. Burning a dictionary isn’t the same, a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.
a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.
That is a ridiculous comparison. The copy of the book they are burning represents no real unfulfilled need for the believer like the food does for the starving child.
though i disagree with their sentiment, i sort get their example. it is not about practical need, but more of the object’s perceived value. the qran is valuable to its believer as much as food is to the starving. that was not a ridiculous comparison.
There are good reasons not to go by perceived anything when it comes to offense though. Offending people is very much not something that can be avoided for everyone simultaneously, unlike needs and desires in the real world like food, water,… which are much more predictable and much less incompatible.
Tbh, I kind of think it should be. Not de facto illegal, like if you accidentally burn it somehow, but if you intentionally do it to piss people off then that intention isn’t exactly right itself. If you’re putting on a public display purely to incite and antagonise people by destroying things they hold dear, then you’re not merely exercising your freedoms but actively seeking to harm others.
It’s all very grey area though, and any punishment should reflect that the harm is not physical and relatively low. This law almost definitely goes too far.
If i went into the street and condemned people for whatever choices they make, without harassing them, that would be legal. You’re not harming anyone by burning a book and you wouldn’t hurt anyone either by just pissing them off. The problem is a very vocal part of the world have been brainwashed to incite violence when this specific area of their feelings get hurt.
It’s only made a gray area because you can’t tell them that they can in fact just learn to ignore it and practice their religion in peace and expect it to work. Their beliefs are not built upon letting others express their views freely if they react with violence when someone burns their printed holy word. Their actions would be justified if there was only one copy or a building was burnt down, but it’s a worthless material thing, and the disrespect it signifies will not go away just because you disallow people to express it.
Sorry, long rant to say I actually agree that this law goes too far.
If you went to the streets with posters or speeches that talk about how you believe the teachings or religious organizations to be wrong that is perfectly legal.
If you cannot think of civilized ways to express critique and opposition, than it is your problem and not that of the people that rightfully fear the burning of symbols to escalate into violanece against the people, like it did many times in history.
If you think burning religious books in public should be legal you also think that burning a Torah in a former concentration camp, or in front of a synagouge should be legal. If these ideas make you uncomfy, then you should ask yourself, why you want muslims to be treated differently from other religions.
Your last point is wrong and I don’t think you should assume those are my views. Behavior in concentration camps should obviously be policed, because it’s significant and not recreatable and should therefore be preserved as a place for the people it is significant to. A privately owned printed book is not, so you should be able to attempt to piss other people off by burning it, if that is your perogative. If we’re getting specific, I don’t think you should be allowed to start a fire anywhere near buildings you don’t own, unless it’s to light a cigarette or w\e
Other than that, I agree you should find a civilized way to express your beliefs, but we shouldn’t, for good reasons, police the way people express themselves. A law like this sets a precedent for religious organizations; that they can have their way if they (re)act violently. It will lead to more violence down the road so we need a better solution.
How is it your right to upset people? Freedom of speech is for speech towards the government, not everyone else. It isn’t about what you’re doing to the government, but to other citizens. You do not have a right to hurt or upset people, be it physical or non-physical.
We shouldn’t police peoples’ expressions, but we should police their harmful actions against other people.
The law in this article is wrong, absolutely. It goes way too far and protects the symbol, which like you say the religion could then expand their symbols to cover more things. I’m saying the symbol shouldn’t be protected, however it would be reasonable for the law to recognise the harmful intent against others and police that.
So, if you were to privately burn books or destroy religious symbols, that would be fine. However if you did it in public in front of religious people, then that could only reasonably be done with intent to cause harm, so it would be illegal.
We do not agree on what constitutes harm. I believe you should be free to try to upset others by expressing your views any way you want as long as it doesn’t harm them. Getting upset is not getting harmed.
I would say targetting individuals when trying to upset them should be policed, however this is not about individuals but a large group.
If you, say, bankrupted someone’s company so they had to sell all their possessions and then went up to them and burned the Quran they got from their now dead father as a present as a child or that had been in their family for generations right in front of them, that would be something that should be illegal as targetted harassment.
However here we are talking about criticism of a religion by burning a symbol of the religion, not one particular person’s possessions.
But then you could always pretend to be offended by something to get it banned. I understand that by your definition it would only include things done to spite other people but the line is thin. And it would create a dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression.
I might become offended by people wearing a tie. If it becomes well-known, should we ban ties?
I agree that in an ideal world, people shouldn’t be assholes and burn Qur’ans just to antagonise people. But it should also be clear to the offended people, that this actually harms no one. It’s like burning a dictionary. It’s idiotic but harmless. If you expect to live in an open society, you have to realise that the book of your religion is just an object.
What I’m getting at is not the victim’s view of it, but the perpetrator’s intent. If you can prove that harmful intent, then there would be a crime. Granted, that would be incredibly easy to subvert and get around, and kind of rightly so - it can only be a relatively low level of non-physical harm.
But it is still harm, in the form of causing emotional distress. People aren’t burning Qurans because they feel oppressed by Qurans or what they represent, they’re not disposing of possessions they no longer want, they’re doing it to upset Muslims. Burning a dictionary isn’t the same, a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.
That is a ridiculous comparison. The copy of the book they are burning represents no real unfulfilled need for the believer like the food does for the starving child.
though i disagree with their sentiment, i sort get their example. it is not about practical need, but more of the object’s perceived value. the qran is valuable to its believer as much as food is to the starving. that was not a ridiculous comparison.
There are good reasons not to go by perceived anything when it comes to offense though. Offending people is very much not something that can be avoided for everyone simultaneously, unlike needs and desires in the real world like food, water,… which are much more predictable and much less incompatible.