- cross-posted to:
- europe
- europe@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- europe
- europe@lemmy.ml
Summary
A Swedish court sentenced far-right activist Rasmus Paludan to four months in jail for inciting hatred against Muslims after he burned a Quran at two protests in Malmo in 2022.
The court ruled that Paludan’s remarks and actions went beyond permissible criticism of Islam, aiming instead to insult and defame Muslims, Arabs, and Africans. Paludan, a dual citizen of Sweden and Denmark, plans to appeal the verdict.
His Quran burnings previously strained Sweden’s relations with Turkey, complicating Sweden’s bid to join NATO.
Not familiar with the guy himself who maybe does deserve criticism and prison, but about the Quran burning, is it genuinely fair to sentence someone to prison for that? Is it equivalent to burning the cross? The Swedish flag? I might be mission a broader context, but I don’t feel like someone burning my symbol or flag should be punished with prison. Am I alone? I would hate it, don’t get me wrong, but I still feel it goes in freedom of expression.
I’m probably repeating what everyone else said, but let me put it this way: If I, an Egyptian, go to a Christian neighborhood and burn the cross while saying all Christians should be deported, that’d probably he hate speech. If I went to a Jewish neighborhood (back when those existed here) and did the same, I’d be straight up calling for a pogrom. That’s what you’re looking at here.
If my understanding is correct he isn’t being punished for the Quran burning alone. It’s what he’s been saying while also burning the Quran.
A more similar example would be burning a flag while saying something along the lines of “All immigrants from X country are terrible people and we should use all possible means to force them out of the country”, with a strong “won’t someone rid me of this troublesome priest” connotation.
Essentially, burning a symbol would be ok in an isolated sense. Inciting hatred and violence, and using the burning of symbols to aid you in delivering that message is not.
I see, so there is indeed a broader context to the burning alone, it was also with additional verbal hatred and then possibly the location, and the overall intention. I think this makes it clearer. Thanks
No, it’s definitely not. You have to look at the social context of the act, not just the act itself.
To use the most obvious examples, burning an american flag in protest of the vietnam war is clearly an expression of political speech, whereas burning a cross on the lawn of an african-american family’s house is an incitement to violence.
A fascist burning the koran is clearly an incitement to violence and hatred, and not legitimate political speech worth protecting.
I would elaborate a bit more, and I think you have a good analogy with “burning a cross in a black family’s yard”.
Just like burning a cross to protest the church is different from burning it in someone’s yard to threaten them, burning a Quran in the context of protesting against (for example) the Iranian regime is different from burning the same Quran while simultaneously encouraging violence towards Muslims.
If you were to protest the Iranian regime, you should use a flag of the current regime. Burning Quran to protest one specific Muslim country is like burning Torah to protest Israel. The symbol is specific to the entire religion and not some country or administration or so. So it is always an attack on the religion as a whole.
Also Islam and (afaik) Judaism don’t have a central religious authority like the catholic church does. So attacking the religion to criticize a certain institution works even less.
I used Iran as an example because they specifically have a religious leadership that uses exactly the Quran to justify their laws.
There are plenty of non-Muslim Iranians that have burned Qurans in anti-regime protests, specifically to separate the religious regime (symbolised by the Quran in that context) from the country and its culture as a whole. That is: They are specifically protesting the religious regime, and therefore don’t burn the flag, which they don’t associate with the regime.
which is a bit ironic, as the flag reads “Allah” in a stylized version.
It is probably most equivalent to burning a cross on the lawn of a black family in the south.
There’s freedom of expression, but there’s also incitement.
very much literally burning things on the lawn of black families. He came all the way from Denmark to go into poorer neighborhoods in Sweden and say hateful things about the black and brown people there.
he crossed the line of freedom of expression a long time ago. I’m from Denmark just like he is, and I can say he spurred hatred far beyond what freedom of expression should allow. What he does is harassment.
No one is making a compelling argument by burning anything.
The only purpose of the burning is to incite negative reaction.
No different than those moron’s that throw shit on art. Their message is lost in the noise of being an asshole.
If dude was burning a Quran in their own back yard because they needed a fire starter for their campfire, no one would give a shit.
It’s not the burning that’s the crime, it’s the being an asshole in public and trying to incite violence.
I’m not sure why American’s can’t differentiate freedom of speech/expression without the need to be an asshole about it.
Why does “freedom of expression” always mean “let’s hear the Nazi out” in practice?
Not all flammable things are the same. The flag and cross are literal symbols of State power in Sweden, the Quran is a book that’s only precious to an oppressed minority.
I wanna stress that the people sentencing this man to jail are not the same as the people offended by the burning. This power dynamic is important.
https://youtu.be/wKCeESg9Ev8