You can still burn the Quran at home according to the law.

Thats a very thin defence. The point is that private citizens should be allowed to burn their own belongings as a form of protest/expression. That’s effectively been banned now.

You’re not allowed to be naked in public. Doesn’t matter if you want to protest jeans. You can’t be naked.

You’re not allowed to take a shit on the curb outside of whatever you want to protest either.

You’re not allowed to burn flags of forgein nations.

plenty of expressions that can be used to protest are banned. What’s so different here? You can still burn as many books as you want in your own backyard. You just can’t do it at the town square.

And as a final note. It’s a proposition. It hasn’t been voted on. How about you save your outrage until they’ve actually decided on what to do?

Noone is talking about indecent exposure or defecating in public, we’re taking about burning your own possession.

I’d also argue a private citizen should be allowed to burn any flag they want. It’s the same thing as with books.

you know in most places it is illegal to start any fire in public? You are not allowed to start a campfire on a public plaza or barbeque in most parks already. Why should there be a specific exception for burning things to incite hatred and violence against people?

All of that is fine. Limit where you can burn something, limit the toxicity of the item burned, but do not limit burning things based on “offense”.

You need to see the difference between limiting something because it’s dangerous vs causing offense. That is a dangerous road no democratic government should go down.

Inciting violence in public by burning symbols of a minority group is a threat to democracy and should be prohibited. Take it from a German, we have experience with escalating hatred and because of that we also have proper laws against hate speech now.

Burning a religious book is a form of hate speech and serves only to incite hate.

Point is. There are plenty of things we can’t do.

What purpose does a public book burning serve beyond provoking and insulting?

That’s why it’s not allowed to burn forgein flags. It’s just a means to insult a group of people in public.

Now, I’m not for a ban on book burning, religious or otherwise. If you have the permit go nuts. But the arguments people present are just really really bad.

The point is, you brining up things we can’t do outside of the burning symbols discussion is irrelevant. We’re not allowed to slap people, therefore we should not be allowed to criticize the government simply does not follow.

We’re talking about having the right to burn your OWN possessions. The government should not be in the business of deciding what is offensive or isn’t. It’s a slippery slope that can’t end well.

You can burn your own things in private, just as much as you can be naked in private, jack off to furry porn, do drugs or worship a Hitler statue in private. But you cannot and shouldn’t do so in public.

You just can’t do it as a form of protest, which should be protected under free speech

Hate speech is not protected speech and people advocating for hate speech as “freeze peaches” usually want to abolish the actual freedom of speech

Is it “hate speech” when people are protesting against an oppressive, evil ideology? Would it still be hate speech if someone burned a Bible?

it depends on the form of protest and yes burning the bible in public is hate speech and not a constructive criticism of christianity or the churches, were i’d be happy to join in as there is a lot to criticise. But that criticism can and should be voiced without burning bibles.

Should criticism be able to be voiced without burning literature? Yes. Do I think climate activists should be able to be heard without disrupting people’s commutes by blocking traffic? Yes.

Unfortunately, sometimes activists are ignored without an unusual act of protest, and protests should not be considered hate speech unless they’re directly calling for violence towards a group. I don’t think burning a book falls under that category.

With all that being said, the government should not be responsible for deciding what a person can or cannot do unless they’re actively hurting another person.

Climate protests have a specific goal in changing policies and economic practicises.

Burning a Quran has no specific target. It targets muslims as a group entirely. And there is also no goal, no transformation, nothing better to strife for, in it. It is just hate of islam and muslim people. The only target could be to abolish the religion as a whole and ban people from practicising it. that is nothing but persecution. And you cannot argue that the people behind it would want anything less, as they are attacking the key symbol of that religion. Or as a methaphor, you don’t slap someone on the wrist by stabbing their heart.

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

Danish government will introduce new law to ban burning the Quran(www.euronews.com)

Europe

!europe@feddit.de

Rules

Community stats

Community moderators