They should have banned book burning for political reason. Like this they wouldn’t have created a blasphemy law.
Meh, doesn’t sound much better. Could that not make this law even more authoritarian? What counts as political?
I am against the burning of books disguised as freedom of speech.
-
It is bad for the environment. Too much co2 production in the process. If you must destroy books, recycle them!
-
The Nazis did this very popularly. I always get reminded of that, when people burn books.
-
I feel it is a very marginal impact into freedom of speech. I can not remember a single occasion where I had to burn a book to be able to articulate my thoughts.
-
I think most countries ban burning houses, even if it is infringing the freedom of speech. Why should it be different with books?
- It is bad for the environment. Too much co2 production in the process. If you must destroy books, recycle them!
The CO2 produced by this is extremely marginal. Some single occasions of this won’t have significant impact. Despite that: books tend to rot after a while, thereby releasing the stored CO2 anyway.
- The Nazis did this very popularly. I always get reminded of that, when people burn books.
The Christians also burned books on multiple occasions. As did the communist revolution under Mao Zedong and a bunch of other lunatics throughout history. If we should agree that burning books (as a form of protest) is a bad thing, then include all books and not just some religious ones.
I agree with your third point. However, it’s a very visual and “spectacular” (meaning it draws attention) way of protest.
- I think most countries ban burning houses, even if it is infringing the freedom of speech. Why should it be different with books?
Burning houses does significantly more damage and poses high risks of further collateral damage than burning a book. Moreover, houses usually don’t carry and spread ideologic views.
Houses are not a medium to spread information. A book is , it means something so it is speech. Just like burning the US flag is allow because the first amendment allow us to judge and say fuck to our government.
This is just wrong. Why is it allowed to burn other books but not religious books? Denmark is a secular state. Bowing to the religious ideas of people is a step in the wrong direction. People should care less for religions and be less religious. There are no “holy books” or holy anything.
This is sad and unfortunate - by passing this law Denmark just announced to the world that threats of violence are a valid and effective strategy, ans that they do in fact negotiate with terrorists…
People trying to incite violence succeeded, but sure, let’s put all blame on the assholes whose behavior was already a crime.
There’s no shortage of ways to talk shit about a religion that do not threaten the lives of complete strangers.
Come on, this is not about religion. This is about European superiority and the lack of respect of other cultures.
And trying to humiliate the minority of people with darker skin color by showing them that they don’t matter.
And part of that minority’s resistance against the humiliation marginalization by majority society.
Just to show who’s the aggressor in this case, a little six year old video: https://youtu.be/e7mqfmZS5xM?si=xTMrTNBXuXr2UDnO
I hope the people on Denmark protest against this. I understand it is a sacred book for some people but the state and religion should be separate.
and they are. But inciting hatred by public book burnings has no place in a secular society.
Inciting hatred against anyone burning a fucking book has no place in a secular society.
You are aware of the book burnings by the Nazis and the islamist terror group Boko Haram? I think your
anyone burning a fucking book
is not as absolute as you make it to be.
