A thread to talk about news and politics affecting Europe as a whole, rather than just politics within specific European countries.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
As with other OTC threads, off-topic posts may be thumped or edited by the moderators.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jan 9th 2024 at 3:24:05 PM
Not necessarily for all books . Someone hypothetically say, burning the mein kampf to protest against fascism or to take a real life example, the Indian dalit activist Ambedkar publicly burning the Manusmriti to protest against casteism in Indian society would not really be hate speech in my opinion. The latter is even remembered as Manusmriti dahan divas (Manusmriti Burning day) by many dalit orgs and groups.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar
Ofcourse the burning being done by a dalit activist who personally faced untouchability and casteism doing this (instead of some completely unrelated person) is also likely what makes it a symbolic expression against casteism and related values instead of plain racism and bigotry driven hate speech.
Burning the Quran in France doesn't seem to be explicitly illegal (we don't have specific laws about that).
However, what I gather from a quick search on the internet is that some French people have already been punished for such things, because what they did was deemed an appeal to discrimation against people based on their nationality, race or religion.
He has to say this, since his voting base is made up of many racist people. But hate speech and appeal to violence against groups of people are illegal already. I don't think we should have laws against blasphemy, but people who burn the Quran in public will be punished if what they do promotes violence against Muslim people.
Edited by gropcbf on Dec 10th 2023 at 8:55:56 PM
Burning a holy book isn't violence. The problem is that there are jerks who do it to stir the pot, and an expectation among many Muslim countries that we stop this practice even when it is covered by freedom of speech.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
Hate speech is technically not violence either, but it should be outlawed because it causes social unrest without any benefit in return.
Freedom of speech, was made so that the people who have legitimate opinions or criticisms of the political, social or religious authorities can express them and help society move in the right direction.
Trolls, racists and a-holes were not intended for the "freedom of speech" principle, they are an unwanted by-product of it, in the same way that exhaust smoke is a secondary by-product of cars and not a desired result.
If we can remove exhaust smoke while still having cars, then we go for it, and if we can still limit hate speech without affecting other forms of freedom, then that is the thing to do, morally and pragmatically.
Edited by jawal on Dec 10th 2023 at 9:11:51 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurtOr incitement to hatred, as in Germany. But Switzerland doesn't have such a law, seems like. We only have a statute about racism and I don't remember if it might apply in such a case.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI think incitement to hatred is covered under Article 261bis of the Swiss criminal code.
whoever publicly disseminates ideologies that aim at systematically disparaging or slandering individuals or groups,
whoever organises, promotes or participates in propaganda activities with one of the above-mentioned aims,
whoever publicly disparages or discriminates individuals or groups due to their race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation in a way that robs them of their dignity, orally or in writing, through pictures, gestures, physical aggression or in other ways, or denies, grossly trivialises or seeks to justify a genocide or other crimes against humanity for one of the above-mentioned reasons,
whoever refuses a publicly offered service to an individual or a group due to their race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation
shall be punished by a prison sentence of up to three years or a monetary penalty.
You just need to argue successfully that burning religious texts in front of places of worship or embassies is covered by the above.
Edited by jawal on Dec 10th 2023 at 10:34:01 AM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurtBurning a Quran/Bible/any holy scripture you have laying around at home, to get a fire starter, or the like, without really paying much attention to it: Fine, even if a bit tasteless (don't burn books); shouldn't be illegal.
Burning a Quran in public as an islamophobic display trying to enact a response from a religious minority: Dick move, trying to stir up shit, that ought to be the punible part.
Attacking symbols of minorities is the issue.
President Macron also said “I heard you talking shit like you thought I wouldn’t hear”.
O.K, he didn’t actually say that but the principle of that statement applies: freedom of speech ain’t the freedom from people going “what the hell, dude”.
Also, going to have to second Diana’s post: how is it not “violence”? Is violence being defined as strictly physical harm? Are death threats not a form of violence? Is burning a cross on a black person’s lawn but not touching them otherwise not violence?
Yeah, as a Muslim (and as a American, a citizen of a country that has significant problems with understanding the limits of “free speech” and “hate speech”), gathering up Qurans (my phone autocorrected that to “Quarians”, for some reason) to burn in a public pile for discernible impact is a pretty easily identifiable hate crime.
And I would be going “What in the name of Allah is wrong with you” if somebody tried to do the same with Bibles or Torahs. I agree with Eri about the “symbols of minorities” issue but even for majorities, it’s just…crude and misdirected.
Trans rights are human rights. TV Tropes is not a place for bigotry, cruelty, or dickishness, no matter who or their position.Ah, my bad, I was mostly keeping in mind the Spanish issue of "insults to the crown" being a crime, and people being prosecuted for burning pictures of the king, or making jokes in satirical media; hence the minority angle to focus on protecting those in a disadvantageous position. But yeah, fully getting your point.
I think the problem here is that religion occupies a place across the spectrum of power.
Yes, it is true that there are aspects of religion (figures, institutions) that have power in society, but just as much there are religions who are out of the dynamic of power (minority religions) or, because intersectionality is also a thing, people who despite being part of the majority religion are also out of positions of power, broadly speaking this is the situation for people with low resources.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.
To name one example if someone is really cold, needs to start a fire to stave off frostbite or hypothermia, and it's the only kindling available.
That's a very improbable scenario admittedly, but really burning a religious text in private cannot ever be considered hate speech since there's no speech component.
The law that was approved by the Folketing, and started this topic makes it a crime to:
So no one will be punished for burning a book by accident in his own house, unless said person posts a video of the burning on YouTube or something.
Edited by jawal on Dec 10th 2023 at 12:49:50 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurtDoes Denmark define religion in a way that includes other forms of belief? U.K. law treats “philosophical belief” as equal to religion and under the same protections, which under recent rulings I believe also includes transphobia as a protected belief.
There’s also the fact that while this may be aimed at protecting religious minorities from majority oppression, it does remove a form of protest from people oppressed by religious groups. While I think there are better ways to protest I’m not sure I’m comfortable saying that LGBT+ people can’t burn a Bible in protest of Christian groups seeking to destroy their lives.
Edited by Silasw on Dec 10th 2023 at 12:50:13 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
I was actually thinking of the same case but substituting the Westboro Baptist Church. Burning a Bible in protest, personally…well, I wouldn’t tell them either but for the sake of argument.
Burning a pastiche or something representing one of the signs that they held up at the funerals of gay soldiers? That’s pretty throughly targeted at a loathsome activity associated with that RELIGIOUS GROUP, not the religion. I think that could be a good spitball?
Edited by fredhot16 on Dec 10th 2023 at 5:03:22 AM
Trans rights are human rights. TV Tropes is not a place for bigotry, cruelty, or dickishness, no matter who or their position.I disagree with that law on the grounds that I think giving religions preferential treatment in comparison to other ideologies breaks democracy's principles.
Everyone is free to follow their religions, and I think burning Qurans is unnecessarily disrespectful and accomplishes nothing. However, just as you can harshly and irreverently criticize communism, liberalism or state institutions (even by burning flags or Marx's books, for example) religions don't get exempt from that just because their followers claim their doctrine comes from gods and not from humans. They shouldn't get to make everyone else, who don't believe their religion, to play by their own rules, distinct from other political and philosophical movements.
There has been a long fight in democratic countries to repel blasphemy and religious' sentiments offenses from law (and, in some cases like Spain, still here and making trouble). I don't like those reentering law codes through the backdoor, even if they do it with good intentions.
Into the UnknownEveryone is free to follow their religions, and I think burning Qurans is unnecessarily disrespectful and accomplishes nothing. However, just as you can harshly and irreverently criticize communism, liberalism or state institutions (even by burning flags or Marx's books, for example) religions don't get exempt from that just because their followers claim their doctrine comes from gods and not from humans. They shouldn't get to make everyone else, who don't believe their religion, to play by their own rules, distinct from other political and philosophical movements.
Technically, Democracy just means the rule of the majority or government by the people.
Maybe you mean Secularism as in the separation of religion and state?
.................
The Danish law simply prohibits clear acts meant to insult or provoke religious minorities, without any benefit for society beyond satisfying bigoted trolls.
Nobody is preventing you from criticizing any religion you want or forcing you to follow it
...................
The comparison to communism and Marx is not valid, and religion and political philosophies. are not the same thing.
With that said, I do think that going in public to burn Marx books is stupid, and not a valid criticism, and if I do it just to insult peaceful people who never hurt me, then I am being a dick.
..................
The law was not forced by a single individual, it was approved by 94 elected representatives of the Danish people (out of 179), all in accordance with the principles of democracy.
Edited by jawal on Dec 11th 2023 at 9:02:46 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt

Public book burnings are pretty much always hate speech or censorship, regardless of the contents of the books.