An Iraqi man who carried out several Quran burnings in Sweden has been killed

[email protected]

Well that checks out.

[email protected]

This is, as a matter of fact, incorrect. There is only one law regarding what in english might be called "hate speech". It refers to "agitation against a population group", and is the only exception to freedom of expression relevant in this context, mentioned in "brottsbalken", our criminal law.

Brottsbalken, Kap. 16, 8 § Den som i ett uttalande eller i ett annat meddelande som sprids uppmanar till våld mot, hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för en folkgrupp, en annan sådan grupp av personer eller en enskild i någon av dessa grupper med anspelning på ras, hudfärg, nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse, sexuell läggning eller könsöverskridande identitet eller uttryck, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två år.

Criticism of religion however is raised in other, more important parts of law, namely the Swedish form of Government (our constitution). It is there, specifically and repeatedly, mentioned as a kind of speech and expression that is protected. As such, in the case of Salwan Momika it'd have been necessary to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended to target muslims by burning quran books, rather than (as he himself claimed) to openly criticize islam. Nobody has as of the posting of this comment been deemed guilty of agitation for burning any religious texts in Sweden under the current law.

This is part of why the trial of him and his companion ended up taking so long. It was one of the first high-profile cases of its kind and likely to set precedent on the topic. As such, I consider his assassination on the night before the verdict of his trial to be not only a barbaric act of violence, but also an explicit attack on the Swedish legal system, our constitution and our freedom of expression.

[email protected]

I'm not for the death penalty or killing people generally (very rare exceptions, maybe).

That said, he did it to rile up millions of people with hate speech (for them it is I bet), so like don't do that or you might face consequences.

Free speech isn't about the right to hate speeching. What a douchebag.

[email protected]

He did it to incite hate. No sane person care about the paper.

I guess if you burn the american flag in Texas, screaming and complaining loudly about"freedom of speech", people will get annoyed, but 20 years ago it was illegal to do so.

[email protected]

[email protected]

I'm an American mechanical engineer that's been considering working and living in Sweden for a long time, with recent events pushing me to pursue it with more vigor. Do you know of any culture/law/history primers that may be accessible for an English speaker? Or similar subject but in Swedish with children's book-style vocab/grammar? Cultural integration for kindergartners would be excellent. I'd just like to not make a fool of myself!

[email protected]

I don't think we should consider blasphemy as hate speech. Or do you want to be required to follow the rules of all religions because they are all offended by it?

[email protected]

I have mixed thoughts on it really, like you should be allowed to do it but its just pointless and stupid so why the fuck would you?

[email protected]

It wasn't the blasphemy that was hate speech, it was the whole rhing riling them up ffs.

[email protected]

To me, it's more about the goal he was trying to achieve. He clearly did it to taunt and insult. In that context, I can see how this should be a punishable offense (not death though).

It would be a similar thing if you had learned that the prime minister of Sweden likes to create art at home. Then buying one of his art pieces and burn it in front of his house. Sure, burning art is not a punishable offense, but the goal of intimidating someone with such a symbol could/should be.

[email protected]

Isn’t that basically like burning newspaper? Both would work I guess

[email protected]

Being offended is not a justification for killing nor is it hate speech.

[email protected]

Its doing so outside of their house that could be intimidation at that point though. So if you burnt the art in your own home surely it would be fine? Essentially the burning isn't the problem.

A more reasonable response is Muslims call the guy a cunt and move on.

[email protected]

That's different as those are very niche.

[email protected]

He was being charged for doing this? I had completely missed that. Was Sweden always like this?

[email protected]

Where the hell do you see me saying killing is okay? I say literally the opposite.

Also, he did hate speech, he was on trial for it, read the article!

Are you one of the bigots trying to stir things up or what the hell is your agenda?

[email protected]

Publicly burning symbols of a minority group or a world view is an incitement to violence against that group or people holding that world view.

It has nothing to do with constructive criticism. It is symbolizing a violent act, with the goal to incite more violence.

[email protected]

I agree on the "reasonable response" aspect.

I think for the first question it should revolve around "public" or "private". if you do something at home and record it to share the video on the internet, it is still public, with the goal to be public.

So in regards to incitement or hate speech it is also different if your racist uncle spurts his ideas at the family reunion, or if he broadcasts them on twitter.

[email protected]

You know that the Nazis in Germany burned a lot of books?

Your general statement would absolve them from their actions and intentions and instead shifts the blame onto the people who got persecuted by having their books burnt. Which later escalated to more than "just" burning books.

You cannot reduce it to the action itself and ignore all the context around it, especially not the intentions of the perpetrators.

And "other people shouldn't get offended if i insult and attack them constantly" is hardly acceptable in any other social context. E.g. i hope you would oppose insulting LGBTQ, Women, Ethnic minorities, disabled people...

And it should be obvious from these examples, that "it is just a joke" or "it is just an insult and i should be allowed to insult, because muuh free speech" is not a sincere argument, by the people spreading the hate. And their intention is never to keep the hate at verbal abuse, but to escalate it to physical violence.

[email protected]

I wasn't so much thinking of public/private, but doing it outside someones house has a bit of an "I know where you live" vibe to it.

agnos.is Forums

An Iraqi man who carried out several Quran burnings in Sweden has been killed