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

[valmond@lemmy.world]

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.

[sognar@aggregatet.org]

[universalbasicjustice@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

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!

[korhaka@sopuli.xyz]

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?

[korhaka@sopuli.xyz]

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?

[valmond@lemmy.world]

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

[ronno@feddit.nl]

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.

[ihavecrabs111@lemmy.world]

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

[malek061@lemmy.world]

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

[korhaka@sopuli.xyz]

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.

[mothmandelorian@lemmy.world]

That's different as those are very niche.

[miaou@jlai.lu]

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

[valmond@lemmy.world]

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?

[saleh@feddit.org]

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.

[saleh@feddit.org]

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.

[saleh@feddit.org]

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.

[korhaka@sopuli.xyz]

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.

[teslasaur@lemmy.world]

No, people haven't been killed over a religious text for a very, very long time. Then we imported the religious issue.

[malek061@lemmy.world]

No agenda. Free speech absolutist. Criticism of a topic no matter how offensive must be allowed.

[teslasaur@lemmy.world]

Blasting religion for it's cruelty is always appreciated.

To bad he was a raging hypocrite who targeted Muslims due to himself being targeted as a Christian. Religion is gonna religion until they all stop believing the nonsense or everyone gets converted (alive or dead).