Summary

A Swedish court sentenced far-right activist Rasmus Paludan to four months in jail for inciting hatred against Muslims after he burned a Quran at two protests in Malmo in 2022.

The court ruled that Paludan’s remarks and actions went beyond permissible criticism of Islam, aiming instead to insult and defame Muslims, Arabs, and Africans. Paludan, a dual citizen of Sweden and Denmark, plans to appeal the verdict.

His Quran burnings previously strained Sweden’s relations with Turkey, complicating Sweden’s bid to join NATO.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
28 points

Not familiar with the guy himself who maybe does deserve criticism and prison, but about the Quran burning, is it genuinely fair to sentence someone to prison for that? Is it equivalent to burning the cross? The Swedish flag? I might be mission a broader context, but I don’t feel like someone burning my symbol or flag should be punished with prison. Am I alone? I would hate it, don’t get me wrong, but I still feel it goes in freedom of expression.

permalink
report
reply
31 points

I’m probably repeating what everyone else said, but let me put it this way: If I, an Egyptian, go to a Christian neighborhood and burn the cross while saying all Christians should be deported, that’d probably he hate speech. If I went to a Jewish neighborhood (back when those existed here) and did the same, I’d be straight up calling for a pogrom. That’s what you’re looking at here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

If my understanding is correct he isn’t being punished for the Quran burning alone. It’s what he’s been saying while also burning the Quran.

A more similar example would be burning a flag while saying something along the lines of “All immigrants from X country are terrible people and we should use all possible means to force them out of the country”, with a strong “won’t someone rid me of this troublesome priest” connotation.

Essentially, burning a symbol would be ok in an isolated sense. Inciting hatred and violence, and using the burning of symbols to aid you in delivering that message is not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I see, so there is indeed a broader context to the burning alone, it was also with additional verbal hatred and then possibly the location, and the overall intention. I think this makes it clearer. Thanks

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Is it equivalent to burning the cross? The Swedish flag?

No, it’s definitely not. You have to look at the social context of the act, not just the act itself.

To use the most obvious examples, burning an american flag in protest of the vietnam war is clearly an expression of political speech, whereas burning a cross on the lawn of an african-american family’s house is an incitement to violence.

A fascist burning the koran is clearly an incitement to violence and hatred, and not legitimate political speech worth protecting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

I would elaborate a bit more, and I think you have a good analogy with “burning a cross in a black family’s yard”.

Just like burning a cross to protest the church is different from burning it in someone’s yard to threaten them, burning a Quran in the context of protesting against (for example) the Iranian regime is different from burning the same Quran while simultaneously encouraging violence towards Muslims.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If you were to protest the Iranian regime, you should use a flag of the current regime. Burning Quran to protest one specific Muslim country is like burning Torah to protest Israel. The symbol is specific to the entire religion and not some country or administration or so. So it is always an attack on the religion as a whole.

Also Islam and (afaik) Judaism don’t have a central religious authority like the catholic church does. So attacking the religion to criticize a certain institution works even less.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

he crossed the line of freedom of expression a long time ago. I’m from Denmark just like he is, and I can say he spurred hatred far beyond what freedom of expression should allow. What he does is harassment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It is probably most equivalent to burning a cross on the lawn of a black family in the south.

There’s freedom of expression, but there’s also incitement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

very much literally burning things on the lawn of black families. He came all the way from Denmark to go into poorer neighborhoods in Sweden and say hateful things about the black and brown people there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

No one is making a compelling argument by burning anything.

The only purpose of the burning is to incite negative reaction.

No different than those moron’s that throw shit on art. Their message is lost in the noise of being an asshole.

If dude was burning a Quran in their own back yard because they needed a fire starter for their campfire, no one would give a shit.

It’s not the burning that’s the crime, it’s the being an asshole in public and trying to incite violence.

I’m not sure why American’s can’t differentiate freedom of speech/expression without the need to be an asshole about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Why does “freedom of expression” always mean “let’s hear the Nazi out” in practice?

Is it equivalent to burning the cross? The Swedish flag?

Not all flammable things are the same. The flag and cross are literal symbols of State power in Sweden, the Quran is a book that’s only precious to an oppressed minority.

I don’t feel like someone burning my symbol or flag should be punished with prison

I wanna stress that the people sentencing this man to jail are not the same as the people offended by the burning. This power dynamic is important.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 283K

    Comments