The Danish government will try to find legal means that will enable authorities to prevent the burning of copies of the Quran in front of other countries’ embassies in Denmark, Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has said.

“The burnings are deeply offensive and reckless acts committed by few individuals. These few individuals do not represent the values the Danish society is built on,” Rasmussen said in a statement on Sunday.

“The Danish government will therefore explore the possibility of intervening in special situations where, for instance, other countries, cultures, and religions are being insulted, and where this could have significant negative consequences for Denmark, not least with regard to security,” he said.

Denmark and Sweden have found themselves in the international spotlight in recent weeks following protests where the Quran, the Islamic holy book, has been damaged or burned.

In a separate statement on Sunday, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said he had been in close contact with his Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen, and that a similar process was already under way in Sweden.

“We have also started to analyse the legal situation already … in order to consider measures to strengthen our national security and the security of Swedes in Sweden and around the world,” Kristersson said in a post to Instagram.

Outrage in Muslim countries

This month, far-right activists have carried out a number of public burnings of Islam’s holy book in front of the Iraqi, Egyptian, and Turkish embassies in the Danish capital.

On Monday, two members of the ultra-nationalist Danish Patriots stomped on a copy of the Quran and set it alight in a tin foil tray next to an Iraqi flag.

Earlier this month in Sweden, an Iraqi citizen living in the country, Salwan Momika, 37, stomped on the holy book and set several pages alight.

The public burnings in the Scandinavian countries have sparked widespread outrage across Muslim countries, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Morocco, Qatar and Yemen lodging protests in response.

Sweden and Denmark have said they deplore the burning of the Koran but cannot prevent it under their rules protecting freedom of expression.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) earlier this month approved a resolution on religious hatred and bigotry following several burnings.

Pakistan and other Organisation of Islamic Cooperation countries backed the motion, along with a number of non-Muslim majority countries including India and Vietnam. The United States and the European Union opposed the resolution on the grounds it interfered with freedom of expression.

In his statement, Rasmussen added that whatever measure was taken “must of course be done within the framework of the constitutionally protected freedom of expression and in a manner that does not change the fact that freedom of expression in Denmark has very broad scope”.

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The Danish government will try to find legal means that will enable authorities to prevent the burning of copies of the Quran in front of other countries’ embassies in Denmark

    Emphasis mine. This isn’t some major restriction of free speech or anything, it’s just a way to prevent idiots from trying to ruin diplomatic relations between Denmark and other countries.

    • Obsession@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      So someone who escapes from a fundamentalist Muslim country can’t protest that regime in front of said country’s embassy anymore?

      Nah, still fucking stupid.

      • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        We still don’t know the exact wording of the law. So there’s no way to know and no need to jump to outrage conclusions right now.

        • Obsession@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          64
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m going to jump to outrage because the entire premise of the proposed law is ridiculous, regardless of the wording.

          This is a blasphemy law under the guise of international relations.

          • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            It could also be more akin to a hate speech law. We don’t know yet. Jumping to outrage before we know is counterproductive and unnecessary.

            I’ll be right beside you with the outrage if it turns out to be actually outrageous when it lands - but let’s see.

            • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              We don’t really want religions to have the right to determine what is and is not hate speech against them. If given the chance, some of these people would define women not having their hair hidden or someone undergoing gender transition as offensive.

              • laylawashere44@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, because burning the Quran isn’t actually a big deal in Islam and is condoned as a disposal method. Every Muslim knows this.

                So if you are an ex-mislim burning a Quran in front of an embassy, what else could be your message? The Quran isn’t tied to a country so it can’t be a protest against the country. It also can’t be a legitimate protest against Islam, since it’s condoned by the religion. You cannot protest by complying.

                So that really only leaves one thing the Quran burning can mean: a threat to Muslims as a group. ‘I’m setting a thing you are associated with and like on fire.’.

                It’s even more obvious when it’s a non-muslim doing it.

    • maporita@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      A law that prevents someone from burning a book counts as a major restriction on free speech as far as I am concerned. It’s a book for gods sake. The fact that burning it causes offense is immaterial… simply causing offense to a group is not sufficient ground to place a restriction on an act that otherwise harms no one.

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is a restriction on free speech, though, however you want to frame it. A free society should not countenance it.

      • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Denmark doesn’t have free speech anyway, this is just one more crippling of what free speech is allowed.

      • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the distinction was that the recent burnings were not tied to a political decision or action made by the countries. It was just to be dicks toward Muslim countries.

        Lets say the burning was infront of Saudi embassy after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That might be allowed under the proposal.

        The whole situation is weird, tbh

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Freedom of speech isn’t lost just because the motivation’s of a person aren’t pure and the freedom means nothing if it doesn’t cover offensive speech. You don’t need to protect the right of people to say nice things.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The good news is that the burnings are still legal in front of danish embassies in Denmark. Which of course is nonsense, but why stress that it’s in front of foreign embassies, that doesn’t even make any kind of sense, it’s the only kind of embassies there is. But that’s how the government chose to put it!?

      Instead og this diplomacy nonsense, giving in to fanatic muslims and undermining our democracy. We should rather invite them to a danish hygge meeting, with danish beer and traditional danish roast pork, and say they can bring their dogs if they want.

      We shouldn’t let religious fanatics dictate what we do in Denmark, that has zero impact and does zero harm to them. While they still have a death sentence on Salman Rushdie, and perform terrorist acts in Europe!!

      This is a slippery slope that will never end, until we say enough is enough.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah sure sensible. Give up a little freedom for a little security. That will definitely give us both and make us deserve both.

      Hey new rule. No more LGBT flags near those embassies. Also no more temples/shrines/churchs/whathaveyou for other religions except Islam near those embassies. Also women have to wear face coverings. No alcohol or pork to be served.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isnt a slippery slope when you are walking on it, it is just a slope at that point.

          It’s fine, we are doomed to repeat history since every time someone suggests learning from it someone else chimes out “slippery slope fallacy”. Appeasement doesn’t bring us peace in our time, forfeiting freedoms for temporary security give us neither, selling out rights to religious authorities always always results in demand for yet more.