It’s pretty easy to believably say that the Swedish government supports Quran burning when they keep issuing permits for it.
If you wanna get a little background, they keep letting this Rasmussen guy burn em as a demonstration. What is he demonstrating? Why his legitimate ethnio-nationalist political beliefs which hold that there is no place in Sweden for Muslims. If that makes you wanna vote for him, he’s got his own political party (far right, naturally).
An easy parallel is calling the government that issues the kkk a permit to march in robes racist.
It would be real simple for the swedish government to put an end to this kind of talk, they’d just have to stop issuing protest permits and police escorts to people burning Qurans.
If you don’t want your enemies to be able to say you condone hate speech, stop condoning it.
It’s cool, I can burn the Quran, I don’t hate Muslims, I just hate Islam, the religion and history of all Muslims. Where am I gonna burn the Quran you ask? Why, in front of a mosque, in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood or in front of the embassy of a Muslim nation. Don’t worry though, I’m doing it to show that I hate Islam, not Muslims. Pay no attention to my extensive history of speaking in racial epithets toward muslim people, my association with far right anti Muslim groups or my political party that explicitly opposes allowing muslims to live in the country. Now please provide me a police escort so I’m not torn limb from limb in the process. Why no, I certainly did not intend to incite, what ever could have given you that idea?
This is like saying people should be able to burn crosses because theyre doing it to show that they hate Christianity (or in the case of a kkk offshoot that really existed: that it’s part of their Christian worship service). No one is out here burning crosses for any reason other than to signal hate. No one is burning Qurans for any reason other than to signal hate.
We can easily prove this by looking for someone burning a Quran who isn’t aligned with a far right party that has anti Muslim ideology, hasn’t spoken out against muslims and isn’t funded by groups that are.
There of course are none, because everyone burning Qurans is doing it as a form of hate speech.
You don’t, but if you want the cops to be there to protect you from the crowd you enraged by telling them for weeks that you’re gonna burn a Quran you gotta file for that permit.
Yeah… not sure you quite understand that goes against free speech by removing their right to speak about it if a permit is required but the government isn’t granting it… much less that a permit be required for “free speech.”
No permit is required to exercise your free speech. Lots of countries want you to get a permit if you’re planning a demonstration so they know what’s going on and can plan for the effects, block traffic etc.
The people burning Qurans aren’t just whipping out a copy and a bic, they’re planning weeks in advance to do it in majority Muslim areas or famously in front of the embassy of turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation.
The process of applying for the permit actually helps them in this case because the state stations a bunch of cops to keep them from getting killed for pulling a die hard 2.
Rejecting the permit doesn’t curtail their speech rights in the slightest. They can still whip out a Quran and spark it up. There’s just no longer any guarantee the cops will get there in time.
That’s why groups like this just don’t do impromptu demonstrations anymore. They found out that their right to speech ends where the fists of those they offend begin.
I am seeing you make a distinction but I am not seeing you list a difference. There is no point to protesting anything if you don’t have people see it.
Permitless speech is still possible, the speaker just won’t have the backing of the state in making it.
If the state denied a permit for this kind of demonstration the speaker could still up and decide to burn a Quran or make any other speech they see fit, they just wouldn’t have police protection and crowd control.
Given how unpopular this sentiment is in general and the various speakers’ choices of venue (Muslim neighborhoods, mosques, embassies of Muslim nations), I doubt they’d continue burning Qurans.
That’s why I phrased my initial response the way I did. The Swedish state should stop condoning that kind of speech if it doesn’t want it’s enemies to be able to accuse it of condoning that kind of speech.
Stop issuing permits, stop protecting hate speech.
It’s pretty easy to believably say that the Swedish government supports Quran burning when they keep issuing permits for it.
If you wanna get a little background, they keep letting this Rasmussen guy burn em as a demonstration. What is he demonstrating? Why his legitimate ethnio-nationalist political beliefs which hold that there is no place in Sweden for Muslims. If that makes you wanna vote for him, he’s got his own political party (far right, naturally).
An easy parallel is calling the government that issues the kkk a permit to march in robes racist.
It would be real simple for the swedish government to put an end to this kind of talk, they’d just have to stop issuing protest permits and police escorts to people burning Qurans.
If you don’t want your enemies to be able to say you condone hate speech, stop condoning it.
deleted by creator
It’s cool, I can burn the Quran, I don’t hate Muslims, I just hate Islam, the religion and history of all Muslims. Where am I gonna burn the Quran you ask? Why, in front of a mosque, in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood or in front of the embassy of a Muslim nation. Don’t worry though, I’m doing it to show that I hate Islam, not Muslims. Pay no attention to my extensive history of speaking in racial epithets toward muslim people, my association with far right anti Muslim groups or my political party that explicitly opposes allowing muslims to live in the country. Now please provide me a police escort so I’m not torn limb from limb in the process. Why no, I certainly did not intend to incite, what ever could have given you that idea?
This is like saying people should be able to burn crosses because theyre doing it to show that they hate Christianity (or in the case of a kkk offshoot that really existed: that it’s part of their Christian worship service). No one is out here burning crosses for any reason other than to signal hate. No one is burning Qurans for any reason other than to signal hate.
We can easily prove this by looking for someone burning a Quran who isn’t aligned with a far right party that has anti Muslim ideology, hasn’t spoken out against muslims and isn’t funded by groups that are.
There of course are none, because everyone burning Qurans is doing it as a form of hate speech.
Why do you need a permit?
You don’t, but if you want the cops to be there to protect you from the crowd you enraged by telling them for weeks that you’re gonna burn a Quran you gotta file for that permit.
deleted by creator
hate speech is free speech, i dont like it but it shouldnt be banned
I didn’t suggest they ban it. The easiest way for the state to not condone hate speech is to not issue a permit to make it.
Yeah… not sure you quite understand that goes against free speech by removing their right to speak about it if a permit is required but the government isn’t granting it… much less that a permit be required for “free speech.”
No permit is required to exercise your free speech. Lots of countries want you to get a permit if you’re planning a demonstration so they know what’s going on and can plan for the effects, block traffic etc.
The people burning Qurans aren’t just whipping out a copy and a bic, they’re planning weeks in advance to do it in majority Muslim areas or famously in front of the embassy of turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation.
The process of applying for the permit actually helps them in this case because the state stations a bunch of cops to keep them from getting killed for pulling a die hard 2.
Rejecting the permit doesn’t curtail their speech rights in the slightest. They can still whip out a Quran and spark it up. There’s just no longer any guarantee the cops will get there in time.
That’s why groups like this just don’t do impromptu demonstrations anymore. They found out that their right to speech ends where the fists of those they offend begin.
I am seeing you make a distinction but I am not seeing you list a difference. There is no point to protesting anything if you don’t have people see it.
Permitless speech is still possible, the speaker just won’t have the backing of the state in making it.
If the state denied a permit for this kind of demonstration the speaker could still up and decide to burn a Quran or make any other speech they see fit, they just wouldn’t have police protection and crowd control.
Given how unpopular this sentiment is in general and the various speakers’ choices of venue (Muslim neighborhoods, mosques, embassies of Muslim nations), I doubt they’d continue burning Qurans.
That’s why I phrased my initial response the way I did. The Swedish state should stop condoning that kind of speech if it doesn’t want it’s enemies to be able to accuse it of condoning that kind of speech.
Stop issuing permits, stop protecting hate speech.