Blasphemy in Denmark

[Planigale]

FWIW Blasphemy law was repealed in England in 2008. It only applied to christianity, because England is legally a christian country with the Church of England part of the state, and an attack on the christian religion was an attack on the state.

 

[Klimax]

They were not necessarily so a century or so ago. 1933 , that is a long way and a lot changes.

In fact I would not be surprised to learn that every country in Europe had blasphemy law which were long not used anymore.

About Denmark :

We (Czech Republic) had such law until 1950. Should be clear why it lasted only till 1950.

 

[Darat]

FWIW Blasphemy law was repealed in England in 2008. It only applied to christianity, because England is legally a christian country with the Church of England part of the state, and an attack on the christian religion was an attack on the state.

Actually it was only CofE that was protected not any other denominations.

 

[Giz]

I think that had I been the prosecution, I'd have had him charged with trying to incite a riot.

Really? Would you do the same for flag burners, or bible burners?

 

[Darat]

Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances?

 

[Giz]

Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances?

You mean, like is it your own property, or are you risking starting a forest fire? Or do you mean, you'll offend someone who may be violent (in which case, tough).

 

[dann]

I think that the context of this case is important. This is a hate crime against immigrants rather than against (a) religion. Many Danes would like to make life in Denmark as difficult as possible for immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. For this reason they enjoy poking fun at one particular religion, i.e. Islam.
This was also the point of the Cartoon Controversy: The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten wouldn't want to scare away the majority of their subscribers by satirizing Christianity, but just like a very large portion of their readers they had noticed that religion was a sore spot with many Middle Eastern immigrants and could therefore be used to profile the newspaper as a courageous defender of the freedom of speech - against a minority that didn't count as prospective subscribers.
For approximately the same reason, a very loud and well-organized minority party has proposed that immigrants be forced to celebrate Christian festivals. An article in English. It is not a problem for these guys that a very large number of atheists never celebrate Easter, Whitsun or Christmas. (But it might become a problem if a lot of atheist refugees suddenly started showing up at the Danish borders.) The whole point is that they hate immigrants. For this reason, Danish, i.e. Christian, religion is suddenly of utmost importance to them. They would also enjoy making it mandatory for immigrants to eat pork, i.e. making it impossible for them to live in Denmark as Muslims.

PS it is no coincidence that these controversies always focus on the few points where Islam differs from Christianity: the consumption of pork, graphic renditions of the Muslim prophet Muhammed, the burning of holy books! The hideous story of Abraham and Isaac, which you find in both the Bible and in the Quran, doesn't seem to upset anybody ...

 

[dann]

Danish fans of Donald Trump are usually to be found among the same people who burn the Quran or want to enforce the celebration of Christ on Muslim immigrants. They haven't yet proposed to build a wall to keep foreigners out. The last one was so inefficient that you would have to go to Germany to see it! Dannevirke

 

[Giz]

I think that the context of this case is important. This is a hate crime against immigrants rather than against (a) religion. Many Danes would like to make life in Denmark as difficult as possible for immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. For this reason they enjoy poking fun at one particular religion, i.e. Islam.
This was also the point of the Cartoon Controversy: The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten wouldn't want to scare away the majority of their subscribers by satirizing Christianity, but just like a very large portion of their readers they had noticed that religion was a sore spot with many Middle Eastern immigrants and could therefore be used to profile the newspaper as a courageous defender of the freedom of speech - against a minority that didn't count as prospective subscribers.
For approximately the same reason, a very loud and well-organized minority party has proposed that immigrants be forced to celebrate Christian festivals. An article in English. It is not a problem for these guys that a very large number of atheists never celebrate Easter, Whitsun or Christmas. (But it might become a problem if a lot of atheist refugees suddenly started showing up at the Danish borders.) The whole point is that they hate immigrants. For this reason, Danish, i.e. Christian, religion is suddenly of utmost importance to them. They would also enjoy making it mandatory for immigrants to eat pork, i.e. making it impossible for them to live in Denmark as Muslims.

PS it is no coincidence that these controversies always focus on the few points where Islam differs from Christianity: the consumption of pork, graphic renditions of the Muslim prophet Muhammed, the burning of holy books! The hideous story of Abraham and Isaac, which you find in both the Bible and in the Quran, doesn't seem to upset anybody ...

Right, concern about free speech is just a cover story for bigots. Probably also true about those who support lgbtq rights, or oppose creationism, right?

 

[erlando]

I think that the context of this case is important. This is a hate crime against immigrants rather than against (a) religion. Many Danes would like to make life in Denmark as difficult as possible for immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. For this reason they enjoy poking fun at one particular religion, i.e. Islam.

I don't think this constitutes a hate crime as I don't count burning a book a crime. But you are right this is directed towards Muslims.

This was also the point of the Cartoon Controversy: The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten wouldn't want to scare away the majority of their subscribers by satirizing Christianity, but just like a very large portion of their readers they had noticed that religion was a sore spot with many Middle Eastern immigrants and could therefore be used to profile the newspaper as a courageous defender of the freedom of speech - against a minority that didn't count as prospective subscribers.

I don't think this is why Jyllands-Posten published the drawings at all. They were absolutely making a point about freedom of expression. It had nothing at all to do with subscribers or other nonsense.

They would also enjoy making it mandatory for immigrants to eat pork, i.e. making it impossible for them to live in Denmark as Muslims.

As silly as Dansk Folkeparti (Peoples Party of Denmark) is, noone has ever said this.

The subject of pork in day cares and school cafeterias comes up once in a while. But noone has ever proposed forcing Muslims to eat pork.

PS it is no coincidence that these controversies always focus on the few points where Islam differs from Christianity: the consumption of pork, graphic renditions of the Muslim prophet Muhammed, the burning of holy books! The hideous story of Abraham and Isaac, which you find in both the Bible and in the Quran, doesn't seem to upset anybody ...

I don't know where you're going with this.

 

[dann]

Right, concern about free speech is just a cover story for bigots. Probably also true about those who support lgbtq rights, or oppose creationism, right?

Strawman. Jyllands-Posten's "concern about free speech" was never about free speech; it was nothing but subterfuge. Otherwise they would have published a couple of cartoons of Jesus wielding guns - just to make it obvious that they were willing to offend anybody's religion, not just that of an impotent minority. It never occurred to them to make a violent-Jesus-campaign when Catholics and Protestants were waging a civil war in Northern Ireland. Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, however … So courageous!

 

[Giz]

Strawman. Jyllands-Posten's "concern about free speech" was never about free speech; it was nothing but subterfuge. Otherwise they would have published a couple of cartoons of Jesus wielding guns - just to make it obvious that they were willing to offend anybody's religion, not just that of an impotent minority. It never occurred to them to make a violent-Jesus-campaign when Catholics and Protestants were waging a civil war in Northern Ireland. Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, however … So courageous!

It was courageous because some muslims were bound to react violently . (And it would have been pointless to draw an insulting Jesus image as Christians would not have likely been violent in reaction)

 

[Arcade22]

Blashpemy laws only work if you have a preffered religion (or religions) that aren't allowed to be insulted, but others are fair game. In other words, laws like this have no place in the civilized world.

McHrozni

Although i find such laws objectionable it's incredibly likely that the Danish authorities would treat real and authentic religions and religious community's different from those that are obviously artificial and made up.

 

[dann]

I don't think this constitutes a hate crime as I don't count burning a book a crime. But you are right this is directed towards Muslims.

Burning the Quran is not simply "burning a book". And I'm pretty sure that you can tell the difference the same way that burning a flag is not simply burning a piece of cloth. Peeing in a baptismal font also cannot be reduced to exercising your rights to urination ...

I don't think this is why Jyllands-Posten published the drawings at all. They were absolutely making a point about freedom of expression. It had nothing at all to do with subscribers or other nonsense.

And you are free to think so.

As silly as Dansk Folkeparti (Peoples Party of Denmark) is, no one has ever said this.

Danish town makes pork mandatory in public institutions, pleasing anti-Islamic lobby
Danish city makes pork a must to ‘protect food culture'

The subject of pork in day cares and school cafeterias comes up once in a while. But no one has ever proposed forcing Muslims to eat pork.

Yet. I didn't claim that the Danish People's Party had actually forced people to eat pork. They know that it would be illegal to do so. Again: the point would not even be to make Muslims eat pork. The point is to make it obvious that one of the two major religions in Denmark is inferior to the other. It may come as a shock to you, but even when the members of the DPP suddenly become preoccupied with animal welfare, they aren't really concerned about the welfare of animals. They just pretend to be so in order to campaign against halal meat.

I don't know where you're going with this.

Donald Trump may say that his wall is meant to keep out the "really bad dudes". However, the Mexicans have no reason to believe that they aren't all bad dudes in his opinion - not even when he adds: "And some, I assume, are good people."

 

[dann]

It was courageous because some muslims were bound to react violently . (And it would have been pointless to draw an insulting Jesus image as Christians would not have likely been violent in reaction)

It wasn't courageous at all because Rose and Jyllands-Posten were so incredibly stupid that they never saw it coming: They saw an opportunity to profile themselves as brave defenders of the freedom of speech by ganging up on an impotent religious minority - not exactly the demographic that the newspaper catered to anyway - forgetting that there are and were several not-quite-as-impotent countries where Islam constitute a very powerful majority. And Jyllands-Posten actually didn't have a clue that the impotent Danish Muslims might tell on them to their powerful allies in the rest of the world!
For this reason only, you should not expect to see Jyllands-Posten pull a similar stunt any time soon. Now they actually do know that it requires courage (and diminishes their profits because of advertiser boycotts)! Muhammed-krise rammer Arla og Fogh
But you are probably right about the Christian subscribers: Their reaction would not have been violent, but that is not the reason why they fear it!

 

[dann]

Although i find such laws objectionable it's incredibly likely that the Danish authorities would treat real and authentic religions and religious community's different from those that are obviously artificial and made up.

§ 140 It appears to be applicable only to religions that are recognized as such by the state.

 

[erlando]

§ 140 It appears to be applicable only to religions that are recognized as such by the state.

Not correct. It's applicable to any religious community adhering to §67 of Grundloven. Neither says anything about having to be recognized by the state.

ETA: http://justitsministeriet.dk/sites/...lser/pdf/2015/Straffelovraadets udtalelse.pdf

Et religionssamfund kan principielt være omfattet af straffelovens § 140, selv om
det ikke er godkendt (når blot ”intet læres eller foretages, som strider mod sædeligheden
eller den offentlige orden”, jf. grundlovens § 67). I dag, hvor et meget
stort antal meget forskelligartede religionssamfund er godkendt, er det dog
usandsynligt, at der i praksis vil opstå spørgsmål om anvendelse af straffelovens
§ 140 i forhold til spot og forhånelse af et ikke-godkendt religionssamfunds troslærdomme
eller gudsdyrkelse.

ETA: My brain is not up for translating right now, sorry. The gist is that this is a comment from an advisory committee on the penal code stating that a religious community is protected by §140 just by adhering to §67 of the constitution. It goes on to state that it is unlikely that such a situation arises as the amount and diversity of recognized religious communities is large.

 

[Fudbucker]

Burning the Quran is not simply "burning a book". And I'm pretty sure that you can tell the difference the same way that burning a flag is not simply burning a piece of cloth.

Of course it's simply "burning a book". There's nothing mystical about a flag or religious text. People might react differently, but so what? If someone wants to get offended when some book goes up in flames, let em. Maybe they'll start questioning their beliefs.

Peeing in a baptismal font also cannot be reduced to exercising your rights to urination ...

If it's my font in my house, I'll pee in it all I want.

 

[erlando]

Burning the Quran is not simply "burning a book". And I'm pretty sure that you can tell the difference the same way that burning a flag is not simply burning a piece of cloth. Peeing in a baptismal font also cannot be reduced to exercising your rights to urination ...

Burning a flag is burning a piece of cloth. Burning a Quaran/Bible/Torah/whatever is just burning a bunch of papers and ink.

"The right not to be offended" is not a thing you know.

Peeing in a font is unhygienic.

Danish town makes pork mandatory in public institutions, pleasing anti-Islamic lobby
Danish city makes pork a must to ‘protect food culture'

Having pork as a mandatory item on the menu is not "forcing Muslims to eat pork".

 

[dann]

Not correct. It's applicable to any religious community adhering to §67 of Grundloven. Neither says anything about having to be recognized by the state.

ETA: http://justitsministeriet.dk/sites/...lser/pdf/2015/Straffelovraadets udtalelse.pdf

ETA: My brain is not up for translating right now, sorry. The gist is that this is a comment from an advisory committee on the penal code stating that a religious community is protected by §140 just by adhering to §67 of the constitution. It goes on to state that it is unlikely that such a situation arises as the amount and diversity of recognized religious communities is large.

Recognized (!) … by whom? The state!