Hundreds of protesters stormed the Swedish embassy in central Baghdad in the early hours of Thursday morning, scaling its walls and setting it on fire in protest against the expected burning of a Koran in Sweden.
No, it doesn’t? Laws are interpreted by legal practitioners and judges, and the intentionality of the law is taken into account. One of the main intentions of this particular law is protecting Jews from persecution, and protecting Muslims from the same isn’t a huge stretch. Sure, you could argue that invisible pink unicorn followers are a protected group, but no one would take you seriously in Sweden. You are arguing an extreme interpretation in bad faith.
It’s not my proposed idea, it’s an actual, contemporary Swedish law which has existed since 1948. What is up for debate is how that law is to be interpreted in this instance, what constitutes “creed” (in, perhaps, a better translation of the original Swedish instead of “religious belief”), and what constitutes a “message” and whether burning a Quran is valid criticism of Islam or if doing it at that time and place is a hate crime targeting Muslims. It hasn’t been tried in the Swedish supreme court whether Quran burning in certain contexts like the recent events is illegal under that law or not.
Technically, sure, you could argue that everything can be a religious belief/creed and any belief is covered under that law. But that is not how the law is interpreted and used in practice. I would consider that a strawman argument then, because it intentionally misrepresents the spirit of that law.
That makes sense. I guess I don’t really see the point of the law. If a message of hate goes too far, it would already fall other applicable laws against harassment or discrimination. Why does there need to be legislation specifically protecting against hate crimes?
I mean, that’s a matter of personal opinion (and you are entitled to yours). Legality aside, I personally think some groups should have special protections as they are often targets of discrimination or harassment specifically because of their affiliation with a certain group. That includes race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender identity etc.
Of course, these people are also individually protected from harassment and discrimination through other laws as you say, but the incitement law protects them as a group and from being targeted in certain ways. You are allowed to publicly protest against Judaism, but not to publicly wear swastikas (a symbol of the horror of the Holocaust).
I understand that mindset and agree with its validity (especially the Holocaust example). I think putting that into law effectively is extremely difficult, as many people would draw the lines differently as to what should be applicable.
I actually agree, it’s a problem. As other people also argued here, the existing law is perhaps too fuzzy even though I personally agree with the sentiment (and do believe it is applicable as-is in the recent Quran cases).
Laws can sometimes be intentionally written broadly as to cover future unanticipated cases, but for the recent events it’s not clear what is covered and what isn’t covered. That has to be tried in court to set a precedent then, and that hasn’t been done. And part of why it hasn’t been done seems to be that the prosecutors are unsure of how their case will go in court, so they choose not to prosecute… At least that’s how I have understood it.
No, it doesn’t? Laws are interpreted by legal practitioners and judges, and the intentionality of the law is taken into account. One of the main intentions of this particular law is protecting Jews from persecution, and protecting Muslims from the same isn’t a huge stretch. Sure, you could argue that invisible pink unicorn followers are a protected group, but no one would take you seriously in Sweden. You are arguing an extreme interpretation in bad faith.
Yes, but the law you proposed would allow that to happen. That isn’t a straw man, it’s your proposed idea not being very good.
It’s not my proposed idea, it’s an actual, contemporary Swedish law which has existed since 1948. What is up for debate is how that law is to be interpreted in this instance, what constitutes “creed” (in, perhaps, a better translation of the original Swedish instead of “religious belief”), and what constitutes a “message” and whether burning a Quran is valid criticism of Islam or if doing it at that time and place is a hate crime targeting Muslims. It hasn’t been tried in the Swedish supreme court whether Quran burning in certain contexts like the recent events is illegal under that law or not.
Technically, sure, you could argue that everything can be a religious belief/creed and any belief is covered under that law. But that is not how the law is interpreted and used in practice. I would consider that a strawman argument then, because it intentionally misrepresents the spirit of that law.
That makes sense. I guess I don’t really see the point of the law. If a message of hate goes too far, it would already fall other applicable laws against harassment or discrimination. Why does there need to be legislation specifically protecting against hate crimes?
I mean, that’s a matter of personal opinion (and you are entitled to yours). Legality aside, I personally think some groups should have special protections as they are often targets of discrimination or harassment specifically because of their affiliation with a certain group. That includes race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender identity etc.
Of course, these people are also individually protected from harassment and discrimination through other laws as you say, but the incitement law protects them as a group and from being targeted in certain ways. You are allowed to publicly protest against Judaism, but not to publicly wear swastikas (a symbol of the horror of the Holocaust).
I understand that mindset and agree with its validity (especially the Holocaust example). I think putting that into law effectively is extremely difficult, as many people would draw the lines differently as to what should be applicable.
I actually agree, it’s a problem. As other people also argued here, the existing law is perhaps too fuzzy even though I personally agree with the sentiment (and do believe it is applicable as-is in the recent Quran cases).
Laws can sometimes be intentionally written broadly as to cover future unanticipated cases, but for the recent events it’s not clear what is covered and what isn’t covered. That has to be tried in court to set a precedent then, and that hasn’t been done. And part of why it hasn’t been done seems to be that the prosecutors are unsure of how their case will go in court, so they choose not to prosecute… At least that’s how I have understood it.