Riots in Malmo, Sweden as people burn the Koran

[Jub]

Justify what, exactly? Culture isn't sacred, and muslims have no obligation to stop practicing Islam just because they entered another country where that is a minority religion. Yet that is what these dipshits are asking from them when they burn a Quran. There is no other way to interpret that act. Even if it is legal to burn such an artifact, the statement in itself speaks for itself.

So it's perfectly fine to move to a new country with no intention of learning the language, integrating with extant social norms, and then claiming that you're being denied equal status because of your differences?

Why would you move to a nation which has cultural and legal standards antithetical to your religious views? Especially if you're also then not going to integrate into the larger cultural whole and simply stay within a community of other immigrants. The point of moving to a new country should be to live somewhere more compatible with your own world view, not to move somewhere where you feel like you can only live within a certain narrow community. There are Muslim nations that people can go to if they want something that won't require their social behaviors to shift.

[Formless]

Jub, what you aren't getting is that there is a fine line between integration and cultural erasure. I ask you again, but in less uncertain terms: in what way does this muslim community burden the Swedish government or people? Do you or do you not consider diversity to be a Democratic value? Do you or do you not consider Islam inherently threatening to Sweden? Do you really think that Islam is antithetical to Swedish law? Do you really think that these people refuse to learn Swedish? Do you not understand that it was the Right Wing protestors who were arrested BY the Swedish government, and why?

The answers to these questions will tell me whether or not you have an honest bone in your body. Or indeed, whether you are actually just being a bigot.

[ray245]

I suppose the real question here is should a nation which otherwise treats its citizens justly change itself to benefit outsiders who have chosen to immigrate? My opinion is that if you come to another state it is on you to make the effort to integrate and that so long as the state doesn't provide undue barriers to said integration that their obligation has been met. [Note: This wouldn't apply to refugees where the state must take steps to ensure that they are given the best possible chance at integration.]

No one is saying the country should change itself? But what is important is to acknowledge the idea that if a Country wants to welcome immigrants, then it needs to acknowledge the idea that integration is not a one way street. There is a need to ensure someone of immigrant background, or descended from a recent migrant background do not face all sorts of socio-cultural barriers that will limit their life opportunities.

This is the big improvement we have made in the past 20 years, as people have become more aware of those barriers that exist for people of minority background.

I'm speaking as a migrant to the West, and I can personally say integration with local community is not as easy as people are making it out to be, and I come from a relatively privileged position of being well-exposed to Western culture. I am not sure if all the people who talks about integration has ever lived abroad as a migrant and understood just how challenging it can be for many people.

Living in an expat bubble does not count. If anything, it attest to just how much Westerners are failing at integration despite all the socio-economic advantages they have.

[Formless]

To be clear, my position on immigration is that I welcome people to Canada but strongly feel that people who make our country their home should learn one of our official languages and respect our customs. I'm happy to have them build their own communities, churches, listen to their music, etc. so long as their practices aren't antithetical to the views of the community they're integrating into.

Since you decided to edit your post AFTER I made a post responding to it, I will respond to this as if it were its own post.

Look, if the views of the community they were moving into were sacred, then blacks and other minorities should never move into areas of the United States that are dominated by the KKK or other White Nationalist groups. And yet, its obvious where this logic falls apart, isn't it? The KKK is evil, their views are evil, and other groups with similarly xenophobic views are evil. In short, it isn't the immigrants to these communities who should adapt and change, but the community they are moving into that should learn to calm the fuck down, back the fuck off, and grow the fuck up, because this is the 21'st fucking century.

MAJOR EDIT: Or, how about I simply turn the tables and ask you this: should we respect this attitude of yours when it is Saudi Arabia telling immigrant women that they cannot drive and they have to wear hair covering? Or other Middle Eastern communities that have not codified it into law, but still expect it and intimidate any woman who refuses to do so because they aren't muslim? If not, why is it different when Western countries act this way?

THIS is why I label your arguments as bigoted. Because they impart a double standard, especially the "they can always find a Muslim country to move into!" argument. Its transparent bullshit.

[Jub]

Jub, what you aren't getting is that there is a fine line between integration and cultural erasure.

Given that Sweden isn't forcing anybody to immigrate and isn't conducting any form of genocide in Muslim nations I fail to see how Muslim culture is being harmed by asking people to integrate with current Swedish cultural norms.

in what way does this muslim community burden the Swedish government or people?

Aside from forming lobbiest groups which push for special treatment:

"The Muslim Council of Sweden (SMR), an umbrella organization for Swedish Muslim organizations, has been involved in several controversies. In 2006 Mahmoud Aldebe, one of the Board members of SMR, sent letters to each of the major political parties in Sweden demanding special legislation for Muslims in Sweden, including the right to specific Islamic holidays, special public financing for the building of Mosques, that all divorces between Muslim couples be approved by an Imam, and that Imams should be allowed to teach Islam to Muslim children in public schools. The request was condemned by all political parties and the government and the Swedish Liberal Party requested that an investigation be started by the Office of the Exchequer into the use of public funding of SMR. The Chairman of the Board of SMR subsequently stated that it supported the demands made by Aldebe but that it did not think that the letter had been a good idea to communicate them in a list of demands.

Although the Board of SMR did not condemn Aldebe the letter has caused conflict within the organization. SMR has also been accused of being closely allied to the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which has been criticised both inside and outside the party."

How about harboring terrorists:

"The Brandbergen Mosque has been described by the FBI terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann as a propaganda central for the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). According to Kohlmann, people connected to the mosque also participated in the financing of GIA's bombing campaign in France in 1995.

In 2004 an Arabic-language manual, which carried the logo and address of the Brandbergen Mosque, was spread on the internet. The manual described the construction of simple chemical weapons, including how to build a chemical munition from an ordinary artillery round. On December 7, 2006, the Swedish citizen Mohamed Moumou, who is described by the United States Department of the Treasury as an "uncontested leader of an extremist group centered around the Brandbergen Mosque in Stockholm", was put on the United Nations Security Council Committee 1267 list of foreign terrorists."

Discriminating against women in private while pretending to be for equality in public:

"n 2012, the SVT program Uppdrag granskning visited 10 mosques once with a hidden camera and once with a visible camera. When the representatives were aware of being filmed, they stated that they supported values such as gender equality; however, when two undercover journalists posed as Muslim women with difficulties in their marriage, the answers from the majority of the visited imams were different. The imams told the women that they were expected to sleep with their husbands even if they did not want to and that they were to accept being beaten, and strongly discouraged them from going to the police. Since about half of the visited mosques receive state or local funding, they are expected to promote basic values of Swedish society, such as equal rights between genders and to counteract discrimination and violence."

Inviting public speakers to make speeches against homosexuality:

"In March 2014 Malmö Municipality withdrew financial support to a local association because they invited a Syrian lecturer who says that homosexuality should be punished by death to a charity event. The organisers said that the lecturer would not attend and hold no speeches, but after a video recording showed him holding a lecture, the sum of money was recalled.

In January 2015, Sigtuna council stopped radical Islamic preacher Haitham al-Haddad from holding a lecture at their premises. He had been invited by Märsta Unga Muslimer (tr: Muslim Youth of Märsta) but when the council was informed of the preacher's homophobic and antisemitic views, the council cancelled the rental contract.

According to criticism by British think-tank Quilliam in May 2015, Sweden is more likely than other countries to allow preachers with radical views to enter the country and spread their views.

In May 2015, radical preacher Said Rageahs was invited to the mosque in Gävle where he promoted the views that whomever insults Mohammed should be killed along with apostates and advocated segregation between Muslims and non-Muslims. The local imams at Gävle mosque ran the webpage muslim.se which espoused similar views (with the death penalty for homosexuality added) and according to islamologist Jan Hjärpe at Lund University their views are typical of the Wahhabi."

Now I know the counter argument to this will be that this is only a small fraction of the Muslim community and that this is the price a free nation must pay for upholding its ideals, but let's be honest. Sweden wouldn't have to deal with this shit if they didn't take in Muslim immigrants and this is a burden upon them. That's not to say that it isn't a burden worth baring for both moral and economic reasons, but it is a burden.

This isn't to mention the refugee crisis which really lit the fuse of this as an issue. It's unquestionable that a lot of anger about the crisis in general is being passed on to the Muslim community as a whole. This isn't fair, but its also true that refugees will have more issues fitting into their new society than screened and approved immigrants and that their lack of integration may be a source of some of the current issues. I don't live in Sweden, I don't know the exact situation which is why I raised the issue as a broader question in the first place.

Do you or do you not consider diversity to be a Democratic value?

I don't consider democracy itself to be of much value. I've advocated my views on the current system of democracy employed by the west and my issues with it several times on this board.

Do you or do you not consider Islam inherently threatening to Sweden?

Not threatening, so much as a constant annoyance. Like a neighbor that plays their music too loudly or a crying child on an airplane. It's not a threat and its not even an issue all of the time, but it's

Do you really think that Islam is antithetical to Swedish law?

If strictly followed most religions are antithetical to modern values. I have no issue with those who follow religion as a matter of personal fulfilment, I do have an issue with the power organized religion wields and with the extremes that fundamentalists will go to to ensure that their personal fiction is made manifest.

Do you really think that these people refuse to learn Swedish?

I know for a fact that many immigrants will bring over family members, parents etc. who are unlikely to ever become fluent in Swedish and who may never even make an attempt to learn it. I face this a fair bit at my current job where people have either no English at all or such poor English that I am unable to help them due to a lack of ability to communicate. Though to be fair I'd be equally stumped if they only knew French and that's an official language of Canada even if it's rarely used in British Columbia.

Do you not understand that it was the Right Wing protestors who were arrested BY the Swedish government, and why?

Have a made a single comment about the protestors, the riot, or the tensions that lead up to it? If I have please quote me.

Since you decided to edit your post AFTER I made a post responding to it, I will respond to this as if it were its own post.

I made the edit before seeing your reply, this is a fast moving thread, it's going to happen.

Look, if the views of the community they were moving into were sacred, then blacks and other minorities should never move into areas of the United States that are dominated by the KKK or other White Nationalist groups.

This is bunk, for a lot of reasons. One, blacks didn't choose to come to North America and in many cases aren't immigrants (at least not any more than a white American isn't an immigrant). Two, moving within one's own nation is very different than moving between nations.

but the community they are moving into that should learn to calm the fuck down, back the fuck off, and grow the fuck up, because this is the 21'st fucking century.

The community should calm down, back off, and not attempt to discourage the bullshit (see above) that comes attached to the culture in Muslim nations that is being imported to Swedish shores. Is this your assertion?

MAJOR EDIT: Or, how about I simply turn the tables and ask you this: should we respect this attitude of yours when it is Saudi Arabia telling immigrant women that they cannot drive and they have to wear hair covering? Or other Middle Eastern communities that have not codified it into law, but still expect it and intimidate any woman who refuses to do so because they aren't muslim? If not, why is it different when Western countries act this way?

We shouldn't respect it but equally don't move there if you don't want to be subject to their laws and cultural norms. It's a wide world out there, don't move to a shitty bit and complain that it's shitty.

No one is saying the country should change itself? But what is important is to acknowledge the idea that if a Country wants to welcome immigrants, then it needs to acknowledge the idea that integration is not a one way street. There is a need to ensure someone of immigrant background, or descended from a recent migrant background do not face all sorts of socio-cultural barriers that will limit their life opportunities.

I agree, my standards basically boil down to:

1) Speak the language
2) Respect local customs
3) Don't create an unnecessary burdens for your new home

Beyond that, go nuts. Build that church/temple/mosque, form a community, speak your language, throw a festival, just respect that this is your adopted home and that you made a choice to come here.

I'm speaking as a migrant to the West, and I can personally say integration with local community is not as easy as people are making it out to be, and I come from a relatively privileged position of being well-exposed to Western culture. I am not sure if all the people who talks about integration has ever lived abroad as a migrant and understood just how challenging it can be for many people.

You, or your parents if you came over as a child, should have known this going in. Moving from one nation, especially a non-Western nation to the west will be a challenge. You will face racism, potential language barriers, and culture shock and it will be on you to overcome those things because it was your choice to move. It's on people immigrating to understand the challenges that it will bring and weigh that against the benefits.

[ray245]

I agree, my standards basically boil down to:

1) Speak the language

Easier said that done. How many second language do you speak?

2) Respect local customs

That seems antithetical to freedom of expression?

3) Don't create an unnecessary burdens for your new home

I don't think anyone wants to be a burden on purpose.

Beyond that, go nuts. Build that church/temple/mosque, form a community, speak your language, throw a festival, just respect that this is your adopted home and that you made a choice to come here.

You, or your parents if you came over as a child, should have known this going in. Moving from one nation, especially a non-Western nation to the west will be a challenge. You will face racism, potential language barriers, and culture shock and it will be on you to overcome those things because it was your choice to move. It's on people immigrating to understand the challenges that it will bring and weigh that against the benefits.

What about people who came over as refugees? Or dependants who gets very little say in the decision to migrate? What you are saying is on paper, everything sounds easy. Have you ever migrated before? Have you ever live abroad, not as a tourist but as a migrant? And if you did, have you step outside of your expat bubble?

But more importantly, the big issue with Muslim community in Europe is NOT the first-generation migrants. It is very often the children of those migrants who were born in their native country that faces challenges.

[Jub]

Easier said that done. How many second language do you speak?

None but I'm not seriously considering leaving Canada anytime soon. If I were I'd either move to another English speaking nation or start learning a new language.

That seems antithetical to freedom of expression?

Should people that celebrate holidays by setting off fireworks feel discriminated against if they move to an area with strict noise bylaws or a fireworks ban? Is it discrimination to take a hard stance at allowing such disruptive celebrations?

These are the kinds of issues that immigrants need to bend on.

I don't think anyone wants to be a burden on purpose.

Yet, they often become just that:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f ... 97-eng.htm

I make no claim about it being an immigrant's fault that they face financial issues, I'm merely pointing out the facts as they exist.

What about people who came over as refugees?

Refugees are tricky and there's little we can do about their integration without violating their freedoms. We can, however, mandate things about how their children are raised and educated to ensure that they have the best possible chance at fitting in and being successful.

Or dependants who gets very little say in the decision to migrate?

If they're children we can ensure that they attend schools and could even tie their parent's citizenship/visa to their child's level of language proficiency deeming it a serious issue if the children and stay-at-home spouse of an immigrant can't speak conversationally after several years in their new home.

What you are saying is on paper, everything sounds easy. Have you ever migrated before? Have you ever live abroad, not as a tourist but as a migrant? And if you did, have you step outside of your expat bubble?

No, and if I did I would likely choose a nation with very similar values to Canada where English is either the primary language or a commonly spoken second language. I'm fortunate to have the privilege of growing up speaking the world's current trade language and live in a country with good ties to many nation's with enviable standards of living.

But more importantly, the big issue with Muslim community in Europe is NOT the first-generation migrants. It is very often the children of those migrants who were born in their native country that faces challenges.

This is where it all gets very tricky. How much of that is on society and how much of that is on the level of education and cultural awareness of the second generation? I don't know if there is a clear answer there. That said, this is something to consider if you intend to live in another country where you don't share their culture, language, skin color, etc.

[ray245]

None but I'm not seriously considering leaving Canada anytime soon. If I were I'd either move to another English speaking nation or start learning a new language.

So you're making learning a new language easier than it sounds. I do find it much of a double standard when Western migrants are not expected to learn the local language because they are considered expats in non-western countries. When Westerners as a whole do not have to learn the local language, and are allowed to form expat bubbles, I find it hard to sympathise with Westerners calling people to learn the local language.

If a Westerner wants to call non-western migrants to learn the language, solve the expat bubbles first. Then I will be more sympathetic.

Should people that celebrate holidays by setting off fireworks feel discriminated against if they move to an area with strict noise bylaws or a fireworks ban? Is it discrimination to take a hard stance at allowing such disruptive celebrations?

These are the kinds of issues that immigrants need to bend on.

That's not exactly what respect the customs means to me. It comes across more as, if you are to move to a place where it is a custom for people to set off fireworks on a regular basis, you must do the same or you are told to leave.

Yet, they often become just that:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f ... 97-eng.htm

I make no claim about it being an immigrant's fault that they face financial issues, I'm merely pointing out the facts as they exist.?

That does not mean the migrants want to be a burden.

Refugees are tricky and there's little we can do about their integration without violating their freedoms. We can, however, mandate things about how their children are raised and educated to ensure that they have the best possible chance at fitting in and being successful.

Most refugee resettlement programs already does this. This does not mean their children will not face systematic barriers that prevents them from success.

If they're children we can ensure that they attend schools and could even tie their parent's citizenship/visa to their child's level of language proficiency deeming it a serious issue if the children and stay-at-home spouse of an immigrant can't speak conversationally after several years in their new home.

You do realise that will place a ridiculous burden on a child? Suddenly, the child is responsible for their entire family's right of residency?

No, and if I did I would likely choose a nation with very similar values to Canada where English is either the primary language or a commonly spoken second language. I'm fortunate to have the privilege of growing up speaking the world's current trade language and live in a country with good ties to many nation's with enviable standards of living.

Yes you are, which is why I find many of your comments as lacking in understanding about the reality of migration. Many of the migrants would very much prefer to migrate to a country where they can speak the language, which is why English-speaking country has a strong pull ( because most people would learn English as a second language), or go to countries like France if they are from a Francophone country.

This is where it all gets very tricky. How much of that is on society and how much of that is on the level of education and cultural awareness of the second generation? I don't know if there is a clear answer there. That said, this is something to consider if you intend to live in another country where you don't share their culture, language, skin color, etc.

The level of education and cultural awareness of the minority population is heavily shaped by the society. Unless the given country wants to deport a large segment of their native born population, then it is up to the society to solve the issue. As much as everyone wants to live in an idealised world where migration does not pose any challenge or hiccups, and everyone can live together in a well-integrated manner, we do not live in one.

So it is up to society to manage the issues and challenges in the best way possible.

[AniThyng]

I'm a bit confused as to why expat bubbles come into play in these discussions, with very few exceptions Western expats are almost always temporary, which is why they are expats - those who elect to stay would seem to be a *much* smaller % of the population than third world migrants to these Western countries I'd think?

The only country that comes to mind is Thailand, and even then I'd think actual migrants are nowhere near as much as tourists and long stay "expats".

[ray245]

I'm a bit confused as to why expat bubbles come into play in these discussions, with very few exceptions Western expats are almost always temporary, which is why they are expats - those who elect to stay would seem to be a *much* smaller % of the population than third world migrants to these Western countries I'd think?

The only country that comes to mind is Thailand, and even then I'd think actual migrants are nowhere near as much as tourists and long stay "expats".

Because people who moved to Western countries, even if it is only temporarily are always seen as migrants, and if they try and form an expat bubble, it is always seen as a threat of failure to integrate.

[AniThyng]

But *these* migrants definitely intend to stay, to the point that it is a serious concern about how thier children and thier children's children will fare. I don't see how the two situations are comparable at all - nobody cares the the children of Western expats go to "international schools" and barely learn the local language, they'll be gone with the expats the next time the breadwinner gets reassigned and a new batch of foreigners cycle in. It's not at all similar to 2nd generation migrant children who grew up there and have no where else to call home

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm a bit confused as to why expat bubbles come into play in these discussions, with very few exceptions Western expats are almost always temporary, which is why they are expats - those who elect to stay would seem to be a *much* smaller % of the population than third world migrants to these Western countries I'd think?

The only country that comes to mind is Thailand, and even then I'd think actual migrants are nowhere near as much as tourists and long stay "expats".

Because people who moved to Western countries, even if it is only temporarily are always seen as migrants, and if they try and form an expat bubble, it is always seen as a threat of failure to integrate.

It's the typical double standard and it really is everywhere.

[Jub]

So you're making learning a new language easier than it sounds. I do find it much of a double standard when Western migrants are not expected to learn the local language because they are considered expats in non-western countries. When Westerners as a whole do not have to learn the local language, and are allowed to form expat bubbles, I find it hard to sympathise with Westerners calling people to learn the local language.

If a Westerner wants to call non-western migrants to learn the language, solve the expat bubbles first. Then I will be more sympathetic.

I already admitted that English speaking white people have it very easy pretty much anywhere in the world they might choose to go. I've never had the cash to do that much travelling let alone spending a lot of time abroad and the only place I've ever spent a lot of time in was Australia and that was for a friend's wedding on a working holiday where I didn't find a lot of work.

That's not exactly what respect the customs means to me. It comes across more as, if you are to move to a place where it is a custom for people to set off fireworks on a regular basis, you must do the same or you are told to leave.

That's not what I mean at all. It's more don't do anything that pisses off the neighbours type sentiment. If you like something we're doing, please, join in. If not, as long as you make some effort to speak the language and don't cause problems then, by all means, I welcome you.

That does not mean the migrants want to be a burden.

I never said they did... I said they shouldn't be one and should have a very clear idea of what happens if they're big new dream doesn't work out as planned.

Most refugee resettlement programs already does this. This does not mean their children will not face systematic barriers that prevents them from success.

Yeah, that's probably unavoidable given that even 4 years after arriving in Canada 25-40% (it varies by which nation they're from) of refugees are still collecting government benefits. Not having a lot of disposable income makes it hard to get you or your kids a leg up.

You do realise that will place a ridiculous burden on a child? Suddenly, the child is responsible for their entire family's right of residency?

I understand that it does, I'm not saying that there needs to be a hard-line where a family is kicked out because a kid isn't developing their linguistic skills at a proscribed rate. It's more that a child not learning will have drastic effects on their life and we need to seriously look at why things aren't progressing.

The level of education and cultural awareness of the minority population is heavily shaped by the society. Unless the given country wants to deport a large segment of their native born population, then it is up to the society to solve the issue. As much as everyone wants to live in an idealised world where migration does not pose any challenge or hiccups, and everyone can live together in a well-integrated manner, we do not live in one.

From my point of view, in spite of what it may come off as in text, most issues with immigration and the integration of immigrants are fairly minor. It mostly boils down to minor annoyance at a few rough edges here and there, but Canada much like America is a melting pot. In a place like Europe, given the refugee crisis and very strong national identies I can see things chaffing much worse.

[loomer]

I was not aware of these things, and if true then these are all criminal offenses that should be persecuted by the state.
So I can understand that some people will feel intimidated by it, but I'm not convinced that burning a quran in public should be banned or considered a criminal offense.
I'm sure that a lot of Swedes will also feel intimidated when extreme right Islamists are flying the ISIS flag, but that's legal in Sweden too.

Should people feel intimidated in public spaces because of freedom of speech?

I guess not but it's not like it's a clear and objective line to determine at which point people will feel intimidated. Where or how would you draw the line on that? What if some people already feel intimidated by a cartoon or a rainbow flag?
If the line has to be set to appease the loudest screaming fascists, religious or otherwise, you might as well abolish free speech all together. Because at that point nothing will be allowed anymore.

Sure, some will. But is it worth the trade-off of people feeling intimidated?

Is it worth tearing down freedom of speech and expression over it?

So, here's a fairly standard formulation in terms of hate speech: No person shall deliberately incite hatred against any person or group of persons on the basis of a protected characteristic,* nor engage in any public speech or conduct demeaning or degrading to a person or group of persons on the basis of a protected characteristic where that conduct is reasonably likely to cause offence.

Do you feel that this line is set to 'appease the loudest screaming fascists'? If so, why?

(*: a fairly standard spread is race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, disability, and sexual orientation.)

[loomer]

Yes, and semantics are actually rather important when we're discussing the nature and limitations of rights, as you'd know if you'd ever actually studied them. They're also rather important for logic to work!

I do not find this particular semantic distinction significant.

Well, that's unfortunate, because it's actually an enormously important one when you want to invoke the right to religious freedom to allow you to degrade and demean others on the basis of their religion, which is a positive right that the right to religious freedom very much does not contain. When you're invoking something to say 'I get to do what I like and be shielded from the consequences because of x', it's actually very important to correctly identify x!

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that this action took place in a vacuum without a larger context of anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant sentiment in Sweden and Malmo? Because you seem to think it can be reduced entirely to 'they insulted Islam', and have produced no proof that this is the case.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, but given that this was all touched off by burning a religious symbol that’s what I’m focusing on. The original article quoted a local as saying it happened because they burned the Quran and I’m taking that at face value.

Yes, and that burning of the Quran took place in a context of systemic ill-treatment. Or do you think the local was suggesting that any and every Quran burning is, and ought to be, met by a riot?

Well, for a start, not doing it at a far-right rally attended by neo-nazis in an area that's had repeated arson attacks against its mosque and terrorist shootings against its community might be a start?

So if it was a left-wing, pro-immigrant group would it be alright? Or is burning the Quran in that area completely verboten? Are we going to say that there are neighborhoods where destroying a Quran is a crime and others where it isn’t?

Rather peculiar read, Ralin, but to be expected with the way you try to dodge every point. The point is that context is actually critical to determining where conduct is inflammatory or constitutes hate speech. Burning a Quran at a far-right rally specifically dedicated to anti-immigrant sentiment in a neighbourhood where people are predominantly immigrants with a high cross section between 'Muslims' and 'Immigrants' is a very different set of circumstances to burning one respectfully when it becomes soiled, for instance - something I'm pretty sure you know, and are just pretending eludes you.

I have asked how burning a Quran respects the spirit of a modern secular multi-cultural democracy,

It doesn’t, but being able to do so and expect to not be physically attacked for it is a consequence of having a secular state with those traits. Ditto for not having to deal with riots in reaction to someone else doing so.

Okay. Demonstrate how the right to deliberately incite hatred against a group of people as a means of intimidation, without fear of reprisal, is a necessary consequence of a secular multi-cultural democracy, please.

asked you to demonstrate why the values of secularism permit you to publicly attack and demean others in a way that is deliberately intended to target a protected characteristic

Because religious people can and will choose to interpret any slight to their religion as hate speech if they are able to get someone punished or silenced for doing so.

I see. And you have proof that this is the case here, correct? You have proof that laws prohibiting hate speech have inevitably given way to the prohibition of free speech that does not constitute hate speech, right?

I'm sure you can show me where I've declared that only certain religious persons are justified in rioting in response to systemic ill-treatment

Systemic ill-treatment? We’re talking about a riot in direct response to someone burning the Quran. Are you claiming the riot would have happened anyway if the right-wingers hadn’t burnt a Quran?

We're talking about a riot that took place in a predominantly immigrant neighbourhood in response to systemic ill-treatment and a campaign of intimidation and harassment on the basis of ethnicity and religion, which the burning of the Quran - more or less the symbol of Muslim identity for a lot of Muslims - took place during as a deliberate effort to incite hatred towards the residents of that neighbourhood and to intimidate them.

Do you intend to suggest that the riot had nothing whatsoever to do with this broader background and was solely and only the consequence of burning the Quran?

I'm sorry, but again, are you suggesting that the burning of the Quran took place in a vacuum?

Nothing takes place in a vacuum. That doesn’t mean you get to burn shit and hurt people because someone insulted your religion.

It also doesn't mean that when right-wingers stage a campaign of harassment against an immigrant community and target a symbol of their identity, you should declare that your sympathy is with the right-wingers and criticize the targeted community for snapping back.

Now, the far-right rally in general, that's another thing. I'm not saying free speech doesn't have limits. But my initial comments were aimed at the guy quoted as saying it was in response to burning the Quran.

Here's a simple question for you, then. Do you feel that burning a Quran specifically to incite hatred towards a protected characteristic and in an attempt to intimidate members of that community lies within, or without, the boundaries of free speech?

[His Divine Shadow]

Freedom of speech gets bandied about a lot now but have you ever read about the paradox of tolerance?

It states that the more tolerant we are of intolerant views, the more they will grow and become acceptable and those intolerant views will become stronger, in turn reducing freedom of speech in the society, and hurting minorites and vulnerable groups in society.

I think we can look back at the societal change over the previous 20 years and find pretty good argument that this paradox is real.

[loomer]

It's funny how it primarily gets bandied about to justify attacks on protected characteristics, isn't it?

[mr friendly guy]

I find those who largely cry freedom of speech, aren't actually its strongest defenders when its not convenient.

Remember those people defending Amos Yee? Totally cool to mock a dead man when he can't defend himself, rather than do it when he is alive. Oh, Yee also defends paedophilia. Oops, not supporting his right to stay in a country he is seeking asylum in.

Or Christopher Hitchens famously saying that suppressing free speech also violates my right to listen... unless its a Truther than he tells the guy to shut the fuck up.

Or right wingers totally ok with boycotts of domestic companies until left wingers do the same to them, then its "cancel culture."

Or left wingers saying boycott country x, until country x caves. Then citizens of country x decide to boycott American products and that American company caves in, its damn, how dare these people compel our companies to cave in.

If someone used freedom of speech and applies it consistently, I would definitely respect them more. But its getting to the stage where it seems when someone uses freedom of speech, it almost inevitably turns out freedom of speech only when its convenient for me.

[ray245]

Freedom of speech gets bandied about a lot now but have you ever read about the paradox of tolerance?

It states that the more tolerant we are of intolerant views, the more they will grow and become acceptable and those intolerant views will become stronger, in turn reducing freedom of speech in the society, and hurting minorites and vulnerable groups in society.

I think we can look back at the societal change over the previous 20 years and find pretty good argument that this paradox is real.

Exactly. I think where we are better informed about the consequences of near unlimited free speech than we did 20 years ago. The defence used to be the idea that good ideas will triumphed bad ideas, but as we can see today, that isn't necessarily true. A discussion of ideas requires good faith in both parties to discuss and debate ideas, but it is rather clear that the far-right isn't acting in good faith at all.

[loomer]

Remarkably enough, you can plot that progression pretty perfectly against Habermas's theory of communicative action and discourse theory. He wasn't trying to model what happens when the ordinary speech situation of politics stops having any semblance of communicative rationality, but the outcome is exactly as expected and highlights why the marketplace of ideas approach is utterly fucked against actors who aren't engaged in communicative rationality in the first place.

[wautd]

Should people feel intimidated in public spaces because of freedom of speech?

I guess not but it's not like it's a clear and objective line to determine at which point people will feel intimidated. Where or how would you draw the line on that? What if some people already feel intimidated by a cartoon or a rainbow flag?
If the line has to be set to appease the loudest screaming fascists, religious or otherwise, you might as well abolish free speech all together. Because at that point nothing will be allowed anymore.

Sure, some will. But is it worth the trade-off of people feeling intimidated?

Is it worth tearing down freedom of speech and expression over it?

So, here's a fairly standard formulation in terms of hate speech: No person shall deliberately incite hatred against any person or group of persons on the basis of a protected characteristic,* nor engage in any public speech or conduct demeaning or degrading to a person or group of persons on the basis of a protected characteristic where that conduct is reasonably likely to cause offence.

Do you feel that this line is set to 'appease the loudest screaming fascists'? If so, why?

(*: a fairly standard spread is race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, disability, and sexual orientation.)

Lets just say that I don't see burning a quran as hate speech or inciting hatred against a person or group of people.
But I can see your point that it's needlessly provocative/intimidating when it's done in a predominately Muslim neighborhood, and I can see reasons to ban it in said neighborhood (as long as it is allowed in public somewhere else).

[loomer]

I guess not but it's not like it's a clear and objective line to determine at which point people will feel intimidated. Where or how would you draw the line on that? What if some people already feel intimidated by a cartoon or a rainbow flag?
If the line has to be set to appease the loudest screaming fascists, religious or otherwise, you might as well abolish free speech all together. Because at that point nothing will be allowed anymore.



Is it worth tearing down freedom of speech and expression over it?

So, here's a fairly standard formulation in terms of hate speech: No person shall deliberately incite hatred against any person or group of persons on the basis of a protected characteristic,* nor engage in any public speech or conduct demeaning or degrading to a person or group of persons on the basis of a protected characteristic where that conduct is reasonably likely to cause offence.

Do you feel that this line is set to 'appease the loudest screaming fascists'? If so, why?

(*: a fairly standard spread is race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, disability, and sexual orientation.)

Lets just say that I don't see burning a quran as hate speech or inciting hatred against a person or group of people.

Sure. Burning the Quran in and of itself is not hate speech. Plenty of Muslims do it, and I don't think anyone here is suggesting that if a Quran ever catches fire it's automatically a hate crime. Just that, as you concede, context can turn an act that isn't hate speech or inciting hatred into precisely that, and that when it does, it becomes appropriate to prohibit it by law.

But I can see your point that it's needlessly provocative/intimidating when it's done in a predominately Muslim neighborhood, and I can see reasons to ban it in said neighborhood (as long as it is allowed in public somewhere else).

It's not just that it's a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood, though. It's that the way it's burnt is intended specifically to degrade and denigrate people based on their religion. It would be the same speech, just less likely to spark a direct violent response, if the same group of people burnt it in the middle of a public park and filmed it. Because let's be real here, these guys weren't burning it because they have a principled objection to some element or other of the Quran, they were doing it specifically to degrade and denigrate a group of people based on a protected characteristic. I'm actually curious to see how you can interpret that as anything but attempting to incite hatred against a person or group of people.

[ray245]

Remarkably enough, you can plot that progression pretty perfectly against Habermas's theory of communicative action and discourse theory. He wasn't trying to model what happens when the ordinary speech situation of politics stops having any semblance of communicative rationality, but the outcome is exactly as expected and highlights why the marketplace of ideas approach is utterly fucked against actors who aren't engaged in communicative rationality in the first place.

The Internet and social media has perhaps contributed more to this than ever.

[ray245]

But I can see your point that it's needlessly provocative/intimidating when it's done in a predominately Muslim neighborhood, and I can see reasons to ban it in said neighborhood (as long as it is allowed in public somewhere else).

What happens when someone of the Muslim community did decide to burn the Qua-ran as an genuinely act of protest in their own neighbourhood? What matters is less about where they are doing it as much as who is doing it and how they are doing it.

Free speech is most effective when members of its own community decides to use it to seek change and air grievances. It's far less useful when an external members use it to merely intimidate people.

[wautd]

But I can see your point that it's needlessly provocative/intimidating when it's done in a predominately Muslim neighborhood, and I can see reasons to ban it in said neighborhood (as long as it is allowed in public somewhere else).

What happens when someone of the Muslim community did decide to burn the Qua-ran as an genuinely act of protest in their own neighbourhood? What matters is less about where they are doing it as much as who is doing it and how they are doing it.

Free speech is most effective when members of its own community decides to use it to seek change and air grievances. It's far less useful when an external members use it to merely intimidate people.

True, but I would think such a person would have to be very brave and in need of police protection afterwards