Europe at War

[Florestan]

The Holy books are property of those who burn them.

Irrelevant. Burning the Quran in front of a Turkish Embassy is a deliberately provocative act. If you ask me, it has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with hate speech.

Besides, how do you call the fact that the Swedish authorities, who claimed they could not have curtailed Paludan's right to burn the Quran, have not permitted the burning of Torah in front of the Israeli Embassy, thus curtailing the right of whoever wanted to burn the Torah? I call it at best double satndards and at worst disgusting hypocrisy.

[Fëanor]

There are other motives too, but this incident has certainly not helped Sweden's cause in the least, on the contrary, it worsened it considerably. Erdogan is right to be enraged: if in the middle of some very difficult negotiations the Swedish government is unable or unwilling to show even a modicum of goodwill towards Turkey's concerns, then what guarantees can he have that they have any goodwill towards Turkey at all?

Well I'm just a little confused by this, especially the phrase "goodwill towards Turkey".  Is it ill-will that Sweden is sympathetic to Turkey's long-oppressed Kurdish minority?

Unfortunately organizations of oppressed groups tend towards terrorist activities and there are many examples, e.g. Hamas.  To be clear I do not support Terrorist activities the kill civilians. At the same time those organization often have the support of a large portion of the oppressed population.

Pragmatically I think Sweden ought to apologize to Turkey & Turkish Muslims for the Qur'an burning.  That is, without seeming to deny the right of free speech or protest, including to criticize a specific religion or religions general.  However it's certainly impolite to deliberately or provocatively offend the piety of religious people.

Pragmatically, because the PKK is commonly acknowledged to be a terrorist organization in the international sphere, Sweden probably ought to agree to curtail the activity of the PKK within it's borders.

[Fëanor]

Irrelevant. Burning the Quran in front of a Turkish Embassy is a deliberately provocative act. If you ask me, it has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with hate speech.

Besides, how do you call the fact that the Swedish authorities, who claimed they could not have curtailed Paludan's right to burn the Quran, have not permitted the burning of Torah in front of the Israeli Embassy, thus curtailing the right of whoever wanted to burn the Torah? I call it at best double satndards and at worst disgusting hypocrisy.

I agree that's hypocritical -- someone ought to go and burn a Tanakh in from of the Israeli embassy just to put the matter to the test in the courts.

Well OK, I'm mostly kidding.  However in principle I defend to right of anyone to criticize their own or anyone else's religion:  it might be hate speech in a specific context but it isn't inherently so.  What are we to make of the laws of a country like Pakistan were it is a capital offence to "offend" the Prophet or sully the Qur'an?

[71 dB]

Irrelevant. Burning the Quran in front of a Turkish Embassy is a deliberately provocative act.

Exactly! What other reason could there be?

If you ask me, it has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with hate speech.

That is your opinion. Swedes may have differing views. They are not Romanians. Their culture and laws differ from Romania. Sweden is MUCH more secular country compared to Romania. Finland is more religious than Sweden, but not as religious as Romania.

Besides, how do you call the fact that the Swedish authorities, who claimed they could not have curtailed Paludan's right to burn the Quran, have not permitted the burning of Torah in front of the Israeli Embassy, thus curtailing the right of whoever wanted to burn the Torah? I call it at best double satndards and at worst disgusting hypocrisy.

I didn't know about that Torah thing. I haven't followed Swedish politics. This is a rare case where Swedish politics matters to Finland. Sounds like double standards indeed. Did the laws change in between or what?

Easy for you to say what Sweden or Finland should or shouldn't do. Romania is safely in NATO and Turkey has no say on how Romania applies free speech. How would you feel if Romania was getting in NATO and getting demands from Turkey? Demands that have nothing to do with military capabilities.

Talking about hypocrisy, how about Turkey as a NATO member playing for Russia, a country that considers NATO its enemy.

[Todd]

From Yahoo! - though it's an article by Michael Isikoff, so hopefully it passes muster with learned media critics:

U.S. intel chief warns of 'devastating' impact of Russian missile attacks

Avril Haines said Thursday night that Moscow is making "very incremental progress" in its war on Ukraine.

But at the same time, Haines seemed to offer a more sobering view of the conflict than most Biden administration officials have shared to date. She said the "brutal" missile attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure are taking a far bigger toll than has been publicly understood...

But she also described the war as having devolved into a "grinding conflict" where the movements are in "hundreds of meters." The frontlines, she noted, have mostly remained "relatively static" even while the Russians press an offensive in the eastern Donbas region in which they have made "very incremental progress."

Fortunately, on the economic front, BlackRock, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs stand ready to help, and Time's Puppet of the Year stands ready to pocket the dough effectively manage their altruistic largesse.

Keep fighting. 

No negotiations.

[BasilValentine]

Ha. You just watch how some Americans react if you do something to their flag, or even fail to get involved in pledges of allegiance and the like.

EDIT: Or don't basically worship veterans. Every culture has its "superstitions".

Flag burning is legal in the US. No one is required to recite the pledge of allegiance. No one is required to worship veterans. I can burn a stack of bibles without repercussions.  In fact, a local thrift store gives bibles away for free and I use those thin crispy pages as kindling in my wood stove. Have you seen the hilarious new trend of satanists delivering opening prayers at school board meetings?

Perhaps every culture has its superstitions. It's the ones willing to kill over them that concern me.

[Todd]

Irrelevant. Burning the Quran in front of a Turkish Embassy is a deliberately provocative act. If you ask me, it has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with hate speech.

It's provocative.  Which is perfectly fine.  Provocative speech is, or should be, protected speech.

Hate speech is a nebulous (and false) legal construct that poses significant danger to free speech everywhere relevant laws exist.  If Europeans want to lustfully and emotionally embrace hate speech laws, that's fine.  Fortunately, in the US, SCOTUS recently ruled unanimously in Matal on the matter, though various laws and related court rulings will wind through the system over time.  I am somewhat surprised to see you embrace this concept, but it is what it is.

[Florestan]

I am somewhat surprised to see you embrace this concept, but it is what it is.

Burning the Quran in front of a Muslim-nation embassy clearly shows that the burner shits not only on the Muslim religion, but also on that specific Muslim nation.

Burning the Bible in front of a Christian-nation embassy clearly shows that the burner shits not only on the Christian religion, but also on that specific Christian nation.

Burning the Torah in the front of an Israeli embassy clearly shows that the burner shits not only on Judaism, but also specifically on Jews.

(That there are atheists in Muslim/Christian nations and Israel is irrelevant.)

In my book this is hate speech.

[Todd]

In my book this is hate speech.

I will merely reiterate that I am surprised to see you embrace this concept.  But you have.  That's fine, I get it.  Free speech can and does make some people uncomfortable. 

[Christo]

I will merely reiterate that I am surprised to see you embrace this concept. 

Hate speech is clearly embedded in European (human rights) law; Florestan is right to classify this as such.

[Todd]

Hate speech is clearly embedded in European (human rights) law; Florestan is right to classify this as such.

Yes, I am aware that Europeans have embraced hate speech laws.  I would expect nothing less.

[Florestan]

I will merely reiterate that I am surprised to see you embrace this concept.  But you have.  That's fine, I get it. 

I specifically explicitated what my own concept of hate speech was.

Telling and/or enjoying jokes about Jews, Muslims, Roma people, Americans, Scottish people, whatever (Romanians included) etc. does not qualify as hate speech in my book.

In my book hate speech is "speech" specifically and purposefully targeted at specifical ethnic or religious groups with the sole meaning of showing/arousing hatred against them.

[71 dB]

Burning the Quran in front of a Muslim-nation embassy clearly shows that the burner shits not only on the Muslim religion, but also on that specific Muslim nation.

Burning the Bible in front of a Christian-nation embassy clearly shows that the burner shits not only on the Christian religion, but also on that specific Christian nation.

Burning the Torah in the front of an Israeli embassy clearly shows that the burner shits not only on Judaism, but also specifically on Jews.

(That there are atheists in Muslim/Christian nations and Israel is irrelevant.)

In my book this is hate speech.

What does one have to burn to shit on atheists? Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion?

[Todd]

In my book hate speech is "speech" specifically and purposefully targeted at specifical ethnic or religious groups with the sole meaning of showing/arousing hatred against them.

OK. 

Such speech should be protected. 

[Florestan]

I defend to right of anyone to criticize their own or anyone else's religion:  it might be hate speech in a specific context but it isn't inherently so.

I'm an Orthodox Christian, convinced but not devout.

Do I think criticism of Orthodox Christianity is hate speech? No, I certainly don't. Be my guest, criticize (Orthodox) Christianity as much as you wish, as long as you do it in a rational manner and as long as you leave room for my own arguments to be laid on the table --- and, what is more, as long as you presume I am as much a goodwill, peaceful and reasonable human being as you are.

But--- Were you to burn an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the Romanian Embassy in Canada --- would I be wrong in assuming you shit not only on Orthodox Christianity, but also on the Romanian people which according to the latest census is 80% Orthodox Christian? And even if your personal opinion, which you are absolutely entitled to hold, would be that Orthodox Christianity sucks and the vast majority of Romanians are stupid, should the Canadian government jeopardize its excellent relationship with Romania by officially allowing you to burn a Romanian Bible in fornt of the Romanian Embassy in Ottawa?

What are we to make of the laws of a country like Pakistan were it is a capital offence to "offend" the Prophet or sully the Qur'an?

As a Christian in general, I can't pretend to innocence --- there were times in Europe when "offending" Christ or the Christian religion could have, and did have, ended one by being burned at stake. I can only ask you to cite one single pronouncement of Jesus Christ, as recorded in The New Testament (allowing for differences between Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran/Protestant versions), which supports violence against non-believers.

As a Romanian Orthodox Christian, my only comment is a question: show me one single person who was sentenced to death, let alone put to death, by the Romanian Orthodox Church (it doesn't matter for what) in all its entire history.

[Todd]

But--- Were you to burn an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the Romanian Embassy in Canada --- would I be wrong in assuming you shit not only on Orthodox Christianity, but also on the Romanian people which according to the latest census is 80% Orthodox Christian? And even if your personal opinion, which you are absolutely entitled to hold, would be that Orthodox Christianity sucks and the vast majority of Romanians are stupid, should the Canadian government jeopardize its excellent relationship with Romania by officially allowing you to burn a Romanian Bible in fornt of the Romanian Embassy in Ottawa?

Are you asserting that the act of a single individual burning an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the embassy in Canada would be sufficient to jeopardize an excellent relationship between countries?  If so, the relationship is not excellent.  You need to work on your hypotheticals.

[Florestan]

Are you asserting that the act of a single individual burning an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the embassy in Canada would be sufficient to jeopardize an excellent relationship between countries?  If so, the relationship is not excellent.  You need to work on your hypotheticals.

In normal times, the act of a single individual burning an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the Romanian Embassy in Canada would amount to nothing, even if it be approved by the Canadian government.

But --- if Canada were seeking to join NATO, and their joinig NATO depended on Romania's approval, and Romania told Canada they should put an end to any anti-Romanian activity, and then the Canadian government would give permit to someone to burn an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the Romanian embassy in Canada in the full knowledge of what was going to happen --- then I say that the subsequent Romanian veto against Canada's accession to NATO would be fully justified.

[Fëanor]

I specifically explicitated what my own concept of hate speech was.

Telling and/or enjoying jokes about Jews, Muslims, Roma people, Americans, Scottish people, whatever (Romanians included) etc. does not qualify as hate speech in my book.

In my book hate speech is "speech" specifically and purposefully targeted at specifical ethnic or religious groups with the sole meaning of showing/arousing hatred against them.

Yes, and I would go for an even more strictive definition of hate speech that requires that harm be encouraged, (more or less explicitly), against the target group. Merely insulting them or even slandering them must, in the interest of free speech, not be considered hate speech.

It seems to me that burning a religious text falls outside the definition I favour.

[Fëanor]

In normal times, the act of a single individual burning an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the Romanian Embassy in Canada would amount to nothing, even if it be approved by the Canadian government.

But --- if Canada were seeking to join NATO, and their joinig NATO depended on Romania's approval, and Romania told Canada they should put an end to any anti-Romanian activity, and then the Canadian government would give permit to someone to burn an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the Romanian embassy in Canada in the full knowledge of what was going to happen --- then I say that the subsequent Romanian veto against Canada's accession to NATO would be fully justified.

So it's a matter of expediency:  fine by me.

[Fëanor]

Are you asserting that the act of a single individual burning an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the embassy in Canada would be sufficient to jeopardize an excellent relationship between countries?  If so, the relationship is not excellent.  You need to work on your hypotheticals.

I agree with you, (for once).

Specifically Turkey making a big fuss about a Qur'an burning is mostly Erdogan waving the flag to please his base and re-enforce his crypto-fascist political strategy.

In Hungary, Viktor Orbán's NATO hesitancy isn't so different in that it's part of the aggrandizement of his nationalist image and championing Hungarian autonomy.