After months of passionate debate, Denmark recently enacted a law that prohibits “improper treatment of works of religious importance to recognized religious communities.” Publicly tearing, burning or defacing documents such as the Koran is now punishable by a fine or up to two years in prison.
The bill, which has been the subject of a lengthy parliamentary review and heated national debate, was first introduced in August with the aim of passing it by Christmas. Mission complete.
The debate has already gone beyond Denmark’s borders and gone international, gaining momentum in countries such as Sweden, where the proposed legislation is presented as contrary to traditional European liberal values such as freedom of speech. It reminded me that although this was often the case, it was neither new nor an exception. .
In fact, Denmark is the latest country to join a group of 10 EU countries, including Austria, Poland, Belgium, Greece, Finland, Germany, Italy, Estonia and Romania, which have imposed various bans on the desecration of religious documents. It is.
Before the bill was introduced, there had been a spate of public burnings of Islamic holy books in Denmark. and status may be difficult for non-Muslims to understand.
Stay informed with MEE’s newsletter
Sign up for the latest alerts, insights, and analysis.
Starting with Türkiye Unpacking
The shock, trauma, pain, humiliation, anger, and even fear that devout Muslims experience when they see the Quran burned and desecrated in public, sometimes in front of their own mosques, can hardly be overstated. may have no sympathy for the lived experiences of the Danes.
However, the ban is understandable. In recent months, Quran burnings in European countries have deepened the crisis, affecting domestic and international economies, diplomacy, politics, and security.
provocative stunt
Islamic countries and their governments strongly condemn such provocative acts. The ambassador was summoned and a large crowd expressed their anger. Several terrorist plots were thwarted, and by the end of the summer Sweden’s terror alert level was raised to “high” (fourth on a five-point scale). Clearly, public safety was threatened.
In these circumstances, the Danish government could not stand by and watch provocateurs sow discord and endanger the country at home and abroad. Therefore, the Danish government placed a genuine commitment to freedom of expression ahead of consideration for the religious sensibilities of Muslims, with national security and international interests, which appear to have been the main drivers of this law. I was forced to strike a delicate balance between the two.
This ban does not demonstrate a strong stance in defense of Islam and Muslims, or even respect for this community. Nor does it specify a policy against Islamophobia. Nowhere in official justifications, declarations or documents are such words or motives found. Amid domestic security and foreign policy concerns, the government simply fears retaliation and counterattacks. Additionally, the law will be reviewed after three years, but it may be temporary.
Supporters, mostly Muslims, have welcomed long-overdue protections against Islamophobic hate speech and incitement.
In the meantime, there is a real risk that by trying to put out the fire, the government will end up giving it to others. International public opinion is deeply divided between supporters and opponents of this law, and those uncomfortably in between.
Supporters, mostly Muslims, have welcomed long-overdue protections against Islamophobic hate speech and incitement. They argue that invoking freedom of expression in cases like this justifies Islamophobia, cloaks anti-Muslim hatred in the lofty rhetoric of constitutional freedom, and transforms hate speech into free speech. They say it’s for the sake of it.
They further claim that these provocations are symbolic acts of violence that promote and incite Islamophobia and hatred against Muslims, as well as further the rise of the far right across Europe. If this continues for an extended period of time, it threatens the physical safety of Muslims and their rightful place in their own society.
On this side of the debate, there is no absolute freedom of expression even in the most advanced democracies, where basic civil liberties always exist within frameworks and restrictions, and where freedom of speech is rightly emphasizes that it must be balanced against other fundamental rights, such as freedom of religion. .
Entire categories of expression, such as racism, hate speech, slander, and defamation, are typically excluded from permissible free speech and criminalized. There’s a huge consensus on this.
protect freedom
Despite attacks on civil liberties being common and facing accusations of hypocrisy, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has advanced substantive legal arguments in defense of the ban on burning the Koran.
The OIC states that the exercise of freedom of expression is subject to certain obligations and responsibilities pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as other principles enshrined in other international instruments, including the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is emphasized that this is accompanied by At the very least, these arguments should be heard and more widely publicized.
Denmark: Freedom of speech does not apply to Moroccan cartoonists
read more ”
The Swedish government itself has declared: “We want to protect freedom of expression in Sweden.The basic principle is that it is not allowed to express views that others may perceive as offensive or insulting.” , is, and will continue to be, permissible. This does not mean that everything is free.” For example, the rules on incitement to racial hatred set limits. ”
Critics and opponents say the ban amounts to a gross capitulation to foreign pressure from authoritarian and undemocratic states such as Saudi Arabia. They said this would mean surrendering their right to freedom of expression, setting a precedent that would only reward and embolden enemies of freedom, including jihadists, and further limit criticism of Islam while abandoning their most cherished values. It claims to put pressure on Western countries to do so. .
Critics also say the new law is a historic setback to Denmark’s blasphemy law, which it abolished in 2017, and reinstates bigotry by reimposing religious norms on society as a whole, including non-religious people. points out. It may also violate certain international conventions to which Denmark is a party.
The slippery slope or Pandora’s box argument suggests that such precedents make it easier to restrict other types of free speech that are offensive to some, or to limit the human rights of Muslims in the name of respect. It is often cited because of concerns that other basic civil liberties, including civil liberties, are at risk of being undermined. For other groups.
Possibility of adverse effects
In fact, rather than combating anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia, this law could be counterproductive in many ways and harm Muslims themselves.
Because laws protect people, but not religions, ideologies, or texts, restricting free speech, including expressions of religious hatred and outrage, can fuel far-right speech. be. They believe that Islam is inherently incompatible with the values of our democratic and pluralistic society, that Muslims do not recognize these principles, and that our “Western civilization” therefore has no I have always maintained that I do not belong.
Rather than countering Islamophobic far-right extremists, this law could actually help them by seemingly affirming their claims of “incompatibility between Islam and the West.”
Rather than countering Islamophobic far-right extremists, this law could actually help them by seemingly supporting their claims of the “incompatibility of Islam and the West.”
This is because much of the religious expression of Muslims is already subject to bans under various pretexts, including maintaining public order as invoked by this ban. It may even have the opposite effect on religious freedom. Such measures are often a double-edged sword.
Finally, some Muslims argue that the Qur’an itself does not call for the prohibition of blasphemy, but rather advocates continued dignity, perseverance, and resilience in the face of adversity, humiliation, and insult. ing.
In any case, now that this law has been passed, we wonder how it will affect Denmark and other Western countries, and how it will ultimately improve relations between Muslims and those who hate Islam. You can see if it helps. holy quran.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Middle East Eye’s editorial policy.