Denmark charges man with blasphemy

[Derec]

Danish man charged with blasphemy for burning Quran

Europe is getting more and more submissive to Allah it seems.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Prosecutors say burning holy books like the Quran and the Bible is a violation of a penal code that deals with religious scorn and public mockery.

Well, if a Muslim burns the Bible, and posts it to Facebook, and they do not prosecute, that might support your claim, there.
It COULD be that they're getting more sensitive to all anti-religious bullfuckery.

What religion was mocked the other three times someone broke this law? can you even show a 'trend' is in place?

 

[laughing dog]

Danish man charged with blasphemy for burning Quran

Europe is getting more and more submissive to Allah it seems.

I think the law is ill-considered, but I do think burning any book is stupid. But whether or not this is evidence that Europe is getting more submissive to Allah requires more background. For example, if there are example of Danish people burning the Bible or the Bhagadvita but not being prosecuted, you'd have more convincing evidence of your position.

All you have at this point is evidence of adherence to an ill-considered law.

 

[dismal]

Prosecutors say burning holy books like the Quran and the Bible is a violation of a penal code that deals with religious scorn and public mockery.

Well, if a Muslim burns the Bible, and posts it to Facebook, and they do not prosecute, that might support your claim, there.
It COULD be that they're getting more sensitive to all anti-religious bullfuckery.

What religion was mocked the other three times someone broke this law? can you even show a 'trend' is in place?

Hey, well guess what:

Mr. Paludan also noted that in 1997, a Danish artist burned a copy of the Bible on a news show by a state broadcaster but was not charged. “Considering that it is legal to burn a Bible in Denmark, I’m surprised then that it would be guilty to burn the Quran,” he said in a phone interview.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/world/europe/denmark-quran-burning.html?_r=1

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, if a Muslim burns the Bible, and posts it to Facebook, and they do not prosecute, that might support your claim, there.
It COULD be that they're getting more sensitive to all anti-religious bullfuckery.

What religion was mocked the other three times someone broke this law? can you even show a 'trend' is in place?

Hey, well guess what:

Mr. Paludan also noted that in 1997, a Danish artist burned a copy of the Bible on a news show by a state broadcaster but was not charged. “Considering that it is legal to burn a Bible in Denmark, I’m surprised then that it would be guilty to burn the Quran,” he said in a phone interview.

1997, huh? Twenty years ago?

so, were the other three times someone was prosecuted also for blasphemy against the Quran?
That would be compelling. And a sign of a trend.

Obviously, we're only about 60 or 70 years away from sharia law there.

 

[dismal]

Hey, well guess what:

Mr. Paludan also noted that in 1997, a Danish artist burned a copy of the Bible on a news show by a state broadcaster but was not charged. “Considering that it is legal to burn a Bible in Denmark, I’m surprised then that it would be guilty to burn the Quran,” he said in a phone interview.

1997, huh? Twenty years ago?

so, were the other three times someone was prosecuted also for blasphemy against the Quran?
That would be compelling. And a sign of a trend.

Obviously, we're only about 60 or 70 years away from sharia law there.

Twenty years is a pretty short time to descend from it being OK to burn a bible on state funded television to arresting someone for burning his own Koran in his own home and getting 400 hits on facebook.

 

[Derec]

Well, if a Muslim burns the Bible, and posts it to Facebook, and they do not prosecute, that might support your claim, there.

Why does it have to be a Muslim who burns the Bible?

It COULD be that they're getting more sensitive to all anti-religious bullfuckery.

Given that the last time somebody was charged with blasphemy was in 1971 and las

What religion was mocked the other three times someone broke this law? can you even show a 'trend' is in place?

Blasphemy law hasn't been used for decades in Denmark. And now all of a sudden, when Islam is increasing in numbers and especially agressiveness, it is used again. Do you really think that's just a coincidence?

There is no blindness as effective as willful blindness Keith.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously, we're only about 60 or 70 years away from sharia law there.

You are being way too optimistic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All you have at this point is evidence of adherence to an ill-considered law.

Well Derec and dismal have offered five data points.

Four times someone has been prosecuted under the law for offending
1. 2017 Islam
2. 1971 As yet unknown
3. 1946 As yet unknown
4. 1938 As yet unknown

And one time someone has NOT been prosecuted for offending christainity.

So far, the law's been enforced kind of sporadically. At this rate, it probably won't be applied again until 2103'

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why does it have to be a Muslim who burns the Bible?

Well, that's your nightmare, right? Submission to Allah? If they punish people for being religiously offensive, but let Muslims get away with it, that's a definite sign in favor of your alarm.

It COULD be that they're getting more sensitive to all anti-religious bullfuckery.

Given that the last time somebody was charged with blasphemy was in 1971 and las

Yeah, that's kinda my point. The law's been on the books for a while and prosecuted less often than the oral sex laws in Kentucky. This seems like a lonely data point that doesn't support your interpretation. There are plenty of other curves that can be drawn to include this point.

What religion was mocked the other three times someone broke this law? can you even show a 'trend' is in place?

Blasphemy law hasn't been used for decades in Denmark. And now all of a sudden, when Islam is increasing in numbers and especially agressiveness, it is used again. Do you really think that's just a coincidence?

I think you can show that it was used once. Yes. I don't think that this one use supports your analysis. We would need more examples, more data, before a curve can be drawn.

There is no blindness as effective as willful blindness Keith.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The problem is NOT that you don't have sufficient data to reach your desired conclusion, it's that in questioning your data, I must be prejudiced against your conclusion.

That there's good science, bucko.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Twenty years is a pretty short time to descend from it being OK to burn a bible on state funded television to arresting someone for burning his own Koran in his own home and getting 400 hits on facebook.

Yeah, a generation has passed. That's pretty short in discussions of evolutionary theory and climate change.
Two years is a huge amount of time in politics, though. Just look at the last election circus.

I'm just saying there's only one point here, not enough to build a 'trend' analysis on.

One meteor has fallen. The sky is still up there...

 

[Derec]

I think the law is ill-considered, but I do think burning any book is stupid.

But if it is your own book, should it not be legal? If I want to use the unholy Quran as kindling for my pig pickin' I should be free to do so.

But whether or not this is evidence that Europe is getting more submissive to Allah requires more background. For example, if there are example of Danish people burning the Bible or the Bhagadvita but not being prosecuted, you'd have more convincing evidence of your position.

As dismal has shown, there have been cases of Bible burning, and a much more public case than this, that resulted in no prosecution.
Note that the last blasphemy prosecution in Denmark was in 1971, and the last conviction in 1946.
Are you really suggesting it is a coincidence that this law is dusted off precisely now when Muslims are moving in mass quantities into Europe in general and Denmark in particular and making a nuisance of themselves?
Danish authorities must understand that such appeasement never works.

All you have at this point is evidence of adherence to an ill-considered law.

46 years after the last prosecution. You are as willfully blind as your buddy Keith.

 

[dismal]

The law's been on the books for a while and prosecuted less often than the oral sex laws in Kentucky.

The fact that this is such a lonely data point ought to make you wonder why this particular case is being prosecuted. Not act as apologist for something that is so clearly unconscionable.

 

[Elixir]

Obviously the only solution is to make it mandatory to burn every single book that attributes its content to an imaginary supernatural entity. Easy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

1997, huh? Twenty years ago?

so, were the other three times someone was prosecuted also for blasphemy against the Quran?
That would be compelling. And a sign of a trend.

Obviously, we're only about 60 or 70 years away from sharia law there.

Well, it doesn't really matter how many times it's used. If it's a shitty law which shouldn't be on the books and that nobody should care about, then it's a shitty law which shouldn't be on the books and nobody should care about.

If some place has an anti-sodomy law and the only time anyone becomes aware of it is once every fifty years when a prosecutor gets pissed off at someone and finds a way to charge him under this obscure law because he can't get him for any of the real crimes he thinks he's guilty of, that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to have an anti-sodomy law on the books and let the government have that tool available when they want to use it. It would, of course, be worse if homosexuals were getting arrested under this law on a constant basis, but the twice-a-century application of the law being far less bad than that doesn't mean that it's not still bad.

It's the same with this anti-blasphemy law. The right of assholes to be offensive dicks who want to piss off followers of some dumb-assed religion for the sake of being assholes is more important than the rights of some delicate snowflakes to not hear trigger words outside of their safe spaces. Somebody wanting to film himself burning a book which has no value to him shouldn't be an issue for the government just because someone else disagrees with him and thinks the book is worth something.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not act as apologist for something that is so clearly unconscionable.

I'm not supporting the 'unconscionable' act.
I'm questioning Derec's conclusion as it's based on insufficient evidence.
Of course, given the choice of getting more evidence or demonizing the doubters, it's clear which is the easier option.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, it doesn't really matter how many times it's used. If it's a shitty law which shouldn't be on the books and that nobody should care about, then it's a shitty law which shouldn't be on the books and nobody should care about.

I would agree.
But I wasn't questioning whether the law was shitty or not.
I was questioning whether there might be other interpretations of this one incidence aside from Derec's claim that the sky is falling.

 

[Derec]

I would agree.
But I wasn't questioning whether the law was shitty or not.
I was questioning whether there might be other interpretations of this one incidence aside from Derec's claim that the sky is falling.

Since the law hasn't been used since 1971 and not successfully used since 1946, it is pretty clear that the motivation behind using it now is appeasement of the increasingly aggressive Islam in Denmark.
Don't tell me you don't see it too. You are just ignoring it because of your islamophilia.

 

[dismal]

The fact that this is such a lonely data point ought to make you wonder why this particular case is being prosecuted. Not act as apologist for something that is so clearly unconscionable.

I'm not supporting the 'unconscionable' act.
I'm questioning Derec's conclusion as it's based on insufficient evidence.
Of course, given the choice of getting more evidence or demonizing the doubters, it's clear which is the easier option.

OK, so Derec is the problem here.

Imagining for a moment this is not a thread about Derec, why do you imagine after decades of non-use for more public acts they have decided to prosecute this one?

 

[Elixir]

OK, so Derec is the problem here. Imagining for a moment this is not a thread about Derec, why do you imagine after decades of non-use for more public acts they have decided to prosecute this one?

Because the sky is falling. Duh!

Seriously, if what is presented here is all there is to it, that's fucked up. Somehow I doubt the initial premise, though. There just might be more to it than what appears in this thread.
I did already suggest a solution, anyhow...

 

[Keith&Co.]

The fact that this is such a lonely data point ought to make you wonder why this particular case is being prosecuted.

When I was in the Navy, we had one guy who was a bit of a slug. He never quite broke the rules, but he would push them as far as he could.
One day they sent him on an errand knowing that he'd use the opportunity to go buy cigarettes at the exchange, grab lunch at McDonalds, otherwise slack off. During that time we moved the submarine from the port side of the tender to the starboard side. two hours work, shifted the submarine about 80 feet or so.
He came back, found the boat had moved...and they wrote him up for missing ship's movement. Captain's mast, reduction in rate, half a month's pay taken away.

same ship, the command butt-suck slept in the morning that we went to sea. He missed the ship leaving. He begged a ride on the tug boat that came out to pick up the pilot, six hours after the morning muster.
They could have written him up for being AWOL, or missing ship's movement. Instead, they counseled him for being tardy.

In both cases, what they did didn't matter as much as the command's desires for the individual (hate for/love for). the actual UCMJ charges were simply tools for a decision already made.

When I see a law that's used so terribly sporadically, I tend to assume that there's more to the story. That someone was gunning for this guy for something else and they found an otherwise obscure way to get him into court. That's where my mind goes, really.