Denmark charges man with blasphemy

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

I pretty much agree with this. Of all the potential reasons that there are behind the decision to prosecute this guy, there isn't one which isn't really disturbing.

Derec's explanation of why they decided to do it does seem like the most probable rationale for their actions and if this involved even 1% of their thinking behind it, this type of thinking needs to be slammed down hard right at the beginning as an unacceptable use of prosecutorial power. If there was some other type of thinking about it (I don't know what that might be - perhaps you could give a few ideas), I don't see how that type of thinking would be somehow less bad and less in need of getting slammed down hard as well.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

That's ONE interpretation. Lacking mind reading skills, and lacking a belief you have obtained mind reading skills, I don't think you've proven your case with this one single prosecution.

Don't tell me you don't see it too.

I don't see it.

You are just ignoring it because of your islamophilia.

I really don't have any islamophilia. If anything, I have islamophobia. the thing is, I don't want to look foolish in jumping the gun before it's justified. IF they're kowtowing to Islam, that's a problem. BUt there are other explanations for this one single case. so far.

You're just predisposed to ignore them.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, so Derec is the problem here.

Well, don't be jealous.
You're accusing me of something I'm not doing, so you can be the problem, too.

 

[thebeave]

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.

I pretty much agree with this. Of all the potential reasons that there are behind the decision to prosecute this guy, there isn't one which isn't really disturbing.

Derec's explanation of why they decided to do it does seem like the most probable rationale for their actions and if this involved even 1% of their thinking behind it, this type of thinking needs to be slammed down hard right at the beginning as an unacceptable use of prosecutorial power. If there was some other type of thinking about it (I don't know what that might be - perhaps you could give a few ideas), I don't see how that type of thinking would be somehow less bad and less in need of getting slammed down hard as well.

Maybe the real reason was because of the pollution from the burning.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Derec's explanation of why they decided to do it does seem like the most probable rationale for their actions .

You know, I could possibly even agree with this, except for his assurance that it's not probable, it's the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation.

We'll have to see if they do or do not prosecute any current efforts to 'get back' at people for this offense to Islam.

 

[dismal]

Derec's explanation of why they decided to do it does seem like the most probable rationale for their actions .

You know, I could possibly even agree with this, except for his assurance that it's not probable, it's the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation.

We'll have to see if they do or do not prosecute any current efforts to 'get back' at people for this offense to Islam.

So you defend a western government trashing western liberal values and prosecuting someone for "blasphemy" because they might have it in for the guy for some other reason for which there is currently no evidence?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Derec's explanation of why they decided to do it does seem like the most probable rationale for their actions .

You know, I could possibly even agree with this, except for his assurance that it's not probable, it's the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation.

We'll have to see if they do or do not prosecute any current efforts to 'get back' at people for this offense to Islam.

But that's like saying that we shouldn't diss Trump for lying about Obama wiretapping him because it's possible that he has access to classified information about the operation which isn't available to the public and therefore we need to hold off on our judgment about the matter until after the Congressional inquiry is completed seven years from now.

If there's one explanation which fits all the facts and other potential explanations where you have to make up assumptions about other possible facts which might exist, it's fine to take the position that the one explanation is the real one. You can change your position if those other facts eventually come to light, but there's no problem in going forward as if it were a fact when there's no reason to think differently.

 

[Elixir]

You know, I could possibly even agree with this, except for his assurance that it's not probable, it's the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation.

We'll have to see if they do or do not prosecute any current efforts to 'get back' at people for this offense to Islam.

So you defend a western government trashing western liberal values and prosecuting someone for "blasphemy" because they might have it in for the guy for some other reason for which there is currently no evidence?

There should be no laws against blasphemy, period.
Where people can be fined or jailed for insulting imaginary beings, tyranny takes a foothold. People should be free to believe foolish stuff, but they should not be protected from the ensuing mockery.
I'm not convinced that Derec's read on the situation is 100% correct, but as a broad principle I agree with him. (I think - he has not really expressed this sentiment.)

 

[Derec]

There should be no laws against blasphemy, period.
Where people can be fined or jailed for insulting imaginary beings, tyranny takes a foothold. People should be free to believe foolish stuff, but they should not be protected from the ensuing mockery.

We agree here.

I'm not convinced that Derec's read on the situation is 100% correct, but as a broad principle I agree with him. (I think - he has not really expressed this sentiment.)

Surely sign of the apocalypse. Keith was being mocking with "the sky is falling", but maybe that's not that far off.

 

[Keith&Co.]

[So you defend a western government trashing western liberal values and prosecuting someone for "blasphemy" because they might have it in for the guy for some other reason for which there is currently no evidence?

No, not defending the government at all.

ALL I've said is that there's insufficient evidence for Derec's 'only possible explanation' conclusion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You know, I could possibly even agree with this, except for his assurance that it's not probable, it's the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation.

We'll have to see if they do or do not prosecute any current efforts to 'get back' at people for this offense to Islam.

But that's like saying that we shouldn't diss Trump for lying about Obama wiretapping him because it's possible that he has access to classified information about the operation which isn't available to the public and therefore we need to hold off on our judgment about the matter until after the Congressional inquiry is completed seven years from now.

No, I don't think it is.
Derec went all the way to suggesting that the government is becoming submissive to Allah. Before we get that far, we might suggest that they're trying to appease militant muslims, without necessarily giving a fuck about Allah.
Or they might be trying to downplay all forms of bigotry.
Or they might be becoming submissive to Allah.

I think Derec is acting more like a creationist with one of those 'something happened, science can't explain it, therefore god' arguments.

 

[dismal]

[So you defend a western government trashing western liberal values and prosecuting someone for "blasphemy" because they might have it in for the guy for some other reason for which there is currently no evidence?

No, not defending the government at all.

ALL I've said is that there's insufficient evidence for Derec's 'only possible explanation' conclusion.

Yeah, there's a non-zero chance they wanted to detain the guy because he's a space alien!

We should all really harp on Derec for choosing the explanation which is consistent with the available facts.

 

[Elixir]

We agree here.

I'm not convinced that Derec's read on the situation is 100% correct, but as a broad principle I agree with him. (I think - he has not really expressed this sentiment.)

Surely sign of the apocalypse. Keith was being mocking with "the sky is falling", but maybe that's not that far off.

Lol! If the sky is falling, it's doing so rather slowly and in defiance of gravity. Probably caused by greenhouse gases.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We should all really harp on Derec for choosing the explanation which is consistent with the available facts.

Harp on... Harp on...
I questioned his conclusion, feeling it's premature without much more support, and I'm being accused of defending the government, defending the law, defending islam.
I'd feel really harped upon if any of that were true...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This sort of thing makes blasphemy imperative. This why we need to be drawing mohammad and burning qurans. And the more they move to kill cartoonists, the more cartoons of Mohammad need to be published.

 

[dismal]

I questioned his conclusion, feeling it's premature without much more support, and I'm being accused of defending the government, defending the law, defending islam.

It's weird, but when you grasp at straws to defend the indefensible people somehow get the impression you are defending it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's weird, but when you grasp at straws to defend the indefensible people somehow get the impression you are defending it.

Straws, heh.
Could you perhaps point to the place wherein I defend any of this?

You asked if there were alternate explanations possible. I think there could be other explanations. Did not say they were, or would have been, good choices made by the government.
Did not say that this law was a good opportunity to achieve certain goals.
Did not say this was a good law.

But, hey, support your strawman attack, dismal. G'head.

 

[dismal]

Hmm, here's an article about Denmark deciding to keep it's anti-blasphemy law in 2015.

Who can guess what the stated reason for keeping the law might be?

Show

Ms Vega Saenz explained that a group of experts under the Ministry of Justice had been charged by the Danish Parliament to look into the legal and practical implications of a potential repeal of their anti-blasphemy clause and found that despite the clause not having been invoked in court since the 1970’s, it is “legally important” in that it gives the state the possibility to stop people burning bibles and Korans, and to punish those who do. Also, it may be the only way to detain a space alien.

The decision to maintain the law, Ms Vega Saenz argued, was based on a number of factors, including the importance one attaches to free expression in relation to protecting religious feelings, protecting minorities and sustaining societal order.

http://iheu.org/denmark-announces-it-will-keep-its-blasphemy-law/

 

[Elixir]

It's weird, but when you grasp at straws to defend the indefensible people somehow get the impression you are defending it.

Straws, heh.
Could you perhaps point to the place wherein I defend any of this?

By drawing such a reaching inference, dismal risks becoming that which he criticizes. Ironic...

 

[laughing dog]

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.

I wrote the law is ill-considered and that book burning is stupid. People who intentionally burn books are acting stupidly.

As dismal has shown, there have been cases of Bible burning, and a much more public case than this, that resulted in no prosecution.

One case from 20 years ago.

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.

Denmark stood up for free speech in 2005 against Muslim attempts to stifle free speech -  Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy . so they already understand that.

Denmark is one of the most least welcoming European countries to immigrants. A recent article in the Atlantic outlines recent Danish changes in policy (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/denmark-refugees-immigration-law/431520/).

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

If being "willfully blind" means resisting a kneejerk staining of my underwear at the thought of a Muslim and basing my skepticism on the entire picture rather than minor onetime blip, then I am guilty.

Now, it is possible that you and dismal are correct - that this one instance in a 20 year period is a robust estimator of the eventual takeover of sharia law in Denmark. I just happen to think you are both over-reacting to an extremely rare event.

What is more interesting is that even though the Danes seem to favor freedom of speech, that freedom does not seem to extend to "blasphemy" (hence the ill-considered law).

 

[Elixir]

This sort of thing makes blasphemy imperative. This why we need to be drawing mohammad and burning qurans. And the more they move to kill cartoonists, the more cartoons of Mohammad need to be published.

And Jesus - don't forget cartooning Jesus and burning bibles. Also the FSM. And the Book of the Sub-Geniius.
BUT - if you really need to keep warm, you need to go for burning Hindu scriptures:

The Vedas.
The Upanishads.
Post-Vedic texts.
The Bhagavad Gita.
The Puranas.
The Tevaram Saivite hymns.
Divya Prabandha Vaishnavite hymns.​

Shirtcuff math says the entire collection should put out about 250,000 BTUs.