Sweden and Denmark are finally caving, prompting an article by Time magazine entitled Denmark and Sweden’s Commitment to Free Speech Is Wilting in the Face of Quran Burning.
The article addresses the concerted diplomatic pressure from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), “led by countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran,” and states that “the Danish government held firm and refused demands to impose Islamic blasphemy norms.” That is, until now, as “recent events have shattered this resolve.” Sweden has also stood firm, until now.
On August 3, Jihad Watch reported on Sweden’s continuing resolve in the face of Qur’an desecrations. The Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, declared: “It can be awful but still lawful.” Kristersson admitted that he was “extremely worried” amid escalating jihad threats, as more foes of the Sharia applied for permits to burn the Qur’an. But he opted to uphold Swedish law and “strengthen border and internal controls and give police wider authority to stop and search people as a result.” I wrote at the time:
The frenzied reaction over Qur’an burnings and the doubling-down on demands from the OIC to bully Western countries into conformity with the Sharia should cause people in the West to pause to consider the consequences of the vast numbers of unvetted Muslim migrants flowing into the West who do not share Western values.
Elected Western leaders should understand that they do not have the right to impose Sharia tenets on their citizens, whose rights are ostensibly protected by the constitutions of the various countries. Also, the Qur’an desecrations were not a demonstration of “hate”; rather, they were a demonstration of opposition to Sharia tenets and their incursion into the West. Surrendering in the face of threats parades the West’s weakness for the OIC, Communists and others to observe. An article by Salem Alketbi in the Jerusalem Post epitomizes exactly why the West needs to stay strong. Alketbi’s article, which actually supports banning Qur’an desecrations, is entitled Quran-burnings can fuel Islamic extremism, terrorism. It points out how insulting “Islamic sensibilities” causes “extremism” and fuels terrorism. It supports the bad idea that free societies should surrender their sovereignty in the face of barbaric behavior, and give those who are issuing threats what they want in order to end those threats and the ensuing violence. Has a strategy of appeasement worked for Israel? Will surrendering to the demands of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and their foot soldiers work? Would Alketbi also expect Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders (a.k.a. the “Auschwitz borders”)? He likely would. Alketbi is essentially demanding that civilized Westerners refrain from hurting Muslim sensibilities on demand.
Criticizing Islam also hurts Muslim sensibilities. It follows that anything regarded as “Islamophobic” should be stopped. Such absurd demands are what gave rise to Qur’an desecrations in the first place. It was the “Islamophobia” subterfuge that led to the current threats to the freedom of expression in the first place. “Islamophobia” was nothing more than an OIC-backed stratagem employed to subvert the West, and slowly bring Western countries into line with Sharia blasphemy tenets.
Changing Western laws to appease Muslims sends the message to them that the more violent Muslims become, the more Western states will kowtow to them. It follows also that the more threatening and punitive the OIC becomes, the more Western nations will be expected to appease.
On the one hand, there are good reasons to be critical of book burnings. It is a poor substitute for reasoned debate and one that will forever be associated with totalitarian states, such as Nazi Germany, in our collective history. But however noxious the ideas of the far-right protestors who torch Qurans, they are not state agents, they are not speaking for the government, nor do they have the power to censor or discriminate. They are private individuals whose non-violent symbolic expressions are intended to convey a message, which however, offensive to those who disprove, is part and parcel of free expression.
Indeed, the West allows freedoms to flourish, freedoms which include “offense.” Such freedom is not permitted under Sharia. Dissidents who cause offense to Islam in Sharia states face lashing, imprisonment, or even death. The West, however, is now caving to the most obscene bullying from Sharia-driving OIC thugs:
On July 30, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen announced that the government will seek to enact legislation for “special situations where other countries, cultures, and religions could be insulted, potentially resulting in significant negative consequences for Denmark.” Sweden is mulling over similar actions. These capitulations have forced these countries to debate how far they are willing to go to defend their freedoms in the face of violence and international backlash.
Both country’s leaders are now enacting open-ended laws, dividing their nations as they bow to Islam and trample upon the rights of their citizens. The death knell of freedom is now sounding in Sweden and Denmark, which are facing a new dawn of Sharia.
Michael Copeland says
CD-W is right. There should be no capitulation to bullying. The subterfuges need to be recognised.
“Incidents of burning the Koran are made the subject of a crafty ploy, intimidation while claiming victim status. Muslims claim to be victims of “hurt feelings” when their Book of Kill Them is burnt.
The posture of injured “sensibilities” is bogus. The real message is the threat of violence. Islam has extremely cruel features — beheadings by sword or more slowly by knife, daughter-killing, stoning, amputations, slavery, wife-beating, throat-slitting of animals without stunning, lashes for drinking alcohol, and so on and so on. For exponents of these cruel insensitive actions to claim that they have “offended sensibilities” is extremely unconvincing.”
From https://gatesofvienna.net/2023/08/islams-sensitivity-scam/
Michael Copeland says
Alketbi, in Jerusalem Post, flogs a tired old canard when he says, “‘insulting “Islamic sensibilities” causes “extremism” and fuels terrorism.'”
No, it does not.
“Extremism”, as defined by the UK government, is ordinary basic Islam (see https://gatesofvienna.net/2019/06/the-lamentable-shortcomings-of-some-english-judges-and-senior-lawyers/).
“Terrorism”, as defined in the West, neatly covers jihad, an Islamic duty which muslims do not acknowledge as terrorism. Abu Izzadeen, however, does admit it, “Terrorism is part of Islam!”.
somehistory says
Good for Time.
In these days, people want their ‘feelings” to be paramount. Laws are being written to punish the use of pronouns which the hearer doesn’t like. Laws are being written to protect the feelings of mozlums, and which, in fact, help establish their caliphate over the rest of the world.
turkiye wants to be the newest caliphate. isis was trying to establish a caliphate. is of Africa is trying to establish the newest caliphate by slaughtering all who oppose or have a different religious belief.
fighting between pakistan and afghanistan is happening because each group of mozlums want to be on the top of the heap.
Censoring the speech…including actions such as book burning…of those who oppose islam, is a very large step in helping mozlums to establish their worldwide caliphate.
Yesterday, I saw my eye doctor. In the waiting room, an older gentlemen wanted to talk about his eye, his health, etc. and he was relating a trip to Mexico. One of the things he said to me was regarding his friends who ‘are White, no offense’.
“No offense.” Because I’m White, he had to make sure that I was not offended by his statement about his White friends having no trouble crossing the border back into the U.S.
Feelings of loved ones are important. Feelings of a patient under medical care are important. The “feelings” of those who wish me enslaved or dead, are not.
They want us enslaved or dead and they are using our Freedoms against us to make sure we are in one of those two categories. In Sweden and Denmark, they are using their speech to silence everyone else…or else.
The Court has ruled against biden and his doj attorney regarding the censoring of social media posts they don’t like. Their ‘arguments’ have been rejected. Their actions were compared to a mob boss putting the pressure on to conform. they were told that they can ‘speak,’ but they can’t stop others from speaking.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
TIME magazine supports free expression? We must be in the twilight zone!
James Lincoln says
Yes, Infidel.
I actually thought that it was a misprint.
Wellington says
There would be no Koran burning if Islam were a decent and tolerant religion but….
somehistory says
And, if some person had a copy and just wanted to burn it, mozlums wouldn’t want, and demand that, the person be murdered…if “islam were a decent and tolerant religion.”
Michael Copeland says
Capitulate to bullying?
William Tell did not..
https://gatesofvienna.net/2023/07/europes-william-tell-moment/
Ren says
Just keep burning the quran, that’s all. No bid deal!
maria says
yes it is the best way how to show that there are countries that fight for free speech and democracy
Kepha says
Liberalism is the death-wish of a civilization. Nowhere is this clearer than in the willingness of many Western leaders–including in the USA–to capitulate to Islamic demands. We’ve had the shameful spectacle of a US President (the O–yes, WE the People elected him 2x) screaming that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”; as if any biblically and theologically literate Christian could ever admit Muhammad as a prophet of God. Now, we see European countries willing to sacrifice freedom of speech.
Yesterday, they licked Marxist boots; now, they bend over with bared recta to Muslims and praise every sexual perversion there is. I fear that I am watching the slow motion suicide of the West. As a teacher, I raise counterfactual and alternative points of view; but I feel like the Dutch boy with a finger in the dike and too many leaks elsewhere that are too far away to reach.
Aum says
The principle of ‘Freedom of Speech ‘ is non-negotiable.
It must be upheld.
Govts everywhere please do not cave in to the OIC or U.N.
Gary Fouse says
Time doesn’t often get it right, but this time they do. It is a great point that those who are burning Korans are not state actors. That is an important distinction.
I suspect in the case of Sweden that they are going through the motions until they are officially in NATO. The fact is they can’t ban burnings by executive order. They have to get it through their legislature, and they have to also deal with the Swedish constitution. Right now they are “examining”g the visa standing of the IRaqi who is the latest to descrtae the Koran. Apparently, it has to be renewed next year. But where are they going to send him, back to Iraq? I don’t think so.