• SwedishFool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah, no, sorry. The Arabic world with the monstrous societal issues they’re suffering, has no right to dictate how our western world laws should look like. We have no obligation to bow to them, especially concidering there is nothing more anti Muslim than neighboring muslim countries. We had our borders open while the rich Arabic world shut theirs. This is just those rich countries grasping for more power. Fuck off or no more assistance programs, we’ll spend our tax payers money on our own country instead of giving it to some ungrateful Arabic leaders new Ferrari.

    • Why9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with your views on the Arab world but that’s irrelevant to the discussion here?

      Should it be illegal to burn religious books for the sole purpose of inciting hated freedom of speech? Probably not, but there needs to be some measure against people who are doing stuff like that purely for that reaction.

      It turned the relatively peaceful streets of Finland into one with anger and violence, because one guy wanted to make a point. People were happy to let it happen until people from the opposite camp started burning Torahs. Suddenly it became an actionable issue.

      Regardless of your views on the Arab world (of which I again, agree), a law that protects some and condemns others is the fastest path to instability and chaos and must be avoided at all costs. That’s what’s being discussed here.

      I don’t have an answer. I don’t think it should be illegal, but I do think freedom of speech needs to have limits.

      • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem is still feeling entitled to rioting, death threatening, and all that for simply being circumstancly offended. The protest is justified imo, and should always be so. How are we supposed to protest any fascistic and dogmatic entities if we’re not allowed to protest using symbols?

      • SwedishFool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I believe any form of burning books regardless of source should be legal. The ramifications of doing it is to get laughed at and have people shaking their heads; the same reaction that was given when bibles and swedish flags were burnt.

        In fact, we even had a torah being burnt outside a synagogue here. The rabbi defended the action, calling the “right of free expression” a holy right within the borders.

        The fact that this is even a debate is ridiculous, as it’s clouded by disinformation and lies.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the interests of informed debate: Europe does not make no-strings welfare payments to Arab despots. What money they have they usually get from resource extraction, oil and so on. To the extent Europe pays anyone off, it is very much conditional - stopping migrants, for example.

      • SwedishFool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        While you’re right in one way, it’s not entirely correct and an oversimplification. Sweden, for instance, pays roughly 1 billion sek (100 million euro, or thereabouts) for assistance programs in Afghanistan, of this about 30 million euro is purely humanitarian aid. However, you can’t deny knowing about the widespread corruption within the Arabic countries, where these funds and aids creates a space of available funds that’s channeled into the pockets of the rulers. A famous example is Hamid Karzai and his brother Ahmed Wali Karzai. They sure LOVED the assistance from the western world.

        To make things worse, the widespread corruption in certain areas puts the assistance programs in a position where they’re forced to pay bribes to be given access to the people they’re trying to help. This is very common according to transparency.org in their report “mapping the risks of corruption in humanitarian action.”

        To quote the report:

        “The practice of paying bribes at roadblocks was seen by survey respondents as a high and unavoidable risk.”

        Aswell as:

        “Anderson (1999) summarises the way in which aid can become caught up in conflict: Aid agencies, operating in areas controlled by factions, must often make ‘legitimate’ payments to those in power in the form of taxes and fees for services (import-export licenses, hired guards for protection, loaned use of vehicles and the like). They can use that income to finance the war or to enrich themselves”

        But sure, yes, your comment is definitely for the informed debate.