Summary
Salwan Momika, the Iraqi man who staged several Quran burnings in Sweden in 2023, was shot and killed in Sodertalje, near Stockholm.
His actions had sparked international outrage, riots, and diplomatic tensions. Swedish police confirmed a murder investigation is underway, and several arrests have been made.
Momika, who sought asylum in Sweden in 2018, faced charges of incitement to hatred, with a verdict scheduled for the day after his death.
His protests were permitted under free speech laws but led to legal action against him.
the man wanted to incite hatred, show him middlefinger by doing the opposite
The fuck? He should be allowed to burn whatever book he wants in protest, regardless of who it pisses off.
If anything, the only concern the state should have over this is for the environment.
Just because you are allowed to do something doesnt mean you should.
How do we know he wanted that?
I see the post that says he was being charged with inciting hatred, but also says his act was protected under free speech.
I think it’s dumb to be burning books as the only people who are going to be pissed are the fundamentalists and they’re always pissed off anyway, but I respect his right to free expression.
I think it’s smart to be burning books as an act of protest.
People need to be able to exercise their rights, or else their rights will be taken away.
so, momika has been in sweden a few years. he converted to christianity in his home country, started shouting loudly about freedom of speech there, got told to stop, then filed for asylum in sweden. once here he kept doing the same thing, which of course jeopardises his asylum claim. only he wasn’t first. rasmus paludan has been burning qurans here for a while, always doing it in neighbourhoods with a majority muslim population. as a demonstration of the problem with religion, it’s effective. once. but both of them did it for years, and the things they have been saying during their book burning made it clear that it was not actually about freedom of speech, but about hatred of muslims. not islam, muslims. and they were both in court for the crime of hets mot folkgrupp (“incitement of hatred against a population group”). they clearly overstepped the law of the country they were in.
Run on and on and on.
Great way to admit you didn’t read it. You are just looking for a way to ignore what they said. I’d recommend you actually take a look at it.
what do you mean?
They’re just being an ass about your writing.
i thought it would be about run-on sentences, but i can’t find one. there should probably be a line break though.
What other possible reason would someone have to burn a book that is to some more important than their life. Either people dont care about it or become enraged. And just because you have right to do something doesnt mean you should. His actions have caused a lot of harm, also most likely his own death too.
For argument’s sake, lets assume he had some positive reason for his actions. Has there been a single positive thing that has come from this? If you want to do good you need to think the consequences through and if you dont then you shouldnt do anything at all.
This is such a bullshit take with some not so subtle apoligism and blame shifting.
If burning a book causes a lot of harm in any way besides burn damage, the burner is hardly to blame but something else is fundamentally wrong, and he tried to make that very obvious to everyone with his own life at risk.
It’s not just paper. It’s a symbol. If you can’t understand that then there’s no hope for you in this world. You have a fundamentally flawed view of humanity if you can’t see humans ascribe meaning to object, religious or not. It’s the same reason burning a flag gets people upset.
You can argue it’s irrational, because it obviously is, but humans are not rational creatures.
Now, go only do objective rational things somewhere else. You’re words aren’t worth anything. You’re wasting your effort writing them.
Its not about the PHYSICAL book. Go ask any muslim if there is ANY situation where they would find it acceptable to burn their holy book in such way that guy did. And if he did it to “make it obvious there is something fundamendally wrong” why didnt he then MAKE IT OBVIOUS WHAT IS WRONG? Lets say that was his goal, then he failed so spectacularly words fail me.
I truly dont know what else to say about this if you still dont see what I mean.
And its not nice trying to frame what I said as apoligism or blame shifting. But if you TRULY think so then maybe you should back your arguments with facts instead of throwing words and hoping they stick. I know I can make mistakes and how else can I learn from them than if other people correct me. But i’m pretty sure i’m not wrong about this, but its not good to be blinded by your own surety.
You know that the Nazis in Germany burned a lot of books?
Your general statement would absolve them from their actions and intentions and instead shifts the blame onto the people who got persecuted by having their books burnt. Which later escalated to more than “just” burning books.
You cannot reduce it to the action itself and ignore all the context around it, especially not the intentions of the perpetrators.
And “other people shouldn’t get offended if i insult and attack them constantly” is hardly acceptable in any other social context. E.g. i hope you would oppose insulting LGBTQ, Women, Ethnic minorities, disabled people…
And it should be obvious from these examples, that “it is just a joke” or “it is just an insult and i should be allowed to insult, because muuh free speech” is not a sincere argument, by the people spreading the hate. And their intention is never to keep the hate at verbal abuse, but to escalate it to physical violence.
He did it to incite hate. No sane person care about the paper.
I guess if you burn the american flag in Texas, screaming and complaining loudly about"freedom of speech", people will get annoyed, but 20 years ago it was illegal to do so.
So how long have you sided with the Nazis and fundamentalist Christians?
Because now you’re excusing their book burning.
What a take.
You see the difference of an individual burning a book that he owns and leaving your books alone and the state burning all the books and forbidding you from accessing them… right?
…what does the state have to do with it? Fundamentalist Christians in the US burned books without state power. Nazis regularly encourage book burning and they haven’t had state power in a few decades.
This Nazi, for instance, did not have state power behind him. Just a group of sycophants encouraging his antics.
If you’re on the side of a book burning Nazi nut job, you’re the bad guy.
What has the state to do with it? Everything. I’m all for nazis burning books, clothes or wood. As long as it’s their own and they don’t harm anyone. I don’t know if he was a Nazi, he was full in his right to burn his own property. If you are worried about what someone does with his own shit, you might be the Nazi.
Right, so if I get a copy of your birth certificate, walk in front of your house after saying you shouldn’t exist, and burn your birth certificate you’re completely okay and wouldn’t think it’s a threat against you, right?
If I say ‘i hate (insert your race)’, and get material that is commonly associated with your local race and culture, and set it on fire in your front yard, you have no problems, right?
So the KKK did nothing wrong, according to your logic.
I’m not saying you really believe that, only a literal bigot would, but that’s what you’re arguing in order to justify your anti Muslim or anti religious hatred.
The scale makes all the difference here.
Yes, it’s so much better when one group of bigots burn books than a larger group of bigots burn more books.
I guess this is the lesser evil you guys keep voting for, just a little book burning and hate speech, as a compromise.
Just a pro tip, if you are ever on the side of people burning books, you’re in the wrong.
Right because your beloved CCP would never censor any books, right? lol
Most people don’t live in the 1950s, given its now the 2020s. I get your society hasn’t advanced in that time, China has.