Ministers propose the ban after a series of Quran burnings led to uproar in Muslim countries.
  • PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml
    4·
    1 year ago

    Setting shit on fire is a time honored tradition.

    Embassies are especially fair game (outside the grounds and in a safe fashion) . A protest in private is no protest at all.

    So when the taliban make it illegal for women to go to school, citing the Quran….While I don’t think fire is the right thing to do, I absolutely agree it is a right to burn shit somewhere in front of the afghan embassy. If that includes a flag or religious text owned by the protestor, so be it.

    However, people have the right to physically gain access to the buildings of use (service, home, food, etc) and safety first. Blah blah blah.

    In general, the state should read public protest as a sign that local democratically elected officials are not aligning with the values of their constituents.

    A public protest ought not be the first step.

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com
      2·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know about upholding time honored traditions, seems contradictory and subjective to me when your later stance includes an example of the Quran (another time honored tradition you don’t agree with). I don’t agree with making it illegal for anyone to attend school so it seems like a double edge sword that’s based solely on a personal morality which is hard to codify for an entire population.

      I also agree a private protest is no protest at all, but it becomes complicated when you’re targeting a religious group’s texts just because bad faith actors are using it for control. Even burning their flag seems weird when it’s not the people of that country making the decisions but by the administration in charge (I’m not sure on what the target for the protest should be then in that case though).

      Constitutionally you have to make a decision, I believe this has been debated and somewhat agreed upon though that access to a happy life (access to healthcare and freedom of religion) is more important than the right to “burn shit” as one has been documented and burning is not mentioned in most or any constitutions. Though freedom of expression is, which again becomes complicated when that expression is wished to be expressed through destruction of property (public/private). Again, I don’t have a particular stance on this subject but just pointing out contradictions in the arguments to better understand the ideology behind everyone’s thoughts.

      • PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml
        1·
        1 year ago

        Well tbh the word you are looking for is situational. Symbolic speech must be protected but when and where is a worthwhile convo.

        Burning shit is as important as worshipping shit.

        The key however is the Danish state: are they listening to their constituents? That is missing from this article.