In the wake of numerous incidents involving the burning of the Quran, which have sparked protests and indignation among nations with Muslim majorities, the Swedish government has expressed concern about national security.
After far-right activist Rasmus Paludan desecrated the Quran in front of the Turkish embassy in Stockholm on January 21, 2023, a series of incidents involving the burning of the document occurred. On August 25, the Danish government declared its intention to “criminalize” the desecration of religious objects and implemented a policy that forbade the burning of scriptures.
Freedom of expression is regarded as a fundamental human right in liberal democracies. Nevertheless, the right to express one’s opinion can become complex when it is in conflict with the religious and cultural beliefs of others or when it is transformed into hate speech.
I am fascinated by the manner in which contemporary European societies endeavor to balance the necessity of preventing incitement to hatred with the protection of free expression, as a scholar of European studies. A small number of these societies are enacting legislation that specifically targets hate speech.
The penalty of death for defaming God and the church
Blasphemy against Christian beliefs has consistently been met with severe penalties in European nations as a result of the pervasive influence of Christianity in European political and cultural spheres since the Middle Ages.
For example, the Danish Code of 1683 mandated penalties such as the amputation of the tongue, cranium, or limbs. In Britain’s colonial colonies and on the main island, comparable penalties were implemented for blasphemy. The death penalty for blasphemy was implemented by English Puritan colonists in Massachusetts in 1636.
Blasphemy laws have been regarded by religious and civil authorities as instruments to preserve social harmony and fortify religious authority and regulations. The influence and power that religious groups possessed were demonstrated by these laws at the time.
The execution of a man for heresy is depicted in a painting from July 1826.
CC BY-SA (E)manccipa-Ment via Wikimedia Commons
Religious institutions experienced a decline in influence during the Age of Enlightenment from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries. France was the first nation to repeal its blasphemy statute in 1881, in order to advocate for a strict separation of religion and state. Seven additional European nations, including Sweden and, more recently, Denmark, repealed their laws between the 1900s and 2000s.
The legal framework in Europe that governs blasphemy
Blasphemy laws are still enforced in numerous European countries, albeit with significantly different methodologies. Disrespect for religious texts is an example of a contemporary deed that contemporary legislation may fail to prohibit.
A federal statute was enacted by Russian legislators in 2013 that criminalizes public offenses related to religious beliefs. This was the result of a series of provocative performances by Pussy Riot, a feminist protest art group based in Moscow. One such demonstration, a “punk liturgy,” was conducted in a cathedral in Moscow in 2012 to denounce the Putin regime’s close relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Since 1969, the German penal code has prohibited the public disparagement of worldviews and religions. An anti-Islam activist was sentenced to one year of suspended prison in 2006 for disseminating toilet paper with the inscription “Quran, the Holy Quran.” However, enforcement of this legislation is rare in Germany.
In this respect, the legislation of Austria and Switzerland is strikingly analogous to that of Germany. In 2011, a person in Vienna was fined for allegedly referring to the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a pedophile. The European Court of Human Rights subsequently affirmed the Viennese court’s decision in this case, following an appeal. The court concluded that the individual’s objective was not to engage in constructive discourse, but rather to prove that the prophet Muhammad was devoid of respect.
Spain, in the same vein, maintains an unwavering stance on religious disregard. Disparaging religious practices, ceremonies, or beliefs in a public setting in order to affront the sensibilities of adherents is a violation of its penal code. The legislation that Spain implemented was intended to safeguard the rights of Catholics; however, it also applies to religious minorities.
In Italy, an additional nation with a Catholic majority, actions that are deemed derogatory to religions are subject to punishment. Acts that are considered offensive to Christianity have been penalized under its penal code. An artist was cited by authorities in 2017 for depicting Jesus with a protruding genitalia, as an example.
Present day debate
The burning of the Quran in Sweden and Denmark is not a coincidence; rather, it is a part of a broader strategy to target Muslims that far-right organizations are promoting throughout Europe.
There is a debate among legislators and other individuals in several European countries regarding whether these book burnings should be classified as religious incitement or free expression.
A small number of countries are currently enacting new anti-hate speech legislation that is specifically designed to address religious communities. For instance, in 2006, England repealed the blasphemy law and substituted it with the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which criminalizes the incitement of religious hatred. Following the abolition of its blasphemy law in 2020, Ireland has been in the process of deliberating the implementation of a hate speech law. This law would make any communication or conduct that has the potential to incite violence or hatred unlawful.
Sweden implemented legislation in 1970 to protect racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities from hate speech. After a Quran-burning incident occurred in front of a mosque in June 2023, Swedish authorities invoked this legislation in their response.
Police officers maintained that the Quran burning was not solely a religious act, but rather an attack on the Muslim community. The authorities maintain that this was evident from the circumstances, as the burning took place in front of a mosque on the Islamic holy day of Eid, setting it apart from other public locations, such as the Turkish and Iraqi embassies, the Swedish Royal Palace, and others. The activist was fined by the police as a result of the existing hate speech law, which concentrates on incitement against minorities rather than religions.
In recent times, there has been a rise in pressure from specific quarters to more strictly enforce the hate speech law and to prohibit all Quran-burning events, which are deemed to implicitly incite animosity against Muslims.
a global undertaking
This conversation transcends the confines of Europe. Even within the United States, there is a perpetual debate about the boundaries of free expression. The First Amendment of the Constitution safeguards free speech, which some individuals may interpret as granting them the authority to burn sacrosanct texts.
A Christian pastor based in Florida, Terry Jones, for instance, is a contentious figure. He organized Quran-burning demonstrations in Gainesville in 2011 and 2012. His sole legal consequence for violating fire safety regulations was a fine of US$271 imposed by Gainesville Fire Rescue.
The pastor Jones was denounced by President Barack Obama for burning the Quran, asserting that his actions were a direct violation of American values of religious tolerance. Jack Balkin, a legal scholar, recommended that Jones’ animosity be offset by advocating for pluralistic values through the exercise of free speech. Jane Wise, a scholar of religion and law, suggested that the United States should follow the example of England and prohibit hate speech.
I believe that it is imperative to identify instances where freedom of expression has been exploited to incite hostility as societies continue to develop. The identification of the demarcation’s location, the understanding of the criteria that are employed, and the disclosure of potential biases can stimulate substantial discourse. While a general solution may be unattainable, it is imperative to actively engage in this discourse, recognizing the complex nature of the issue and the diverse perspectives that exist among civilizations.
