Both countries have been forced into an unenviable corner by a relative handful of right-wing nationalists who have flaunted their anti-Islamic zealotry by setting the Muslim holy book alight. Sweden and Denmark have rightly condemned those acts of ostentatious destruction. But because they have tolerated the acts in the name of freedom of expression, the countries have been denounced in Muslim nations — a slander that Russian propagandists have been only too pleased to amplify and exploit. Swedish and Danish diplomats have been summoned for dressings down by governments in Muslim countries.
The risk is not only reputational. In 2005, Denmark faced a wave of violent demonstrations after a Danish newspaper printed cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that outraged many Muslims, who regarded them as blasphemous. Sweden’s embassy in Baghdad was stormed and set ablaze this summer, a few weeks after a protester in Stockholm burned a Quran.
In Sweden’s case, the Quran burnings have also put at risk its already delayed membership in NATO. Turkey, a predominantly Muslim NATO member that has blocked Sweden’s entry, has pledged to lift its veto. But more Quran burnings in the Nordic country could jeopardize that timetable.
There is no disputing the offense conveyed by the intentional destruction of sacred texts or other symbols of religious affiliation. Like the burning of national flags, which is banned in many countries, it is often not only protest but incitement. In the United States, where the Stars and Stripes are a secular symbol of devotion for many patriotic Americans, burning the flag twice in recent history divided the Supreme Court on the narrowest of votes: 5 to 4.
Yet in both instances the justices got it right by enshrining flag burning as a protected form of protest. Obnoxious and infuriating as it might be, the desecration of discrete physical objects — even when intended to convey hatred — is a legitimate form of expression.
Granted, many Muslims are unlikely to see it that way. The Quran is so revered in Islam that observant Muslims are expected to perform a ritual washing before touching it, lest its pages be soiled. Damaging it intentionally is regarded as blasphemy, an offense that in some countries might result in a long prison term, lashing by whip or even, in the case of Saudi Arabia, the death sentence.
But guarantees of freedom of expression are given meaning and power specifically by safeguarding hateful and offensive acts of expression and speech, provided they pose no risk of physical harm. Protecting unpopular and even obnoxious views is a means of shielding minorities from the tyranny of the majority — a hallmark of tolerance in Western societies, albeit sometimes an aspirational one.
Sweden is sticking to its beliefs with eyes wide open to the possible cost. In the wake of recent Quran burnings, its main security agency has raised the terrorism threat level to high, and Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said the country faces its gravest threat since World War II. “We stand up for the Swedish freedom of speech,” he said last month.
The Danish government, for its part, is proposing to criminalize the desecration of sacred religious objects with a law that, if enacted, would impose fines and prison sentences of up to two years. The justice minister, Peter Hummelgaard, was correct when he said that “there are more civilized ways to express one’s views than burning things.”
By its skittishness, Denmark puts itself on a slippery slope, inviting further demands for self-censorship and prohibitions from those who might take offense at who-knows-what. The fear of retribution is a poor basis on which to pass laws that would be a reward to those who wield violent threats in the name of religion.
Credit: Source link
