Denmark’s foreign minister said on Sunday that the government will seek to make it illegal to desecrate the Koran or other religious holy books in front of foreign embassies in the country.

Foreign minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in an interview with the Danish public broadcaster DR that the burning of holy scriptures “only serves the purpose of creating division in a world that actually needs unity”.

“That is why we have decided in the government that we will look at how, in very special situations, we can put an end to mockery of other countries, which is in direct conflict with Danish interests and the safety of the Danes,” he said.

A recent string of public Koran desecrations by a handful of anti-Islam activists in Denmark and neighbouring Sweden have sparked angry demonstrations in Muslim countries.

Mr Lokke Rasmussen said the Cabinet of Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is determined to find “a legal tool” to prohibit such acts without compromising freedom of expression, but he acknowledged that would not be easy.

“There must be room for religious criticism, and we have no thoughts of reintroducing a blasphemy clause,” he told DR.

“But when you stand up in front of a foreign embassy and burn a Koran or burn the Torah scroll in front of the Israeli embassy, it serves no other purpose than to mock.”

His comments followed a statement issued late on Sunday by the Danish government saying freedom of expression is one of the most important values in Danish society.

But, it added, the desecration of the Muslim holy book in Denmark has resulted in the nation being viewed in many places around the world “as a country that facilitates insult and denigration of the cultures, religions, and traditions of other countries”.

The government repeated its condemnation of such desecrations, say they are “deeply offensive and reckless acts committed by few individuals” and “do not represent the values the Danish society is built on”.

In Sweden, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on Sunday on Instagram that his government is analysing the legal situation regarding desecration of the Koran and other holy books, given the animosity such acts are stirring up against Sweden.

“We are in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War,” Mr Kristersson said.

The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation has called an emergency remote meeting on Monday to discuss the Koran burnings in Sweden and Denmark.

Read more: Koran burnt in demonstration outside Stockholm mosque

“Freedom of speech is applied equally to everyone, but it seems not everyone is in favour of it being applied equally. This is no more true for Messiah than it is for anything else.”

 Background

The Metro newspaper ran a story of how the latest Netflix show Messiah has sparked demands for it to be banned as it is “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous”. The petition calling for the ban was started by Zeynaba Dahir and has gained nearly 4,000 signatures within three weeks. A quick scan of those that have signed the petition shows that it is prima facie both Muslims and Christians that are in support of not only the ban, but boycotting Netflix, should it go ahead and air the show.

Messiah is set in the present day and is focused on a man that first appears in the Middle East. He is able to perform miracles and rapidly gains a growing following as a result. He is presented as the eschatological return of Isa (Jesus) or Mahdi. A CIA agent is then sent to uncover if he is the real thing or just a fraud.

Freedom of Belief

The calls to ban this show seem bizarre to me, it seems and it is difficult to argue against, that the protection of religion is the primary factor driving the petition. Looking at some of the comments, many have stated, that it is disrespectful to their religious beliefs and that it is disrespectful to both Islam and Christianity, given that they both accept Jesus, albeit with different roles.

However, as disrespectful as it may be, it is not an infringement on their beliefs. The show may not accord with what they accept, but it does not prevent them from exercising their own beliefs. Both Muslims and Christians are free to be critical of the show, the storyline and exercise their freedom to call for its ban, but that’s it. That’s all they can do really. It ‘s a show that they have not watched, but one in which they have already concluded that they do not like it, because they presume it disrespects their religion. But even if it does, so what?

Given that many of those complaining about the show have called it blasphemous, only goes to highlight the issue. Blasphemy is not a crime in the U.K. (thank God) and nor should it ever be. We would get nowhere if we were to ban everything that upset everyone, especially when it does not contravene the law. The fact that there are calls to ban the show only goes to show that we as a society, at least some parts of it, are progressing by regressing. We are turning back the clocks to a time when blasphemy would lead to the death penalty, though in this instance, it would lead to economic sanctions, e.g. boycotting Netflix.

In countries where there are literally blasphemy laws, we have seen the devastation it has caused. For example, take the case in Pakistan of Asia Bibi. She was accused of blasphemy, sentenced to death by hanging and then acquitted due to insufficient evidence. However, she was not able to leave Pakistan until a review had been completed. Thankfully, she has now arrived in Canada after being given asylum. More recently, we have seen another case in Pakistan of academic Junaid Hafeez. Accused of posting derogatory comments on social media about the Prophet Muhammed and he is now facing the death penalty as a result.  Of course, what I am certainly not saying here is that the same thing will happen in the U.K., rather I am highlighting the places that do take blasphemy so seriously, that it is part of their law and what happens as a result. Presumably, those signing the petition, are not in favour of the death penalty and would condemn it with the same furore that they are condemning Messiah? I hope so!

Freedom of Speech

What we enjoy in the West, far more so than in other parts of the world is freedom of speech. It is a right that many would die and have died to have. Not only do we have it, but it is also part of our constitutional law protected by human rights. Our freedom of speech allows us to be as respectful or disrespectful as we like, provided we do not incite hatred or violence. So to look at the case of Messiah, I am unclear how the incitement of hate or violence is applicable unless it was directed at religion?

Inciting hate against religion is really a non-issue because religion is not protected by the law, however, people of religious beliefs are. Even then, to claim that Messiah incites hatred, via the backdoor, towards individuals, is a tenuous claim- because to do so, would be to claim that both individuals and religions cannot be separated. This is false because a person can choose to enter and leave religion as they wish, whereas the same isn’t true for race or ethnicity, e.g. Asian, Black, Jewish etc…

Freedom of speech also gives people of religions, in this instance Muslims and Christians, the right to propagate their religion as they please, so long as it does not contravene the law. Freedom of speech is applied equally to everyone, but it seems not everyone is in favour of it being applied equally. This is no more true for Messiah than it is for anything else. The sheer hypocrisy from those signing this petition under the freedom to do so, are also the same ones not wanting Netflix to have the same freedom to put on Messiah. If Muslims and Christians are allowed to propagate their religion, then why can’t others do the same for their own beliefs, be they religious or not? This is the tension we are faced with- who’s right trumps whose?

The Law

The law is clear on this matter, the right to freedom of expression is ultimate. It does not discriminate between the two parties here, the religious and the producers of Messiah. To quote at length, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states the following:

“Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Not only prima facie, but also on closer observation of the above legislation, I find it difficult how those signing the petition would apply this to their campaign. The show is innocuous, in the sense that it does not promote or incite violence or hate, but rather just tells the story of a religious character with a modern interpretation of it. Those that are offended by this, have the right to be offended, but in my view, their right of offence does not trump the right of the producers’ freedom of expression. It is probably why Zeynaba Dahir hasn’t yet sought to take this matter to court, because the merits of such a case appear to be non-existent. Thus- her only option is to apply economic sanctions via a boycott of Netflix.

Concluding Thoughts

The petition by Zeynaba Dahir, supported by many Muslims and Christians is a moral campaign, one which does not appear to have the merits to stand up in a court of law. So instead of taking it to court and probably losing, economic sanctions are therefore the next steps to prevent this innocuous program from airing. Fortunately for Netflix, their revenue stream is so large that this petition may not gain the publicity and support it requires to any meaningful impact.

But it is for us, both secular, religious and non-religious people to stand up against this moral posturing against a perfectly legitimate show in the name of freedom of expression because to not do so, would be to give in to the madness of group morality that is not in tune with the rest of modern society.

But I must conclude with this, a point that I think Zeynaba Dahir et al must consider carefully as they stridently push through with their “moral” campaign. Both their beliefs of Jesus are at odds with each other, blasphemous one would say, so why aren’t they proposing a ban on each others religion? The reason why they are not is because they are not willing to confront this reality with the same veracity as they are with this campaign. It is because it is a fight they are not willing to engage in because the odds appear less favourable than if they were going against Netflix. So instead they are happy to work together to defeat a common enemy, i.e. the producers of Messiah. In other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The views in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Faith Matters. The author of the article, Wasiq, can be found on Twitter @WasiqUK

Social media, including Facebook, must proactively block content inciting hatred and prevent online campaigns which target minorities, such as those undertaken in Myanmar, the United Nations human rights chief said on Wednesday.

Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, was speaking after U.N. experts accused Myanmar generals of “genocidal intent” and said Facebook had allowed its platform to be used to incite violence against Rohingya.

Facebook said on Monday it was removing several Myanmar military officials from the social media website and an Instagram account to prevent the spread of “hate and misinformation” after reviewing the content.

Zeid, whose spokesman said he has met with major tech companies in Silicon Valley, including Facebook and Google, in recent months, was speaking to a news conference before his four-year term ends on Aug. 31.

Zeid said he didn’t feel Facebook took the issue seriously at first but that the company’s attitude began to change after Yanghee Lee, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, told a Geneva press conference in March that Facebook was being used in the country to spread hate speech.

“But it shouldn’t be because the press or the human rights community highlights the problem for them then suddenly to respond. They should be aware of it ahead of time,” he said.

“So I don’t think they should wait until the crisis begins. They should be thinking proactively about what steps they will take to mitigate that,” he added.

Facebook said on Monday that while it was too slow to act in the case of Myanmar, it was now making progress, with better technology to identify hate speech and improved reporting tools.

However, Zeid said there was a danger that social media could be over-regulated in a way that breaches human rights law including the right to freedom of expression.

Tech giants should “keep the broadest space available and open to the exercise of freedom of expression”, relying on international human rights law for regulation, he said.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday accused Google’s search engine of promoting negative news articles and hiding “fair media” coverage of him, vowing to address the situation without providing evidence or giving details of action he might take.

Trump’s attack against the Alphabet Inc. unit follows a string of grievances against technology companies, including Twitter Inc and Facebook, which he has accused of silencing conservative voices.

Around 1,300 Danes marched through Copenhagen on Wednesday in protest at a new ban on the wearing of face veils in public, accusing the government of infringing on women’s right to dress as they choose.

Denmark’s parliament enacted the ban in May, joining France and some other European Union countries to uphold what some politicians say are secular and democratic values.

The protesters, many wearing the niqab veil or the all-enveloping, body-length burqa, marched from the central, left-wing district of Norrebro to Bellahoj police station on the outskirts of the capital. They formed a human chain around the station and then marched back to Norrebro before dispersing.

Demonstrators, often with children in tow, chanted “no racists in our streets” and “my life, my choice” during the three-hour rally. No incidents were reported.

The marchers included non-niqab-wearing Muslim women and non-Muslim Danes with faces covered.

“We need to send a signal to the government that we will not bow to discrimination and a law that specifically targets a religious minority,” Sabina, 21, a niqab-garbed student, told Reuters, asking that her full name not be used.

She is one of about 150-200 Muslim women – 0.1 percent of those in the country – who daily wear either the niqab or burqa garments covering the face or the entire body. Muslims account for around 5 per cent of Denmark’s 5.7 million population.

Under the law, police will be able to instruct women to remove their veils or order them to leave public areas. Justice Minister Soren Pape Poulsen said officers would fine them and tell them to go home.

Fines will range from 1,000 Danish crowns (121.87 pounds) for a first offence to 10,000 crowns for a fourth.

DISCRIMINATORY, CRITICS SAY

Despite its generic wording, the legislation is being widely interpreted as discriminating against Denmark’s Muslims and violating women’s right to freedom of expression and religion.

Critics, noting the tiny number of Muslim women in Denmark who actually wear a niqab, regard the law as largely a sop to increased anti-immigrant sentiment in the Nordic country.

“If the intention of this law was to protect women’s rights, it fails abjectly,” said Fotis Filippou, deputy Europe director of human rights group Amnesty International. “Instead, the law criminalises women for their choice of clothing – making a mockery of the freedoms Denmark purports to uphold.”

Police said none of the veiled protesters would be penalised since certain uses of face veils, such as to exercise freedom of speech as part of a peaceful protest, are exempt from the law.

The justice ministry explained that the ban would focus on women forced by their families to wear veils, though it has been faulted for vagueness in stipulating who would fall foul of it.

Danish Police Union chief Claus Oxfeldt said he would have preferred more comprehensive guidance on how to enforce the ban.

“We need as thorough guidance as possible so we don’t end up in situations where (police officers) don’t 100 per cent know how to act,” he said.

As an example, he was unsure whether Asian tourists wearing anti-pollution masks would be covered by the ban.

France – with the largest Muslim community in the EU – as well as Belgium, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and the German state of Bavaria, have all imposed some curbs on face veils in public.

France’s controversial 2011 ban added to a broader sense of alienation felt by many Muslims and some evidence surfaced that it encouraged assaults in the street on women wearing still legal headscarves as well.