Quake3World.com Forums
     General Discussion
        Danish man charged with blasphemy
Post new topicReply to topic
Login | Profile | | FAQ | Search | IRC




Previous topic | Next topic 

Guilty?
Yes  30%  [ 3 ]
No  70%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 10
Topic Starter Topic: Danish man charged with blasphemy
lars63
FuddyDuddy
FuddyDuddy
Joined: 14 May 2000
Posts: 5954
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 08:25 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Case is first time Danish prosecutors have charged anyone with blasphemy in 46 years
A Danish man who posed a video of himself setting fire to the Quran on Facebook has been charged with blasphemy in the first such prosecution for 46 years.
The 42-year-old suspect put the clip, entitled “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns" to a group called “YES TO FREEDOM – NO TO ISLAM” in December 2015.
Jan Reckendorff, from the public prosecutor’s office in Viborg, said: “It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in some cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.
“It is our opinion that the circumstances of this case mean it should be prosecuted so the courts now have an opportunity to take a position on the matter.” Read More:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 94796.html



_________________
Member: NAD&BTA
Your Friendly Neighborhood Quake Addict
Top
                 
lars63
FuddyDuddy
FuddyDuddy
Joined: 14 May 2000
Posts: 5954
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 08:29 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


So boys and girls, what do you think? The Putz is guilty as sin? He should walk with charges dropped? I suppose I should have made this one a poll but to late now plus I'm just to darn lazy to change it,(grin).



_________________
Member: NAD&BTA
Your Friendly Neighborhood Quake Addict
Top
                 
lars63
FuddyDuddy
FuddyDuddy
Joined: 14 May 2000
Posts: 5954
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 08:38 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


(LOL) One of the mods did it for me, Thank you :)



_________________
Member: NAD&BTA
Your Friendly Neighborhood Quake Addict
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 08:46 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Well, it's definitely blasphemy. Stupid law though.



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Top
                 
lars63
FuddyDuddy
FuddyDuddy
Joined: 14 May 2000
Posts: 5954
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 08:52 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


I voted guilty as sin.



_________________
Member: NAD&BTA
Your Friendly Neighborhood Quake Addict
Top
                 
Eraser
Cool #9
Cool #9
Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 44136
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 09:15 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


losCHUNK wrote:
Well, it's definitely blasphemy. Stupid law though.

This.
The law is there, wether you like it or not. In that light, the defendant could've known the possible repercussions of his actions, so I shed no tears for him.
If you ask if such laws are a good thing, then I'll have to respond negatively. With a few footnotes though.
Top
                 
seremtan
Etile
Etile
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 34898
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 09:44 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


as T S Eliot pointed out, in an age of unbelief, blasphemy is impossible. this is simply using long-dormant blasphemy laws as a cover for a hate-speech prosecution. the fact that a law is technically on the books is not actually an excuse for using it, by the way. there's some way old shit on UK statute books you'd be laughed out of court for attempting to prosecute under now

also, i had no idea Eraser was a liberal democrat
Top
                 
Eraser
Cool #9
Cool #9
Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 44136
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 10:50 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Not too familiar with British politics so, whaddayamean?
Top
                 
seremtan
Etile
Etile
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 34898
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 12:13 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


you're a fence-sitter

don't say "there's a law there". see my point about old - and in this case, very obsolete - laws dying of old age on the statute books. i mean seriously: blasphemy charges? in a western country? in the 21st century?

do they have trial by jury in Denmark? i hope so. a competent jury would kick this case to the kerb in an instant
Top
                 
Eraser
Cool #9
Cool #9
Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 44136
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 01:02 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Yeah well in this case it's a bit of an odd charge, but I often see people say someone should be released from charges just because people don't agree with the law.

For example, some time ago there was this news item about a Dutch ex-marine who went to (I think) Syria to fight IS. He came back to the Netherlands and was arrested for killing people (murder, I guess) because he went to Syria on his own accord and not as part of a military action mandated by the government.

As you can expect, many people reacted in outrage because to them, he was a hero. In this case though, I would say the law is pretty clear and he should've known better.

Do I think he deserves punishment and that the world would be a better place for it? No, but in this case the law is quite clear. Is it up for debate that the law should change? Possibly, but that won't help this man. The law is what the law is at the moment he did what he did.

Edit:
I don't know if he was actually charged and convicted, only that he was arrested.
Top
                 
Transient
Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 35460
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 01:07 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


seremtan wrote:
the fact that a law is technically on the books is not actually an excuse for using it, by the way. there's some way old shit on UK statute books you'd be laughed out of court for attempting to prosecute under now

A person may not cross state lines with a duck atop his head in Minnesota.



_________________
YourGrandpa wrote:
I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 02:01 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


You can decapitate a Welshman if he's in Chester after dark :up:



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Top
                 
seremtan
Etile
Etile
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 34898
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 02:15 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Eraser wrote:
Yeah well in this case it's a bit of an odd charge, but I often see people say someone should be released from charges just because people don't agree with the law.


my point was: he shouldn't have been charged in the first place

once again i'll reiterate my point about old, obsolete laws
Top
                 
seremtan
Etile
Etile
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 34898
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 02:16 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


losCHUNK wrote:
You can decapitate a Welshman if he's in Chester after dark :up:


wait, we're talking about stupid laws here
Top
                 
Captain
Legend
Legend
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 16498
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 02:24 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Image
Top
                 
lars63
FuddyDuddy
FuddyDuddy
Joined: 14 May 2000
Posts: 5954
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 02:51 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


To clear up my vote here, I voted guilty cause he did break the law didn't say it was fair or right only that he was guilty so I guess I'm going along with the debate here but he is still guilty



_________________
Member: NAD&BTA
Your Friendly Neighborhood Quake Addict
Top
                 
Eraser
Cool #9
Cool #9
Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 44136
PostPosted: 02-23-2017 10:32 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


seremtan wrote:
my point was: he shouldn't have been charged in the first place

He might've under hate speech laws or something. I don't know the exact contents of the video. I'm not automatically assuming he did nothing wrong. I just don't agree with blasphemy laws.
Top
                 
Ryoki
Karot!
Karot!
Joined: 31 Jul 2001
Posts: 19348
PostPosted: 02-28-2017 03:07 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


It's up to the prosecutor (at first) and the judge (ultimately) to decide whether to prosecute / punish someone for breaking a law; considering what the letter of the law says is only part of it, the mood of the public is also a factor in this, as is media sensitivity. Then there's the moral side of it, which is of course the biggest argument.

What i'm trying to say here is that maybe the prosecutor should have charged the dude but demand a conditional sentence (where the guy walks, basically) or even charge him and demand immediate release after being found guilty. In this way the judiciary can send signals to the lawmakers regarding silly old laws noone's had time to replace.



_________________
io chiamo pinguini!
Top
                 
Ryoki
Karot!
Karot!
Joined: 31 Jul 2001
Posts: 19348
PostPosted: 02-28-2017 03:13 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Eraser wrote:
Edit:
I don't know if he was actually charged and convicted, only that he was arrested.


He was, then he was found guilty and immediately released conditionally (conditions shaped towards preventing a return to Syria from the looks of it). A good example of the judiciary not following the letter of the law :up:



_________________
io chiamo pinguini!
Top
                 
Κracus
Lead Pipe Mafia
Lead Pipe Mafia
Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Posts: 5945
PostPosted: 03-01-2017 11:32 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Wow this is stupid. It's a piece of paper with bullshit on it. Who cares if he wants to burn it, it's entirely his choice and has no effect on anyone else. Blasphemy laws should be outlawed.
Top
                 
seremtan
Etile
Etile
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 34898
PostPosted: 03-02-2017 11:33 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Image
Top
                 
Quake3World.com | Forum Index | General Discussion


Post new topic Reply to topic


cron
Quake3World.com
© ZeniMax. Zenimax, QUAKE III ARENA, Id Software and associated trademarks are trademarks of the ZeniMax group of companies. All rights reserved.
This is an unofficial fan website without any affiliation with or endorsement by ZeniMax.
All views and opinions expressed are those of the author.