Book Offer
This will close in 10 seconds
The Danish Government is considering a ban on burning the Koran for the ostensible reason that it believes it wrong to desecrate and destroy that which other people feel to be sacred. And yet, one also feels that the Danish Government is considering a ban on burning the Koran out of a well-founded fear that some in the Islamic population, domestically and internationally, might not respond to such provocations in an entirely peaceful way. In fairness to the Danes, they’re not considering such a ban reflexively, or without thought. They’re conscious of the difficulties:
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.”
Burning somebody else’s sacred religious text is, of course, an act of free speech. Setting a Koran, or a bible, or a Torah scroll alight is a simple and visual way of saying that you reject the contents of the incinerated document, and consider it unworthy of anything but the fire. But it is also an extreme and offensive act of free speech, in the sense that very few people in the population would ever be motivated to do something like that, knowing the offense and hurt it was likely to cause. Most people – thankfully – are natural conflict avoiders. A population full of the kinds of people who burn each others most sacred text would struggle to remain peaceful for long.
But there’s a flip side, as well: In most western democracies, pornography is legal because it is considered an act of free speech, yet it is subject to limitations about public decency. You could not plead “free speech” as a defence to putting on a pornographic show in full view of the public in front of an embassy, on the grounds that to do so would gravely offend public decency. Is there not also an argument, therefore, that burning a sacred text does the same thing?
But then we swing back: Because those ideas about public decency are a slippery slope, if the Government is allowed to invoke them at will. We see exactly that in Ireland, with more and more calls for restrictions on public protest in certain places on the grounds that those protests offend. “Public decency” can rapidly become a public right not to be offended. In other words, the Danes are correct to be cautious.
This is why, ultimately, restrictions on this kind of thing are a bad idea – where do you stop? It’s a small step from banning burning a Koran, or a Bible, to banning criticism of the Koran or the Bible. But there’s another reason as well.
Part of living in a tolerant society – which has become the end goal of western civilisation – is that you must learn to tolerate things that you find stupid and offensive. That’s what the word means. Tolerance does not imply acceptance, or agreement, or endorsement. It’s another word for “putting up with” things that you dislike intensely. For example, if you are a guest in someone’s house and they decide that they will watch “Fair City”, your putting up with that is a form of tolerance.
It is a mistake, I think, to compromise on tolerance by telling people from minority communities that there are things they need not tolerate. It sends the wrong message. If you are a deeply religious person who need not tolerate the burning of your holy book, then why should you need to tolerate, for example, a comedian who makes an off-colour joke about your faith? Taken to its extremes, why should you need to tolerate women who dress in ways that offend your faith’s teachings about chastity and decency? If you are exempted from tolerance, then you need not necessarily tolerate anything.
In other words, if an implied threat of violence can change one law, then why can it not change others? This principle is, and has ever been, the basis for almost every campaign of violence and terrorism ever enacted.
The surest way to eliminate violence, over time, is to make violence a futile endeavor. This is, ironically, something western (including Danish) politicians can see clearly when it comes to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which they are intent on making into a futile endeavour in the hope of discouraging other countries from trying the same.
The same principle should be applied here: We do not have to agree with burning the Koran, or the Bible, or any other religious text. We can regard those who do so with contempt. But to live in a tolerant society is to just put up with it. Which is what those offended, of any religion, should learn to do.
This will close in 10 seconds