The Danish government will try to find legal means that will enable authorities to prevent the burning of copies of the Quran in front of other countries’ embassies in Denmark, Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has said.

“The burnings are deeply offensive and reckless acts committed by few individuals. These few individuals do not represent the values the Danish society is built on,” Rasmussen said in a statement on Sunday.

“The Danish government will therefore explore the possibility of intervening in special situations where, for instance, other countries, cultures, and religions are being insulted, and where this could have significant negative consequences for Denmark, not least with regard to security,” he said.

Denmark and Sweden have found themselves in the international spotlight in recent weeks following protests where the Quran, the Islamic holy book, has been damaged or burned.

In a separate statement on Sunday, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said he had been in close contact with his Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen, and that a similar process was already under way in Sweden.

“We have also started to analyse the legal situation already … in order to consider measures to strengthen our national security and the security of Swedes in Sweden and around the world,” Kristersson said in a post to Instagram.

Outrage in Muslim countries

This month, far-right activists have carried out a number of public burnings of Islam’s holy book in front of the Iraqi, Egyptian, and Turkish embassies in the Danish capital.

On Monday, two members of the ultra-nationalist Danish Patriots stomped on a copy of the Quran and set it alight in a tin foil tray next to an Iraqi flag.

Earlier this month in Sweden, an Iraqi citizen living in the country, Salwan Momika, 37, stomped on the holy book and set several pages alight.

The public burnings in the Scandinavian countries have sparked widespread outrage across Muslim countries, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Morocco, Qatar and Yemen lodging protests in response.

Sweden and Denmark have said they deplore the burning of the Koran but cannot prevent it under their rules protecting freedom of expression.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) earlier this month approved a resolution on religious hatred and bigotry following several burnings.

Pakistan and other Organisation of Islamic Cooperation countries backed the motion, along with a number of non-Muslim majority countries including India and Vietnam. The United States and the European Union opposed the resolution on the grounds it interfered with freedom of expression.

In his statement, Rasmussen added that whatever measure was taken “must of course be done within the framework of the constitutionally protected freedom of expression and in a manner that does not change the fact that freedom of expression in Denmark has very broad scope”.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    It is a restriction on free speech, though, however you want to frame it. A free society should not countenance it.

    • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Denmark doesn’t have free speech anyway, this is just one more crippling of what free speech is allowed.

    • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think the distinction was that the recent burnings were not tied to a political decision or action made by the countries. It was just to be dicks toward Muslim countries.

      Lets say the burning was infront of Saudi embassy after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That might be allowed under the proposal.

      The whole situation is weird, tbh

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Freedom of speech isn’t lost just because the motivation’s of a person aren’t pure and the freedom means nothing if it doesn’t cover offensive speech. You don’t need to protect the right of people to say nice things.