Quake3World

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

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).

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

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

I voted guilty as sin.

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.

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

Not too familiar with British politics so, whaddayamean?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

wait, we're talking about stupid laws here

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

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.

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.

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

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.