World News

so, momika has been in sweden a few years. he converted to christianity in his home country, started shouting loudly about freedom of speech there, got told to stop, then filed for asylum in sweden. once here he kept doing the same thing, which of course jeopardises his asylum claim. only he wasn't first. rasmus paludan has been burning qurans here for a while, always doing it in neighbourhoods with a majority muslim population. as a demonstration of the problem with religion, it's effective. once. but both of them did it for years, and the things they have been saying during their book burning made it clear that it was not actually about freedom of speech, but about hatred of muslims. not islam, muslims. and they were both in court for the crime of hets mot folkgrupp ("incitement of hatred against a population group"). they clearly overstepped the law of the country they were in.

What other possible reason would someone have to burn a book that is to some more important than their life. Either people dont care about it or become enraged. And just because you have right to do something doesnt mean you should. His actions have caused a lot of harm, also most likely his own death too.

For argument's sake, lets assume he had some positive reason for his actions. Has there been a single positive thing that has come from this? If you want to do good you need to think the consequences through and if you dont then you shouldnt do anything at all.

I dont know, the Swedish police's slowness to charge Paludan and Momika with hate speech doesn't really justify some random vigilante (or Turkish spy) going and giving him the death penalty. Kinda outside the paradox of tolerance here.

Is this accepted in most Western countries? It might he legal in the USA but most would think ypu are a weird asshole for burning a holy book.

This is, as a matter of fact, incorrect. There is only one law regarding what in english might be called "hate speech". It refers to "agitation against a population group", and is the only exception to freedom of expression relevant in this context, mentioned in "brottsbalken", our criminal law.

Brottsbalken, Kap. 16, 8 § Den som i ett uttalande eller i ett annat meddelande som sprids uppmanar till våld mot, hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för en folkgrupp, en annan sådan grupp av personer eller en enskild i någon av dessa grupper med anspelning på ras, hudfärg, nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse, sexuell läggning eller könsöverskridande identitet eller uttryck, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två år.

Criticism of religion however is raised in other, more important parts of law, namely the Swedish form of Government (our constitution). It is there, specifically and repeatedly, mentioned as a kind of speech and expression that is protected. As such, in the case of Salwan Momika it'd have been necessary to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended to target muslims by burning quran books, rather than (as he himself claimed) to openly criticize islam. Nobody has as of the posting of this comment been deemed guilty of agitation for burning any religious texts in Sweden under the current law.

This is part of why the trial of him and his companion ended up taking so long. It was one of the first high-profile cases of its kind and likely to set precedent on the topic. As such, I consider his assassination on the night before the verdict of his trial to be not only a barbaric act of violence, but also an explicit attack on the Swedish legal system, our constitution and our freedom of expression.