Sweden: The Koran’s burning incident is hate speech, not freedom of expression
For at least the last two decades, a recurring episode of Islamophobia has taken place in Europe.
Here’s how it generally goes: some far-right figure who wants to gain attention and cause controversy stages a spectacle (ie burning the Koran) aimed at creating controversy and antagonizing billions of Muslims around the world.
The far-right figure did not perform this act to express his right to freedom of speech, he initiated the burning of the Koran because he was trying to attack Muslims
When Muslims draw attention to the act and rightly describe it as hate speech, the said far-right individual, with the support of authorities, immediately pulls out the freedom of speech card.
That’s exactly what happened last weekend when Danish-Swedish far-right politician, Rasmus Paludancarried out the heinous act of burning the Koran, the holy book of Muslims who believe it is the word of God.
Just a few days after this stunt, another far-right European politician took part in a similar scene. The Dutch politician Edwin Wagensveld, the head of the extreme right movement, PEGIDAtore pages from the holy book before setting them on fire.
It is no coincidence that Paludan, which has previously been found guilty of racism, and other right-wing extremists choose the Koran as a target for their hatred. They are well aware of the importance of the holy book in the lives and identities of billions of Muslims, so the decision to burn the Koran is a calculated one.
Paludan has one documented history of racist and Islamophobic rhetoric, as well as engaging in sexually explicit conversations with minors. The repeat offender has called for the ban and exclusion by Muslims and has described Islam as an “evil and primitive religion”.
The Extremist Monitoring Analysis Network reports that the far-right politician has previously called the Koran “the big whore book” and “urged followers to pee on it”.
Given these very clear anti-Muslim views, Paludan’s decision (time and time again) burning the Koran is driven by Islamophobic hatred. The far-right figure did not carry out this act to express his right to freedom of speech, he initiated the burning of the Koran because he was trying to attack Muslims.
Symbolic murder
Like Professor Farid Hafez recently claimed, book burning in this context “becomes symbolic murder, or symbolic destruction”. Engage in actions such as tearing apart pages, burning the book, or flushing it down toilets (like US military staff did at Guantanamo Bay) are all done with a specific purpose and intent: to cause pain and injury.
This is not free speech, it is hate speech.
How Austria made the study of Islamophobia a crime
Read more ”
Conversations about Islamophobic rhetoric and Koran burning rarely end in condemnation and instead divert directly to debates about freedom of expression.
In response, I argue (and it does The Swedish Institute) that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. There are safeguards in place and they are needed to ensure a safe and just society.
Take for example the recent controversy with the fashion house, Balenciaga, following an ad campaign that had disturbing references to pedophilia and child exploitation. The wider community immediately reacted in disgust and condemned the brand for its ad, leading the fashion house to give an excuse and promises to conduct an internal and external investigation. For these free speech absolutists, would they be okay with visual campaigns that encourage, promote or normalize child exploitation?
Furthermore, the right to freedom of expression – and what is protected under it – is subjective. Those in positions of power often get to decide what is allowed and what is not. A quick review of case involving journalists, academics and rights activists who have been silenced or faced lawsuits because of their work to draw attention to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine illustrates this perfectly.
Another example of subjectivity occurred this week when Twitter and YouTube took on pressure from the Indian government to remove some references to a BBC documentary draws attention to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the deadly anti-Muslim Gujarat pogroms of 2002.
In Europe, many of the leaders who hold Islamophobic views also have the power to decide what is and is not acceptable free speech. Nor is it a coincidence that those who participate in the burning of the Koran are often, more likely than not, white men. The current system gives far more privileges and rights to white individuals, let alone party leaders, than others.
The limits of “free” speech
Given the reality of Islamophobia in Europeis it no surprise that free speech arguments are used to defend anti-Muslim racism.
How Islamophobia has entered a new phase – with these 10 strategies
Alain Gabon
Read more ”
Hate crimes, especially those targeting visible Muslims, are constant, as are the growing restrictions and outright bans on the hijab. Vandalism and arson against mosques are endless, and in many countries authorities have taken significant steps to criminalize Muslim civil society, shutting down organizations and mosques and imprisoning individuals.
Just as freedom of speech is used to justify Islamophobia, it is also rarely addressed when the rights of Muslims are restricted. Muslims who are active in politics and espouse Islamophobic policies are considered “extremist” and “terrorist sympathizers,” making them susceptible to criminal charges.
Also Muslim academics who study Islamophobia are not safe from these accusations, as illustrated by the targeting of Professor Hafez by the Austrian authorities.
In these incidents, little is discussed about Muslims’ right to freedom of expression. Such examples show how inalienable rights are applied subjectively, often to the detriment of marginalized and vulnerable groups.
Islamophobia also comes into play when Muslims exercise their right to free speech by protesting hateful acts such as Koran burnings.
The media amplifies anti-Muslim tropes by portraying these voices as hostile and “extremist”, constructing them as myopic and violent individuals who want to shut down criticism and debate.
Free speech arguments are used to defend anti-Muslim racism
Let’s be clear: there is criticism and then there is hate speech – burning the Koran falls into the latter.
Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Tobias Billström. is described Paludan’s actions as “appalling” but cited the country’s “strong protections” for freedom of expression in its constitution as the reason authorities did not stop the event from taking place.
United States answered in a similar vein, describing the act as “deeply disrespectful” but stopping short of condemning it. It is interesting that authorities fail (or perhaps just don’t want to) see such incidents as hate-motivated and dangerous, given their criminalization of similar behavior orientation Other marginalized groups.
The burning of the Koran is a symbolic call to violence against Muslims. It is motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry and carried out by individuals who have a history of engaging in provocative acts aimed at opposing and harassing a religious group.
References to “freedom of speech” in such contexts are little more than a cover for anti-Muslim views, especially as Muslims’ right to free speech is increasingly restricted around the world.
Failure to address such hateful incidents creates an environment where Islamophobia becomes even more normalized and results in a hostile and dangerous environment for Muslims.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.