It's going to take me ages to respond to everything, so if I haven't responded to a post, chances are I haven't got round to it yet.
It kind of does, because the article makes clear that lots of people are now champing at the bit to burn Qurans. These are largely not spontaneous acts of genuine protest, they are shit-stirring. It suggests, possibly, this may include actions by Russia and its sympathisers to damage Sweden's diplomatic relationships.
First, the "shit-stirring" came after the protest, not before. Second, even if all of that's true, what of it? There's always the risk that protest will have knock-on effects. The entire Arab Spring is an example of protest leading to violence.
This is naive or dishonest, as above.
Is it? Because the revelation that protest can have knock-on effects isn't a revelation, it's a fact. But if the line of preventitive action is at book burning, than that's an extremely low bar.
You mean the Swedish embassy in Iraq, which will be owned (maybe rented) by the Swedish state, is by diplomatic convention Swedish territory, and tends to have Swedes present, plus of course the Swedish state having a duty of care to foreign nationals it may employ in its embassy operations, and the general reputation and diplomatic considerations of Sweden?
Well first, the people storming the embassy aren't on Swedish territory, they breached Swedish territory, so that would put them in the wrong.
Second, you're right that a country generally has responsibility for the safety of its nationals outside said country, but if the standard for safety is preventing protest at home...well, sure, okay, if you want to argue that. But lots of countries are at odds with embassies in said countries, that usually wouldn't prevent them from criticism. Might have their ambassador expelled, but what's the alternative?
Take a look in the mirror.
You are the one presenting a weird, black and white absolute view where the ability for people to express themselves should exist without limits, irrespective of how damaging it might be. Let's remind you that you saw fit to simply insult politicians who expressed their concerns about people using freedoms in ways that could end up causing significant harm to others or the nation as a whole.
I never said anyone should be able to express
without limits, I made a clear distinction at assault, for instance. And I insulted politicians (which is pretty much par for the course in most democracies) for kowtowing to acts of intimidation. Yes, realpolitik, I know, consider the tensions between Sweden and Turkey for instance, I don't expect governments to not engage in realpolitik, but when it amounts of this? Really?
Basically, I can see three lines of argument to which you could object to the Quran burning. Either:
a) You think religious texts should be free from being burnt in an act of protest.
b) You think it shouldn't be done because it could damage a country's standing by letting it occur.
c) You think it could lead to incitement of violence against people who follow the religion in question.
You don't seem to be arguing for a, but more b and c. As such, if that's the case:
b) I don't think I can say much that hasn't already been said. Did burning the Quran incense Muslims? Yes. Should the action be banned for that? No. I say that in the same way that I don't believe religion should be free from insult or criticism, and burning a holy text is, in my view, a legitimate way of expressing contempt against said religion. Same way burning a flag is fine for expressing contempt against a country.
c) While it's true that the far right has latched onto this, that came after the burning, not before. You'd have to demonstrate that the original Iraqi man who burnt it was deliberately trying to incite violence. I've asked numerous times for evidence of this, so far, none has been provided. But again, actually consider the implications, where any protest against a religion/religious body is, by definition, seen as an attack on the followers. Since it's already been brought up, how many times has criticism of Israel been deflected by accusations of antisemitism? Yes, antisemitism exists, yes, antisemitism makes Israel a target, yes, the BDS movement has anti-semitic elements, none of those facts should exclude Israel from criticism, just as the fact that Islamophobia exists should prevent Islam from being criticized.
Emphatically untrue: only a minority of the far right are purists, the majority are pragmatic enough to use incidental people and useful idiots where it can advance their cause. Hence in a very similar vein the famous anti-Nazi poem "First they came...".
Well first, again, the far right latched on after, not before. All kinds of groups may have overlapping aims, that doesn't put them in tandem, that doesn't preclude those aims being followed. Far right Ukrainians are fighting against Russia, that doesn't put Russia in the right (morally).
Second, I don't think that poem really applies, because the person "speaking out" is the original protester. If anything, that poem is an example of why protest should be allowed, because if you're prevented from speaking out about X, then how long until you can't speak out about Z? I don't think Denmark or Sweden are on that trajectory yet, but preventing book burnings as an act of protest isn't a good sign, regardless of who's doing it. The proverbial Nazis in this scenario are the people storming the embassy and pushing their agenda in the UN.
Edit: Also, this isn't meant as a "gotcha" moment, but:
The incident is the latest in a string of Quran burnings in Sweden and Denmark that prompted outcry in the Middle East.
www.aljazeera.com
So on one hand, we have the Danish Patriots burning the Quran, and Hashd al-Shaabi burning the Swedish flag.
One of those rallies is much more militant than the other.
