>

“Provocation on the international level” 
Good, yes, blame the victim for the violence perpetrated by the dumb.
Clarification: You don’t need a permit to demonstrate in Sweden. They can still go and burn the Koran if they want to. Not getting a permit just means the police won’t help you out with diverting traffic etc etc. Police will only give permit if they can guarantee public order, and following recent events they don’t think they can for this demonstration. That in itself can be seen as a failure, but they’re still free to demonstrate, the police just won’t help them. >

Are you free to demonstrate if people can show up and assault you while the police tell you it’s not their responsibility to help? >

Why would the police not help if someone is being assaulted? It doesn't matter what the reason for the assault is, the police have to step in, even if there was a morally justifiable reason for assaulting that person like them pouring milk first, cereal second. >

Have you been to a protest before…? It’s not as easy as just calling your emergency number and saying “hi I was just assaulted, can you come to me in the middle of this large crowd, treat me, and find the person”. Especially when police won’t be there in any official capacity >

Well that's obviously not how it will go now is it? If it turns violent then the police will show up in force to seperate the groups. In all likelihood there will be some sort of police presence anyway, just not to facilitate a protest. >

The Danish police estimated that they used around 16 million dollars to provide preventive police protection for Rasmus Paludan during 2019 when he ran for the Danish parliament.
They were warned in advance before the each demonstration, so they had to show up in full force to protect him. >

I don't think it harmed their NATO application. Turkey objected to the Koran burning but they had already stated previously they would block the NATO application. They can't now turn around and say ..."we'll double block it"! >

Perhaps they should threaten to burn a Koran a day until they get admitted to NATO?
/Probably not a great idea >

No no no.  Wrong way.  Its 1 Koran m, day 1; then 2 korans day 2, 3 day 3 - and so on and so fourth.  You’ve got to escalate it 
/I’m joking around here >

Double it every day >

Exponential growth >

Ok so I did the math. The Koran has 604 pages and a single tree can produce 8333 pages. That’s 13.8 korans per tree.
The world has about 3.04 trillion trees which would be around 41.9 trillion Korans. If you started with one Koran and doubled it every day then by day 47 we will have deforested the entire planet. >

So. If I understand this correctly- this ups the pressure.  Turkey will have to capitulate fast or we’ll run out of trees and have no air to breathe. Perfect. >

To be fair the police is saying that they can’t guarantee that they can adequately police the potential fall out under current political circumstances since he wants to burn it outside the Turkish embassy. Doomed if you do, doomed if you don’t. >


Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
--- Benjamin Franklin >

burning a holy text isn’t really an essential liberty IMO >

Sure it is, otherwise burning the Bible would be against the law. >

the law does not dictate what is essential liberty >

In the US liberties are pretty clearly outlined in the constitution and the bill of rights. >

and it was legal to rape your wife well until the 90’s. what’s your point? >

And in Sweden it was legal to sterilize disabled people. We can name off things like this all day.
A cornerstone of the enlightenment was that religion and government should be separate and that blasphemy shouldn’t be a crime. >

i never said blasphemy wasn’t an essential liberty >

so why is it not part of that essential liberty to commit the blasphemous act of burning a book? you have zero legs to stand on here >

Kowtowing to fundamentalists is NEVER the right way to go. >

So, you are OK with pulling books out of a library and burning them because the person disagrees with what is in them?
If you allow one book to be burned, you open the door to all of them. >

As long as you aren’t destroying a sole copy of a work, or a historical artifact, or hurting people directly, yeah burn pretty much whatever you want. Religion especially gets zero special protection from me, they get more than enough of that from the world at large >

That's really the absolute worst way to go about it. First allow it and loudly proclaim that the police cannot prevent it because it would be the end of democracy, but then after loud protests from Erdogan change course and prevent it anyway a week later. That makes the values of Western democracy look completely arbitrary.
Erdogan got exactly what he wanted: It was his posturing that got Sweden to comply after all. That's how he's going to sell it. >

It's not like the police has stopped Quran burnings. They stopped this particular case since they could not ensure public security. Burning the Quran is still very much legal and there will very likely be new approvals in the future.
This isn't something new, Quran burnings have been both approved and prevented earlier. It is pretty much the same thing as nazi rallies: Some have been approved, some have been stopped, and some have been approved but limited. Some cases have been taken to court, which has ruled in both directions in different cases depending on the circumstances.
Of course media and Erdogan will make a much bigger deal of it than it actually is. In practice it isn't really a change in course, it has always been decided on a case-by-case basis.
And nothing is stopping Paludan from just burning it anyway, it wouldn't be illegal AFAIK. >

They clearly stopped this one in an attempt to assuage Turkey’s feelings. That’s obvious. >

No they didn't, and you assuming that tells me you don't know enough to make that statement.
These burnings have happened several times before the one outside Turkey's embassy. The police have both approved, denied and moved the protests because they made a case by case judgement. 
Paludan came to my city and wanted to burn the Quran in one place but the police said no and said he could move it to an easier place to secure, which he complied with. This isn't anything unusual here, the article is written in a way to imply otherwise however. >

They said it could cause harm to national security. How so? >

Well after the first burning outside the embassy SÄPO came out saying there was an increased terror threat. Imagine what a target another protest would be, at the same place. And another protest would get a lot of media attention leading up to it taking place aswell. The first one did and every one afterwards in Denmark has gotten lots of attention aswell.
Which in a way you could say it appeases extremist muslims who might use terrorism, but that is not the same as appeasing Turkish government. >

As a Danish citizen, I am glad that Denmark managed to export Rasmus Paludan to Sweden. Thank you for taking him. >

We don't want him either >

I rørte ham sidst! >

Foreign people imposing their beliefs on you remotely using the force of your government against you >

Then get bent and don't bother joining the foreign alliance known as NATO.
Edit: yea I really don't care about your downvotes. Nearly everyone here has no idea how NATO works since they seem salty that one country can veto admission. That's literally the basis of the committee. You imbeciles don't even understand what you are upset about. >

Putin Khuylo >

They should just balance it out and request to burn the Koran and Bible at the same time >

Book for a book makes the world go illiterate. >

If we're limiting this to religious books, education should actually improve. >

While I disagree with the motivation behind burning a Quran, I still believe people have the right to do it. 
Sometimes freedom is ugly. >

Blatantly attacking another's beliefs by deliberately and purposefully desecrating what they hold sacred is not expressing freedom, its Intolerance. 
Their beliefs, no matter how different they are from yours, have nothing to do with your freedom. Nothing. 
Intolerance must not be tolerated. >

I would disagree. Intolerance would be preventing others from practicing their religion or persecuting them for it. While certainly rude and in bad taste, burning a religion's holy book is not intolerance. >

its a book, nothing holy about it. >

Burning a Quran privately, or low key in front of like minded people, is far different then trying to plan an act that is highly broadcast and shared 
One is a personal belief, the other is a calculated provocation at the international level 
They should not be compared