this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
258 points (97.4% liked)

World News

40018 readers
2329 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Salwan Momika, the Iraqi man who staged several Quran burnings in Sweden in 2023, was shot and killed in Sodertalje, near Stockholm.

His actions had sparked international outrage, riots, and diplomatic tensions. Swedish police confirmed a murder investigation is underway, and several arrests have been made.

Momika, who sought asylum in Sweden in 2018, faced charges of incitement to hatred, with a verdict scheduled for the day after his death.

His protests were permitted under free speech laws but led to legal action against him.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 18 minutes ago

Liberals really hate Nazis.

Unless the Nazi is being Nazi against Muslims instead of Jews. Then they love free speech.

As the saying goes, the only good Nazi

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

He was being charged for doing this? I had completely missed that. Was Sweden always like this?

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

No, people haven't been killed over a religious text for a very, very long time. Then we imported the religious issue.

[–] shamblamblam@aggregatet.org 0 points 21 minutes ago (1 children)

Then we imported the religious issue.

Wouldn't it make sense for Swedes to go after the people who try to kill someone for burning a book instead of making book burning illegal?

Are they really that weak and spineless?

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 0 points 12 minutes ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago) (1 children)

Chill there baby.

There is a murder investigation. So yes they are. Unless you're one of the troglodytes that wants to grab a pitchfork; i much prefer to let the police do their job.

Just because your American police is a joke, doesn't mean ours is.

You can burn as many books as you want, thats not why salwan was under investigation.

[–] shamblamblam@aggregatet.org 1 points 6 minutes ago

Just because your American police is a joke, doesn’t mean ours is.

I have literally zero fear of burning any book in the US.

Unlike in france and sweden...

I'm also referring to the apparent laws Sweden has against book burning.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 22 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

He was a asshole, but he sound have been free and safe to be an asshole.

Fuck religion

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 minutes ago

If this was a Swedish-born guy, I would jump on the bandwagon of calling him an asshole.

But this guy was an Iraqi. I cannot outright condemn someone who gets so tired of the shit of the majority of their own country that ends up overreacting the moment they find themselves somewhere where they can express themselves freely.

Like, turban knocking in a Western city is (rightly) a hate crime. Turban knocking in Tehran? That's fucking righteous.

Middle eastern Christians, atheists, etc very often end up being "wrong" wherever they find themselves. Wrong in their home countries for being the kuffar Other, wrong in the West as "islamophobes" when they speak out about their othering.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world -5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (3 children)

I'm not for the death penalty or killing people generally (very rare exceptions, maybe).

That said, he did it to rile up millions of people with hate speech (for them it is I bet), so like don't do that or you might face consequences.

Free speech isn't about the right to hate speeching. What a douchebag.

Edit: idiot below trying to frame it I think you shouldn't "blasphemy". No lol go ahead and blasphemy all you want, that's free speech IMO.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Blasting religion for it's cruelty is always appreciated.

To bad he was a raging hypocrite who targeted Muslims due to himself being targeted as a Christian. Religion is gonna religion until they all stop believing the nonsense or everyone gets converted (alive or dead).

[–] Malek061@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Being offended is not a justification for killing nor is it hate speech.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Where the hell do you see me saying killing is okay? I say literally the opposite.

Also, he did hate speech, he was on trial for it, read the article!

Are you one of the bigots trying to stir things up or what the hell is your agenda?

[–] Malek061@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

No agenda. Free speech absolutist. Criticism of a topic no matter how offensive must be allowed.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Publicly burning symbols of a minority group or a world view is an incitement to violence against that group or people holding that world view.

It has nothing to do with constructive criticism. It is symbolizing a violent act, with the goal to incite more violence.

[–] Malek061@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It is more offensive to kill someone rather than destroying a book. Any group of people that kills over offense is a danger to their society and the world.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 1 points 43 minutes ago (1 children)

Any group of people that kills over offense is a danger to their society and the world.

Which group? How do you define that group? Do you think groups of people should be collectively punished for the actions of individuals of that group?

Also i fail to see why incitement to kill people, which is the ultimate goal of the book burning becomes acceptable, because killing people is worse? Is every lesser crime acceptable? is every hate speech acceptable? Is everything acceptable that falls short of killing someone?

I think it should be obvious that lesser crimes are still crimes and i think it should be obvious, that hate speech against minorities is particular problematic, as it leads to killing people of that minority, which as you point out is the most severe crime.

[–] Malek061@lemmy.world 2 points 21 minutes ago (1 children)

If a group of people collectively is outraged enough to kill over a certain value system, they should be mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized for that belief. In the united states we have radicals that will kill over abortion. They are mocked and ridiculed. If Muslims get offended, they should be mocked and ridiculed for being soft.

Burning a book is not a "lesser crime." It is speech. If you are offended, how about you put your big boy pants on and act like a man and get over it.

Im against hate speech but it should not be criminalized. Violent speech can be. "This person should be killed" then a overt act made towards violence should be criminal.

But if Muslims get so upset about a book buring and kill, then Muslims are in the wrong and need to realize this is the real world and people don't bow down to babies that cry about offense.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 0 points 13 minutes ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago)

You do know that there is 2 billion Muslims in the world?

So for the act of unknown assailants you think 2 billion people should be "mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized"

By your own example, because some women who got abortions have committed crimes in their life and many women rights advocates get offended by insults towards women seeking abortions, you would want to "mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized" them all too.

There is anti fascists who got so outraged by fascists that they have killed them too. So you must mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized" anti-fascists too.

By your own logic you just justify hating everyone in the world, because in every group of people you will find someone who you find reprehensible, which you then apply to the entire group.

This has nothing to do with free speech. It seems to stem more from some personal things that have nothing to do with any particular group.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think we should consider blasphemy as hate speech. Or do you want to be required to follow the rules of all religions because they are all offended by it?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

It wasn't the blasphemy that was hate speech, it was the whole rhing riling them up ffs.

[–] sognar@aggregatet.org 0 points 4 hours ago
load more comments
view more: next ›