MEMBERS of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) this week voted in favour of a resolution for the “deliberately and publicly” burning of the Quran or “any other holy book” to b…
Twenty-eight countries voted in favour, 12 voted against, and seven countries abstained.
Unholy shit, it actually passed? I hoped the title was clickbait.
“The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the Holy Koran or any other religious book,” he said.
“They lack political, legal and moral courage to condemn this act […]”
No?? It’s just not right. Also makes no sense. You can have as many books as you like and do whatever you want with them, as everyone else.
“The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the Holy Koran or any other religious book,” he said.
In point of fact: The opposition emanates from the fact that it’s a fucking book. I’m opposed to book burning as a general principle, but putting specific books that are supposedly written by someone’s imaginary friend into a special category where it’s illegal to burn them is entirely idiotic.
I’m opposed to book burning as a general principle
I think the details can make a huge difference here. Bad book burnings are meant to eradicate a book from existence, at least in a certain area. They mean to deprive people from accessing these books. This may include stealing books from people to burn them.
Harmless book burnings are nothing like that. They involve a person burning what they own (without stealing), with no attempts or hopes to reduce the number of books in circulation, and no goal to deny access.
The first is an actual threat to intellectual self determination. The other harms no one but the owner, who burns their own property.
Religious people would probably still be offended if you destroyed a copy of their scripture which you produced yourself.
Unholy shit, it actually passed? I hoped the title was clickbait.
No?? It’s just not right. Also makes no sense. You can have as many books as you like and do whatever you want with them, as everyone else.
In point of fact: The opposition emanates from the fact that it’s a fucking book. I’m opposed to book burning as a general principle, but putting specific books that are supposedly written by someone’s imaginary friend into a special category where it’s illegal to burn them is entirely idiotic.
I think the details can make a huge difference here. Bad book burnings are meant to eradicate a book from existence, at least in a certain area. They mean to deprive people from accessing these books. This may include stealing books from people to burn them.
Harmless book burnings are nothing like that. They involve a person burning what they own (without stealing), with no attempts or hopes to reduce the number of books in circulation, and no goal to deny access.
The first is an actual threat to intellectual self determination. The other harms no one but the owner, who burns their own property.
Religious people would probably still be offended if you destroyed a copy of their scripture which you produced yourself.
It still is clickbait, no criminalization will happen because of this, they only publicly condemned it.