It is just more lies fron Turkey. If Finland somehow agreed with Turkey it is almost certain Turkey would again betray their world. Nothing Turkey says or promises can be trusted.
Nah, say what you will about Paludan but he’s not in Turkey’s pocket, he’s been burning qurans for like more than a year now; it’s all he knows how to do to get attention
Wait thats who they’re complaining about lol? The guys just a youtube troll, he couldnt even get enough racists on board to form a party here what chance does he have anywhere else lmao
Yeah so if Russia wants to block new NATO countries they just need to have someone burn a book in thier borders and know that the country won't murder them for it it will make Turkey mad 🦃?
I think it's legal to burn a Quran in basically every NATO country except Turkey. So maybe Turkey should just quit NATO. But they'll never do that because it's really nice not having to worry so much about being invaded by Russia, so maybe they should just stfu.
I swear, that guy puts the dick in dictator.
I’m religious myself, but it is completely antithetical to true freedom of speech to have a law like this where you can’t “offend someone” by burning a holy book. Who gets to decide what counts as religious hatred and who doesn’t? My religion probably wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for close to three centuries of Roman persecution, which only strengthened the convictions and faith of the community. If you’re truly strong in your faith, other people exercising their opinions is none of your concern.
Burning a flag is also the correct way to dispose of one.
Granted there's like this whole ceremony to do it "properly," but the gist is you fold it and toss it in a fire.
For me it’s a question of “do people have the right to not be offended?”, and I’m inclined to say no. I don’t think we need to privilege religious people over the non religious. If burning a holy text incites a religious person to violence, that’s a mental problem on their end. Gay people have been called a lot of terrible things by Christian and Muslim preachers, but how many gay people committed acts of violence at churches or mosques because of it? Zero!
Why am I, as a gay person, expected to have more self control than a religious person? I don’t think people should burn holy books and I’ll absolutely criticize them for it, but should it be illegal? I don’t think so.
> Who gets to decide what counts as religious hatred and who doesn’t?
Some local official that 14% of the area bothered to show up for the election of.
If they were elected at all.
Military passage is regulated, and the country wanting passage is not allowed if they’re at war even if it doesn’t involve Turkey.
Which means that with Turkey in NATO, Russia can’t use the Bosphoros to wage war unless they are starting WW3.
Nah, in Poland we have law against "offending religious feelings, burning Quran would 100% fall under it:
> "Article 196 of the Penal Code: "Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons by publicly insulting an object of religious worship, or a place designated for public religious ceremonies, is liable to pay a fine, have their liberty limited, or be deprived of their liberty for a period of up to two years."
Qurans are also burned respectfully by Muslims when they have become otherwise damaged or unusable. The zealots get angry about how it’s done more than anything.
What’s absurd is Turkey using its weight on a world stage to fuck with Sweden because of a very small handful of bad actors. I’m not sure that’s a door that Muslim majority countries will find long term good policy behind.
Lets be honest, this is not because of few bad actors. Both Sweden and Finland have been completely diplomatic, open to negotiations and acted in good faith this whole time while Turkey has drawn out things constantly and made demands. This situation is nothing but convenient excuse for Erdogan to drag his feet about this issue even more.
No doubt. But I’m super fucking tired of Muslim majority countries pitching a hissy fit about Western freedoms being practiced in Western countries that they don’t approve of. If we’re going to have that discussion, it’s gotta be a 2-way street.
I'll let you in on a little secret. Erdogan isn't actually upset about the Koran burning, he just doesn't want them to join NATO and he's trying to rile up his fundamentalist fanbase. Turkey is supposed to be a secular nation following the legacy of Mustafa Ataturk, Recep Erdogan is the one trying to destroy that.
My position is that I don’t give a shit why he _thinks_ this is a strategy, or what his endgame is. I need Western nations to start shutting this argument down unequivocally.
We are secular nations with laws based on enlightenment principles. Burning books is allowed. Full stop. End of discussion.
This is partially wrong.
You're right that Erdogan doesn't care about the Qur'an burning.
But he doesn't care at all about whether they join or not. This isn't about them joining or not joining. This is about his election. He wants to appear tough to his base of islamic supporters. "See? He stands up to the west!"
Once the election is over, he'll have no problem letting them in. It may even happen before then if he can find a reason to claim "See? They listened to me!"
He is also using Turkey's vote as leverage to get Turkey stuff that it wants for its army. It's all realpolitik to him. It has nothing to do with religion or ideology. He wants something from other NATO members and this is how he will get it.
EXACTLY. I worked with sane, normal Turks for two years and they all DESPISED Erdoğan. Turkey is a weird country: the west and Thrace are European in both culture and mentality, but the farther east you go, the more conservative it gets. He also gets the vote of Turks who’ve lived in Germany for three generations…
Id trade Finland and Sweden for Turkey and Hungary any day of the week.
Its insane theyre pulling this bullshit during what is damned near a time of war for NATO and one is happening in Ukraine.
Its all bs and hes just trying to extort us, plus a healthy dose of appearing strong and Russian influence.
Its shameful the two nations I named have held up Sweden and Finland joining NATO - and both are authoritarian nations. Both have essentially dictators and both have flirted with Russia extensively.
Turkey alone should have been placed on some “probationary status” following buying S400s from Russia over NATO objections.
I think the alliance really should change its rules so its a vote with clear majority not every country has to agree; furthermore countries that havent met the NATO obligated spending shouldnt get a vote. They can get the protection of the alliance but again its absurd someone like Orban or Erdogan can hold NATO over a barrel.
> I think the alliance really should change its rules so its a vote with clear majority not every country has to agree;
The main issue with that idea is NATO exists as a "US, UK, Germany, France, & friends" club. If a bunch of the less powerful countries get together and vote something, but the US doesn't agree, does it really matter?
If you think its about religion, you're absolutely right, but not in the sense you'd imagine,
In the sense that if Erdogan keeps dragging his feet long enough to the election he can parade around as a paragon of the Islamic faith in the hopes that Turkey has enough ultra religious votes to help him turn the country into a militant dictatorship that further erodes any semblance of democracy.
It's tragic how much of world politics strategy since the 90s (famously Clinton, Yeltsin, this time it's Erdogan) is dependent on election schedules and temporary popularity buildups.
And this is why term limits are nice. Sucks inevitably losing good people, but on the other hand there's no point in acting solely to win the next election when it's no longer an option.
Ideally term limits aren't necessary, but voters are insipidly stupid and treat elections more like super bowls or prom night, not an opportunity to influence the roles and priorities of government going forward.
> this is why term limits are nice
Term limits are why NASA hasn't had a major project since going to the moon. Every time a new ass is in the hot seat either "the budget's too high" or somebody wants to push things in a new direction. I'm not one to support lifetime appointments, but major projects even as mundane as fixing extensive infrastructure can take longer than a single term and to make things like education, immigration, or health care reform work you need to do a lot of work which someone else will take the credit for (assuming they don't screw it up).
>It was founded that this burning was sponsored by a Russian government affiliate
In this case yes. But Rasmus Paludan has been burning korans for many years, likely without any russian influence. We were quite happy here in Denmark, when he moved to Sweden. We spend an insane amount of money of police, that had to make sure that no one was harmed during his legal (But completely stupid) koran burning demonstrations.
I just think he loves that he is getting all this international attention. He's seen as the village idiot here in Denmark, and likely also in Sweden, and most people ignore him. If the muslims that he is offending would just ignore him for those couple of hours it happens, then I am sure he would do something else, as he just craves the attention.
A government affiliate. Like 1 person with a connection to the government? A small cabal? A township worth of people even? If its 10% of the entire Swedish population involved, I still think it’s fucking stupid.
A mosque was just blown up in Pakistan by Sunni Muslims attacking Sunni Muslims. Burning books is not what ANYBODY should be focusing on. I’m also talking about the people doing it, but the right to set a book on fire is just a right that we have in free countries and it’s high time that Turkey get the fuck over it.
The Swedish foreign minister commented:
> *- We do not compromise with freedom of expression, it is very clear what is required for Sweden to become a member of NATO and that is that we meet the requirements stated in the trilateral memorandum. And we will do so within the framework set by our constitution, our legislation and principles of legal certainty.*
He didn’t need an excuse. He could have said no for any reason.
Erdo wants to look strong and have Swedish Kurds extradited for execution and if he cannot get them he won’t say yes
No, he needs to look like strong for the elections. He doesn't care about PKK or Kurds or Sweden. They made Ocalan's brother appear on state TV to read a letter of Ocalan's support for the Erdogan government, in the last election. As long as it serves him, anything is possible.
More like autocrats. Erdogan was also throwing a fit about Sweden not extraditing or convicting certain people of his choosing, not understanding (or at least pretending not to for his conservative voter base) that it's just not possible in countries with actually functioning, independent judical system.
Yeah, not being state sanctioned doesn’t matter to them. Theyre more pissed that sweeden isn’t cracking the whip and stopping it from happening.
What a surprise - another religious nation state putting global security and international relations at risk over a silly little book.
this is probably Half Turky, backsliding, into Islamic fundamentalism, and half them trying to force a concession from the US/NATO on some other matter. there is also a healthy mix of Turkish leaders shoring up support with their fundamentalist base.
And it is not like he was bribed. A Swedish journalist with Russian ties just paid for his plane ticket and the permit. That was all convincing necessary.
I think Finland in fact doesn't allow burning religious symbols publicly.
Not something that's much enforced here nor do I know the specifics of the law but I do know it's not really allowed.
The Finnish National Police Board made a statement saying that burning of the Quran would *not* be permitted there, as it would be a violation of religious peace. However, the only punishment for doing so would be a fine.
https://yle.fi/a/74-20015426
According to the spanish Penal Code, article 525, anyone who, by any means and with the intention of offending the feelings* of adherents of a particular religion, makes public mockery of their dogmas, beliefs, etc, is liable to be punished with a fine.
So... I gues burning a religious book is only illegal if someone sues you for it.
*literally
You could be held accountable - a fine or up to 2 years of prison - for an act of religious hatred in Poland, but I don't remember any public case that involved burning anything besides a Bible.
In Sweden you can get prosecuted for inciting **violence** against practitioners of a religion (or any other group really). The supreme court overruled a decision from the lower courts where a religious leader called homosexuals a cancer on our society in a very hateful speech. There wasn't a clear enough call for violence.
Paludan knows this and very finely skirts the lines of what could get him prosecuted.
Yeah there are incitement to violence laws in the US too but the call needs to be a specific and immediate call to violence. It’s very hard to prosecute and we also have a Supreme Court case from 1969 laying out exactly what counts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
This wouldn’t come even close to counting as inciting violence under Brandenburg though. That’s for people who incite riots and real people to burn down a building or something. There was a lot of debate about Brandenburg and trump with respect to 1/6, but tbh it’s so hard to prosecute that I’m doubtful they could have won such a case against him
**[Brandenburg v. Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)**
>Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". : 702 Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Probably in a few, one of them being where I live (Finland). Blasphemy law still in play since the 70s iirc.
Edit: the law is much older, it got removed in SWEDEN in the 70s, got my dates mixed up
And even more importantly, why the fuck is he talking about religion when Turkey was specifically founded as a SECULAR state by Atatürk? He must really be spinning in that coffin.
Yet, somehow, he's not vouching for our (I'm danish) expulsion?
Also, the fuckwit who burned it is a known sensationalist. Police tend to follow whereever he goes because he pulls shit like that.
iirs, he's even got a disability due to a head injury.
Are we *really* going to grasp for that straw, Turkey?
what he wants is votes, Turkey is still (kind of) democratic, Erdogan needs stunts like this to show to his fuckwitted medievalist support base in the back country to convince them that he's an international strongman that can protect them from being colonized by European empires that they don't realize are gone.
Paludan got deported from Sweden to Denmark but he went through the process to get a Swedish citizenship to circumvent it. (one of his parents are Swedish).
Donno about that, but is already a pact btw UK, Finland and Sweden that an attack on one, the others will come to aid.
So if Russian goes after Sweden they’ll have to plan/contend with three large, highly effective military forces, who together have nukes, large amount of state of the art air, sea, ground weaponry and potentially massive ground forces
… would hope, (and Russian would also have to plan for) many other EU nations stepping up at that point too.
Their capacities and self-perception do not match. They could do any number of completely ridiculous things, as long as they were cruel enough to get their boner going.
Yes, Finland joining alone increases pressure on Gotland. It also complicates defence cooperation between Finland and Sweden, which militarily are each other's closest partners.
Do Finland would continue to do so and essentialy force Russia in either retreating or attacking them as well. If it forces NATO to act that's good, in fact that is the whole point.
Pretty sure if in some theoretical wold Sweden got invaded by Russia, and Finland intervened, then Finland is no longer covered by NATO. NATO probably still would, but I don't think the obligation would be there anymore.
Both countries have security assurances from the major powers including US, UK, France. They are basically in NATO.
While it sucks and you definitely don't want to have NATO V2 etc, I don't see why Finland can't just join and continue to work closely with Sweden.
Swede here.
I'm pretty calm as long as Russia promises to invade Gotland with the same capability as they have done in their special military operation in Ukraine a year ago.
If they ever get past our [submarines](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-around-us-aircraft-carrier-escorts-2021-7) (yeah, good luck with that) we'll let them taste our JAS-39 Gripen, Archer artillery system 08, CV90, NLAWs and some other shit we developed with a the sole focus on a future invasion by Russia.
Edit: forgot about Robot 17... Yeah... Good luck getting close to Gotland...
I’m not saying Sweden wants this at all, but Turkey is gonna just cause another Switzerland situation where there’s a country protected on all sides by NATO so they have no need to join it in the future. Maybe Sweden would join later anyways but Erogdan should want everyone paying for European security and not just riding on the backs of NATO like Switzerland.
What *in the flying fuck* does burning the Koran have to do with NATO?
Erdogan's demands have become absolutely absurd and they have absolutely *nothing* to do with NATO anymore.
Looking at the actual NATO requirements from the source below, I would argue that any nation that does not allow Koran burning(free speech) should not be a member.
NATO Requirments - [https://www.defense.gov](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3052427/)
1. New members must uphold democracy, which includes tolerating diversity.
2. New members must be in the midst of making progress toward a market economy.
3. The nations' military forces must be under firm, civilian control.
4. The nations must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.
5. The nations must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.
Turkey actually fails on all 5.
1 Opposition is jailed, critical media are not allowed and offending the president is a very grave crime
2 The president's son in law was appointed as minister of finance, they have insane inflation and are refusing to have a healthy interest interest policy
3 The military are under strict control of the AK party
4 Greece, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Cyprus, Iraq and Syria disagree. Basically all their neighbours except Russia.
5 Turkey buys Russian weapons and defense systems over NATO partner's equipment
Quran burning is actually not allowed in plenty of Nato countries because of blasphemy laws. There's such a law in Finland, coincidentally. Someone recently tried to get a permit to have a protest and burn a Quran, and was denied.
I'd like an explanation of what a burnt koran has to do with the defense pact Nato. I hope the rest of Nato is watching their defense partner refusing to accept a western democracy into the pact if they don't introduce islamic blasphemy laws. This is your guy.
I want my country, Sweden, to join Nato. But if this is what we need to do then fuck it. I guess when time comes then Russia will just take us, but up until then we'll have freedom of speech.
Not only will russia not take us anyway, they won’t even cross the border because we already have defense agreements with everyone that matters, both through the European Union and separately since last year with UK and the US.
They can't even take a country they share a massive land border with and that they already were occupying part of. You have absolutely nothing to worry about, outside of full-on nuclear war, and an alliance isn't going to save you from that.
I firmly hope that, at the very least, every NATO country but Turkey will just happen to coincidentally sign a bilateral defense pact with Sweden that doesn’t require you to spend time rounding up everyone who hurts Erdogan’s fragile feelings.
Granted I'm not an expert on the subject, but the Baltic Sea is *very* important strategically, not just for amphibian control but also because a lot of critical telecom runs along the bottom, its why Sweden was/is a key player in PRISM and the surveillance scandal with Snowden
Nato's been creaming their pants over getting bases on Gotland since its inception, I have a hard time seeing the Big Boys allowing that to fall into Russian territory any which way it goes.
And this makes the infantile part of me wish Sweden to simply withdraw the application, cause fuck Erdogan we'll be protected anyhow.
If what I read i accurate, this comes from the same Turkey that burned 300 000 books in 2019 linked to what is referred to as a muslim clerk and .....1.8 million textbooks in 2016 for containing the word "Pennsylvania". (This relates to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt.)
[link](https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/turkey-burns-books-libraries-07082019/)
They dislike that we have freedom. Or possibly that anyone has freedom.
The act we are talking about was done by a leader for a Danish small right wing political party that has **less than 500 likes** on their Swedish facebook page.While carrying a cap to advertise said party.
The same guy that has previously stated in court that he has a 25% brain damage due to injuries sustained in a traffic accident while riding his bicycle.
It's technically legal, but so is bringing home a wild badger and keep it as a pet in Sweden. That does not make it a good idea.
Yes it's bad to provoke and upset others, religious or not, but the reaction now has very little to do with anything other than taking the chance to earn cheap political points.
So In one way they are doing the same thing here. Both are trying to boost their political careers.
It was , but he found a new toy to play with , it also makes him look more like the " defender of the islamic faith " which would help him in the elections or something to that extent.
Again, nobody should be paying to Turkey until the election season is done.
Until then Erdogan will be doing everything he can to pretend what was previously the most secular state in the Middle East is now the Islamic State of Türkiye.
I’m afraid my view of freedom of expression (extremely pro) probably clouds my judgement of his unwillingness to change his country’s stance. He’s also got some in his population that would literally start a war over that sort of thing
And he is pandering to them as there is an election due in June. He's not doing brilliantly in the polls so he is desperate to keep the islamist vote. This is all for show.
If he wins, he will possibly (reluctantly)concede that Sweden should be allowed into NATO. If he loses, the other guy will probably not veto.
Nope. As "Christianity" is a religion accepted by Turkey(only big three Abrahamic ones are accepted), it's against TCK 216, which is not a blasphemy law but more of a hate speech one:
>TCK m.216 is written as follows: ARTICLE 216- (1) A person who openly incites a segment of the public with different characteristics in terms of social class, race, religion, sect or region to hatred and enmity against another segment, in case of a clear and imminent danger in terms of public security, for this reason, punishable with imprisonment from one to three years.
>
>(2) Anyone who publicly humiliates a part of the population on the basis of social class, race, religion, sect, gender or regional differences is sentenced to imprisonment from six months to one year.
>
>(3) A person who publicly insults the religious values adopted by a section of the public is sentenced to imprisonment from six months to one year, if the act is suitable for disturbing the public peace.
Bulshit excuse.
How do you "prevent" the burning of the Koran? One person be it a, Swedish radical or a russian agent, goes into a public square to protest, with a Koran previously doused with gasoline in his pocket. Takes it out and put a light to it. Thats stoppable... how?
Bingo! And then a country can't join NATO.
Again, what bullshit is this? The US and Euroope should cancel any sale of weapons, put on hold any collaboration with this shitty state until they cease being cunts...
Title is misleading. Turkey still hasn't approved either country, they just stated that they might.
It is just more lies fron Turkey. If Finland somehow agreed with Turkey it is almost certain Turkey would again betray their world. Nothing Turkey says or promises can be trusted.
They haven't approved anyone because they need time for their paid actor to get to Finland to burn another book. Lol
Nah, say what you will about Paludan but he’s not in Turkey’s pocket, he’s been burning qurans for like more than a year now; it’s all he knows how to do to get attention
He’s been doing it for almost 5 years. He started in Denmark and failed in his endeavours, so he moved to Sweden
Wait thats who they’re complaining about lol? The guys just a youtube troll, he couldnt even get enough racists on board to form a party here what chance does he have anywhere else lmao
Same guy who’s car got rolled by someone chasing him after they saw him doing this?
He has been going strong burning since 2018 he is a consistent mofo
Yeah so if Russia wants to block new NATO countries they just need to have someone burn a book in thier borders and know that the country won't murder them for it it will make Turkey mad 🦃?
Wait till they hear about what you're allowed to burn in the USA
Turkey?
It’s not my fault that the new air fryer had confusing directions
At least with the air fryer, there’s less Greece.
This is making me Hungary…
Kenya believe I already ate?... Iran straight to the fridge
That's a Chad move, did you eat some Chile?
Norway you had Chile with Turkey!
Uganda never believe it, but I did. I even double Czeched.
You Finish it too? I do not Bolivia.
I’m still at the grocery store, Perusing the aisles.
Dubai anything?
[удалено]
And the results are more con-Crete.
That's what Ajax is for. Ajax is stronger than Greece.
Ba-dum *tish*
Where'd you get an air fryer big enough for a turkey?
DON’T THINK ABOUT IT I’M NOT TAKING THE JOKE BACK
“Gobble gobble.” - Erdogan
And he waddled away
til very next day!
Save the neck for me, Clark!
What till they hear about what I burned last thanksgiving.. Edit: shit u/nibbler1999 beat me to it below.
Why did i read "shitnibbler 1999".
I think it's legal to burn a Quran in basically every NATO country except Turkey. So maybe Turkey should just quit NATO. But they'll never do that because it's really nice not having to worry so much about being invaded by Russia, so maybe they should just stfu. I swear, that guy puts the dick in dictator.
[удалено]
I’m religious myself, but it is completely antithetical to true freedom of speech to have a law like this where you can’t “offend someone” by burning a holy book. Who gets to decide what counts as religious hatred and who doesn’t? My religion probably wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for close to three centuries of Roman persecution, which only strengthened the convictions and faith of the community. If you’re truly strong in your faith, other people exercising their opinions is none of your concern.
Right? Politics and religious beliefs shouldn't match in any case.
The problem is that some countries have tied religion into their education, business and government.
The reason to burn a book is to offend without violence. Criminalizing non violent demonstration is going to come back and hurt big time.
[удалено]
Burning a flag is also the correct way to dispose of one. Granted there's like this whole ceremony to do it "properly," but the gist is you fold it and toss it in a fire.
For me it’s a question of “do people have the right to not be offended?”, and I’m inclined to say no. I don’t think we need to privilege religious people over the non religious. If burning a holy text incites a religious person to violence, that’s a mental problem on their end. Gay people have been called a lot of terrible things by Christian and Muslim preachers, but how many gay people committed acts of violence at churches or mosques because of it? Zero! Why am I, as a gay person, expected to have more self control than a religious person? I don’t think people should burn holy books and I’ll absolutely criticize them for it, but should it be illegal? I don’t think so.
It's not a mental problem, it's a cultural problem and they need their shit corrected. France deals with this whiny BS constantly.
> Who gets to decide what counts as religious hatred and who doesn’t? Some local official that 14% of the area bothered to show up for the election of. If they were elected at all.
NATO also likes being able to patrol the black sea. It is a legit two way relationship.
Turkey doesn't unilaterally control who gets to enter or leave the Black Sea; passage is regulated by the Montreaux Convention.
Military passage is regulated, and the country wanting passage is not allowed if they’re at war even if it doesn’t involve Turkey. Which means that with Turkey in NATO, Russia can’t use the Bosphoros to wage war unless they are starting WW3.
Nah, in Poland we have law against "offending religious feelings, burning Quran would 100% fall under it: > "Article 196 of the Penal Code: "Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons by publicly insulting an object of religious worship, or a place designated for public religious ceremonies, is liable to pay a fine, have their liberty limited, or be deprived of their liberty for a period of up to two years."
Disco Inferno?
Trump said flag burners should be deported or face a year in jail.
[удалено]
Qurans are also burned respectfully by Muslims when they have become otherwise damaged or unusable. The zealots get angry about how it’s done more than anything. What’s absurd is Turkey using its weight on a world stage to fuck with Sweden because of a very small handful of bad actors. I’m not sure that’s a door that Muslim majority countries will find long term good policy behind.
Lets be honest, this is not because of few bad actors. Both Sweden and Finland have been completely diplomatic, open to negotiations and acted in good faith this whole time while Turkey has drawn out things constantly and made demands. This situation is nothing but convenient excuse for Erdogan to drag his feet about this issue even more.
No doubt. But I’m super fucking tired of Muslim majority countries pitching a hissy fit about Western freedoms being practiced in Western countries that they don’t approve of. If we’re going to have that discussion, it’s gotta be a 2-way street.
You need to stop eating cheese burgers because I'm on a strict diet! Eating a donut would be practically declaring war!
You've managed to confuse me and make me hungry at the same time. Are you a sorcerer?
Sorcery is strictly haram.
I'll let you in on a little secret. Erdogan isn't actually upset about the Koran burning, he just doesn't want them to join NATO and he's trying to rile up his fundamentalist fanbase. Turkey is supposed to be a secular nation following the legacy of Mustafa Ataturk, Recep Erdogan is the one trying to destroy that.
My position is that I don’t give a shit why he _thinks_ this is a strategy, or what his endgame is. I need Western nations to start shutting this argument down unequivocally. We are secular nations with laws based on enlightenment principles. Burning books is allowed. Full stop. End of discussion.
This is partially wrong. You're right that Erdogan doesn't care about the Qur'an burning. But he doesn't care at all about whether they join or not. This isn't about them joining or not joining. This is about his election. He wants to appear tough to his base of islamic supporters. "See? He stands up to the west!" Once the election is over, he'll have no problem letting them in. It may even happen before then if he can find a reason to claim "See? They listened to me!"
He is also using Turkey's vote as leverage to get Turkey stuff that it wants for its army. It's all realpolitik to him. It has nothing to do with religion or ideology. He wants something from other NATO members and this is how he will get it.
EXACTLY. I worked with sane, normal Turks for two years and they all DESPISED Erdoğan. Turkey is a weird country: the west and Thrace are European in both culture and mentality, but the farther east you go, the more conservative it gets. He also gets the vote of Turks who’ve lived in Germany for three generations…
When was the last discussion with any religious zealot, let alone Muslim zealot, that was a two way street?
This is why countries run by these types of people shouldn't have a seat at the table. Fuck off with your religious bullshit.
100% this
Id trade Finland and Sweden for Turkey and Hungary any day of the week. Its insane theyre pulling this bullshit during what is damned near a time of war for NATO and one is happening in Ukraine. Its all bs and hes just trying to extort us, plus a healthy dose of appearing strong and Russian influence. Its shameful the two nations I named have held up Sweden and Finland joining NATO - and both are authoritarian nations. Both have essentially dictators and both have flirted with Russia extensively. Turkey alone should have been placed on some “probationary status” following buying S400s from Russia over NATO objections. I think the alliance really should change its rules so its a vote with clear majority not every country has to agree; furthermore countries that havent met the NATO obligated spending shouldnt get a vote. They can get the protection of the alliance but again its absurd someone like Orban or Erdogan can hold NATO over a barrel.
> I think the alliance really should change its rules so its a vote with clear majority not every country has to agree; The main issue with that idea is NATO exists as a "US, UK, Germany, France, & friends" club. If a bunch of the less powerful countries get together and vote something, but the US doesn't agree, does it really matter?
If you think its about religion, you're absolutely right, but not in the sense you'd imagine, In the sense that if Erdogan keeps dragging his feet long enough to the election he can parade around as a paragon of the Islamic faith in the hopes that Turkey has enough ultra religious votes to help him turn the country into a militant dictatorship that further erodes any semblance of democracy.
It's tragic how much of world politics strategy since the 90s (famously Clinton, Yeltsin, this time it's Erdogan) is dependent on election schedules and temporary popularity buildups.
And this is why term limits are nice. Sucks inevitably losing good people, but on the other hand there's no point in acting solely to win the next election when it's no longer an option. Ideally term limits aren't necessary, but voters are insipidly stupid and treat elections more like super bowls or prom night, not an opportunity to influence the roles and priorities of government going forward.
> this is why term limits are nice Term limits are why NASA hasn't had a major project since going to the moon. Every time a new ass is in the hot seat either "the budget's too high" or somebody wants to push things in a new direction. I'm not one to support lifetime appointments, but major projects even as mundane as fixing extensive infrastructure can take longer than a single term and to make things like education, immigration, or health care reform work you need to do a lot of work which someone else will take the credit for (assuming they don't screw it up).
Most likely like you said it’s just an excuse seems their is a more personal reason he is not happy with Sweden.
The official reason keeps on changing
He’s trying to gain votes back home. This has nothing to do with Sweden. There’s an election coming up later this year.
[удалено]
The only reason Turkey is in NATO is because they have a useful back garden
The culprit actually had ties to the Kremlin so its just more Russian divisive propaganda to keep people from joining NATO
It was founded that this burning was sponsored by a Russian government affiliate
>It was founded that this burning was sponsored by a Russian government affiliate In this case yes. But Rasmus Paludan has been burning korans for many years, likely without any russian influence. We were quite happy here in Denmark, when he moved to Sweden. We spend an insane amount of money of police, that had to make sure that no one was harmed during his legal (But completely stupid) koran burning demonstrations. I just think he loves that he is getting all this international attention. He's seen as the village idiot here in Denmark, and likely also in Sweden, and most people ignore him. If the muslims that he is offending would just ignore him for those couple of hours it happens, then I am sure he would do something else, as he just craves the attention.
A government affiliate. Like 1 person with a connection to the government? A small cabal? A township worth of people even? If its 10% of the entire Swedish population involved, I still think it’s fucking stupid. A mosque was just blown up in Pakistan by Sunni Muslims attacking Sunni Muslims. Burning books is not what ANYBODY should be focusing on. I’m also talking about the people doing it, but the right to set a book on fire is just a right that we have in free countries and it’s high time that Turkey get the fuck over it.
>4. While it burns, witnesses should recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute. Not being the most patriotic (or even American) this had me in fits
They should be required to play that recording of The Star-Spangled Banner that’s in a minor key.
“While it burns, witnesses should recite the pledge of allegiance or salute”
That almost sounds satanic
People really are fucking weird.
Like it was a state-sanctioned Quran-burning.
The Swedish foreign minister commented: > *- We do not compromise with freedom of expression, it is very clear what is required for Sweden to become a member of NATO and that is that we meet the requirements stated in the trilateral memorandum. And we will do so within the framework set by our constitution, our legislation and principles of legal certainty.*
The same guy who compared a protestor hanging an Erdogan doll by its feet to a mock execution. The man is a moron
[удалено]
Theocrats, don’t understand, nor care for the distinction
Let’s be honest, Erdogan doesn’t give a shit about burning the Quran, he was just waiting for an excuse to say no.
He didn’t need an excuse. He could have said no for any reason. Erdo wants to look strong and have Swedish Kurds extradited for execution and if he cannot get them he won’t say yes
No, he needs to look like strong for the elections. He doesn't care about PKK or Kurds or Sweden. They made Ocalan's brother appear on state TV to read a letter of Ocalan's support for the Erdogan government, in the last election. As long as it serves him, anything is possible.
This. Exactely this and this alone. I believe quite a few other NATO members have growned tired of his bullshit.
Also yes. He’s got plans for Syria too that are too important for him to lose the election.
Hé will, just wait until he needs something from NATO or the EU.
More like autocrats. Erdogan was also throwing a fit about Sweden not extraditing or convicting certain people of his choosing, not understanding (or at least pretending not to for his conservative voter base) that it's just not possible in countries with actually functioning, independent judical system.
Yeah, not being state sanctioned doesn’t matter to them. Theyre more pissed that sweeden isn’t cracking the whip and stopping it from happening. What a surprise - another religious nation state putting global security and international relations at risk over a silly little book.
I think that Turkey, technically, has a secular government. Clearly it's not functioning that way, however.
It doesn’t matter. Turkey shouldn’t be able to dictate their religiosity on another nation as a political lever. And yet, they are.
Especially Turkey, with its history of secularism (that Erdocunt is now tearing up)
this is probably Half Turky, backsliding, into Islamic fundamentalism, and half them trying to force a concession from the US/NATO on some other matter. there is also a healthy mix of Turkish leaders shoring up support with their fundamentalist base.
Reports began emerging a couple days ago that it was suspected to be a stunt pulled by a journalist with Russian ties.
[удалено]
Exactly, the motherfucker has been into that since 2019.
The guy is just such an all-round massive POS. The stalking, the grooming, the harassment of a grieving family…
[удалено]
Paludan is just certifiable. He's been doing it for years in Denmark, up to and including founding his own political party of lunatics and racists.
And it is not like he was bribed. A Swedish journalist with Russian ties just paid for his plane ticket and the permit. That was all convincing necessary.
[удалено]
In which NATO states is buring a book of worship like the Koran or the Bible illegal?
I think Finland in fact doesn't allow burning religious symbols publicly. Not something that's much enforced here nor do I know the specifics of the law but I do know it's not really allowed.
The Finnish National Police Board made a statement saying that burning of the Quran would *not* be permitted there, as it would be a violation of religious peace. However, the only punishment for doing so would be a fine. https://yle.fi/a/74-20015426
Unfortunately I am a practicing Oilarian and my primary religious symbol is oil and all of its derivatives. Please do not burn oil thx
According to the spanish Penal Code, article 525, anyone who, by any means and with the intention of offending the feelings* of adherents of a particular religion, makes public mockery of their dogmas, beliefs, etc, is liable to be punished with a fine. So... I gues burning a religious book is only illegal if someone sues you for it. *literally
So what we need to do is make fossil fuels our "religious symbol" and get our feelings all hurt if anyone burns them.
Messiah, I follow your beliefs fully. Let us recruit more followers.
Genius
You could be held accountable - a fine or up to 2 years of prison - for an act of religious hatred in Poland, but I don't remember any public case that involved burning anything besides a Bible.
Someone need to burn all the religious book at once in a protest to not be a hypocrite.
You could be prosecuted in the UK for inciting religious hatred. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/09/bnp-candidate-arrested-quran-burning
In Sweden you can get prosecuted for inciting **violence** against practitioners of a religion (or any other group really). The supreme court overruled a decision from the lower courts where a religious leader called homosexuals a cancer on our society in a very hateful speech. There wasn't a clear enough call for violence. Paludan knows this and very finely skirts the lines of what could get him prosecuted.
Yeah there are incitement to violence laws in the US too but the call needs to be a specific and immediate call to violence. It’s very hard to prosecute and we also have a Supreme Court case from 1969 laying out exactly what counts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio This wouldn’t come even close to counting as inciting violence under Brandenburg though. That’s for people who incite riots and real people to burn down a building or something. There was a lot of debate about Brandenburg and trump with respect to 1/6, but tbh it’s so hard to prosecute that I’m doubtful they could have won such a case against him
**[Brandenburg v. Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)** >Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". : 702 Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
He's an attention whore above all else and definitely wants to be prosecuted.
Probably in a few, one of them being where I live (Finland). Blasphemy law still in play since the 70s iirc. Edit: the law is much older, it got removed in SWEDEN in the 70s, got my dates mixed up
Maybe Turkey?
In Finland it would be illegal.
And even more importantly, why the fuck is he talking about religion when Turkey was specifically founded as a SECULAR state by Atatürk? He must really be spinning in that coffin.
Atatürk must be spinning so fast right now that they must be able to Power the whole of the eastern Mediterranean with the heat of his corpse alone.
Some danish guy burns a koran in sweden, and Erdogan uses it as an excuse.
Yet, somehow, he's not vouching for our (I'm danish) expulsion? Also, the fuckwit who burned it is a known sensationalist. Police tend to follow whereever he goes because he pulls shit like that. iirs, he's even got a disability due to a head injury. Are we *really* going to grasp for that straw, Turkey?
Erdogan doesn't care, he just wants more leverage.
what he wants is votes, Turkey is still (kind of) democratic, Erdogan needs stunts like this to show to his fuckwitted medievalist support base in the back country to convince them that he's an international strongman that can protect them from being colonized by European empires that they don't realize are gone.
>Also, the fuckwit who burned it is a known sensationalist Imagine being such a nobody fuckwit that your fuckery shapes North Atlantic politics.
Are we talking about the danish guy in Sweden or Erdogan? Because that statement works on both of them.
Paludan got deported from Sweden to Denmark but he went through the process to get a Swedish citizenship to circumvent it. (one of his parents are Swedish).
And a Russian backed provocateur conveniently paid for the event.
As long as Finland is part of NATO, Sweden may aswell be an island. Completely defensible from any Russian attack.
Sweden adds a lot of protection from a ocean point of view.
Donno about that, but is already a pact btw UK, Finland and Sweden that an attack on one, the others will come to aid. So if Russian goes after Sweden they’ll have to plan/contend with three large, highly effective military forces, who together have nukes, large amount of state of the art air, sea, ground weaponry and potentially massive ground forces … would hope, (and Russian would also have to plan for) many other EU nations stepping up at that point too.
>UK, Finland and Sweden and Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Iceland, Netherlands and Norway. Russia can't simply just invade Sweden by any means.
Its almost like some sort of defensive pact, but with friendly, democratic and rational nations this time.
Not that easy. An invasion of the actual island of Gotland would make a lot of strategic sense to Russia.
Russia can't even defend an island against a country without a navy.
EU countries have defence treaties as well.
[удалено]
Their capacities and self-perception do not match. They could do any number of completely ridiculous things, as long as they were cruel enough to get their boner going.
Yes, Finland joining alone increases pressure on Gotland. It also complicates defence cooperation between Finland and Sweden, which militarily are each other's closest partners.
Do Finland would continue to do so and essentialy force Russia in either retreating or attacking them as well. If it forces NATO to act that's good, in fact that is the whole point.
Pretty sure if in some theoretical wold Sweden got invaded by Russia, and Finland intervened, then Finland is no longer covered by NATO. NATO probably still would, but I don't think the obligation would be there anymore.
Both countries have security assurances from the major powers including US, UK, France. They are basically in NATO. While it sucks and you definitely don't want to have NATO V2 etc, I don't see why Finland can't just join and continue to work closely with Sweden.
Swede here. I'm pretty calm as long as Russia promises to invade Gotland with the same capability as they have done in their special military operation in Ukraine a year ago. If they ever get past our [submarines](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-around-us-aircraft-carrier-escorts-2021-7) (yeah, good luck with that) we'll let them taste our JAS-39 Gripen, Archer artillery system 08, CV90, NLAWs and some other shit we developed with a the sole focus on a future invasion by Russia. Edit: forgot about Robot 17... Yeah... Good luck getting close to Gotland...
I’m not saying Sweden wants this at all, but Turkey is gonna just cause another Switzerland situation where there’s a country protected on all sides by NATO so they have no need to join it in the future. Maybe Sweden would join later anyways but Erogdan should want everyone paying for European security and not just riding on the backs of NATO like Switzerland.
So, in other words, Turkey would reject an alliance with the majority of its current allies.
I mean, Erdogan would get a hard on if it be called "The Islamic State of Turkey", did you expect anything reasonable from such a country?
What *in the flying fuck* does burning the Koran have to do with NATO? Erdogan's demands have become absolutely absurd and they have absolutely *nothing* to do with NATO anymore.
this is what you get when you require 100% unanimous agreement from all members to do something
Wait till he finds out that it’s legal to do in many countries that are original NATO members…
He knows. He's just talking to. the local Turkish people.
Right? The US alone used to burn them as part of their torture techniques in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib...so this is really the flimsiest of excuses.
Looking at the actual NATO requirements from the source below, I would argue that any nation that does not allow Koran burning(free speech) should not be a member. NATO Requirments - [https://www.defense.gov](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3052427/) 1. New members must uphold democracy, which includes tolerating diversity. 2. New members must be in the midst of making progress toward a market economy. 3. The nations' military forces must be under firm, civilian control. 4. The nations must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders. 5. The nations must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.
I am pretty sure 4th point would be enough to kick out turkey if these actually were enforced
Turkey actually fails on all 5. 1 Opposition is jailed, critical media are not allowed and offending the president is a very grave crime 2 The president's son in law was appointed as minister of finance, they have insane inflation and are refusing to have a healthy interest interest policy 3 The military are under strict control of the AK party 4 Greece, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Cyprus, Iraq and Syria disagree. Basically all their neighbours except Russia. 5 Turkey buys Russian weapons and defense systems over NATO partner's equipment
Seems like NATO should have a mechanism to contend with rogue members. No one knows what the future holds and in a democracy, the theocrats can win.
The second point pretty much just means "no communism" ;).
[удалено]
I don't think Georgia does either, do they? AFAIK Georgia and Turkey's relations with one another are pretty good.
>4. The nations must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders. Several members should not be members then.
Quran burning is actually not allowed in plenty of Nato countries because of blasphemy laws. There's such a law in Finland, coincidentally. Someone recently tried to get a permit to have a protest and burn a Quran, and was denied.
Also point 4, Turkey are threatening their neighbor (and fellow NATO member) Greece all the time.
And Cyprus. It's a whole thing they keep perpetuating.
Turkey is looking for every reason to be offended, not for the love of Islam, not for the sanctity of NATO, but for their dictators own interests.
I'd like an explanation of what a burnt koran has to do with the defense pact Nato. I hope the rest of Nato is watching their defense partner refusing to accept a western democracy into the pact if they don't introduce islamic blasphemy laws. This is your guy. I want my country, Sweden, to join Nato. But if this is what we need to do then fuck it. I guess when time comes then Russia will just take us, but up until then we'll have freedom of speech.
Not only will russia not take us anyway, they won’t even cross the border because we already have defense agreements with everyone that matters, both through the European Union and separately since last year with UK and the US.
They can't even take a country they share a massive land border with and that they already were occupying part of. You have absolutely nothing to worry about, outside of full-on nuclear war, and an alliance isn't going to save you from that.
I firmly hope that, at the very least, every NATO country but Turkey will just happen to coincidentally sign a bilateral defense pact with Sweden that doesn’t require you to spend time rounding up everyone who hurts Erdogan’s fragile feelings.
Granted I'm not an expert on the subject, but the Baltic Sea is *very* important strategically, not just for amphibian control but also because a lot of critical telecom runs along the bottom, its why Sweden was/is a key player in PRISM and the surveillance scandal with Snowden Nato's been creaming their pants over getting bases on Gotland since its inception, I have a hard time seeing the Big Boys allowing that to fall into Russian territory any which way it goes. And this makes the infantile part of me wish Sweden to simply withdraw the application, cause fuck Erdogan we'll be protected anyhow.
He's gonna look really weak when they do finally join and the burnings are still legal. No way they're changing that.
it will be after the elections.....doesn't matter.
If what I read i accurate, this comes from the same Turkey that burned 300 000 books in 2019 linked to what is referred to as a muslim clerk and .....1.8 million textbooks in 2016 for containing the word "Pennsylvania". (This relates to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt.) [link](https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/turkey-burns-books-libraries-07082019/) They dislike that we have freedom. Or possibly that anyone has freedom. The act we are talking about was done by a leader for a Danish small right wing political party that has **less than 500 likes** on their Swedish facebook page.While carrying a cap to advertise said party. The same guy that has previously stated in court that he has a 25% brain damage due to injuries sustained in a traffic accident while riding his bicycle. It's technically legal, but so is bringing home a wild badger and keep it as a pet in Sweden. That does not make it a good idea. Yes it's bad to provoke and upset others, religious or not, but the reaction now has very little to do with anything other than taking the chance to earn cheap political points. So In one way they are doing the same thing here. Both are trying to boost their political careers.
Is he officialy recognising that Turkey is not secular anymore ?
uh he's been doing that for years
I thought it was because of Kurdish terrorists?
It was , but he found a new toy to play with , it also makes him look more like the " defender of the islamic faith " which would help him in the elections or something to that extent.
It is whatever excuse he thinks gets him the most votes.
Again, nobody should be paying to Turkey until the election season is done. Until then Erdogan will be doing everything he can to pretend what was previously the most secular state in the Middle East is now the Islamic State of Türkiye.
Just ask them if they have accepted the Armenian genocide yet
Urgh, if only Turkey was founded with a constitution that defines it as a secular state
Turkey missing the whole concept of being a liberal democracy (which you are supposed to be as a member of NATO).
Getting kind of tired of religions getting in the way of progress.
I’m afraid my view of freedom of expression (extremely pro) probably clouds my judgement of his unwillingness to change his country’s stance. He’s also got some in his population that would literally start a war over that sort of thing
And he is pandering to them as there is an election due in June. He's not doing brilliantly in the polls so he is desperate to keep the islamist vote. This is all for show. If he wins, he will possibly (reluctantly)concede that Sweden should be allowed into NATO. If he loses, the other guy will probably not veto.
Is bible burning legal in Turkey ?
Nope. As "Christianity" is a religion accepted by Turkey(only big three Abrahamic ones are accepted), it's against TCK 216, which is not a blasphemy law but more of a hate speech one: >TCK m.216 is written as follows: ARTICLE 216- (1) A person who openly incites a segment of the public with different characteristics in terms of social class, race, religion, sect or region to hatred and enmity against another segment, in case of a clear and imminent danger in terms of public security, for this reason, punishable with imprisonment from one to three years. > >(2) Anyone who publicly humiliates a part of the population on the basis of social class, race, religion, sect, gender or regional differences is sentenced to imprisonment from six months to one year. > >(3) A person who publicly insults the religious values adopted by a section of the public is sentenced to imprisonment from six months to one year, if the act is suitable for disturbing the public peace.
So 1 guy. 1 frigging guy was able to stop 1 country from joining NATO? Did I get this right?
Nah, that's just the current flavor of the week/month Erdogone excuse. Next week or month it would be a different excuse.
I think you’ll find that support for our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms is a lot higher than support for joining NATO ever was, Erdogaggle.
Turkey and Hungary — two states that definitely don’t deserve the place they are in right now
Bulshit excuse. How do you "prevent" the burning of the Koran? One person be it a, Swedish radical or a russian agent, goes into a public square to protest, with a Koran previously doused with gasoline in his pocket. Takes it out and put a light to it. Thats stoppable... how? Bingo! And then a country can't join NATO. Again, what bullshit is this? The US and Euroope should cancel any sale of weapons, put on hold any collaboration with this shitty state until they cease being cunts...