Danish Narrowing of the Framework of Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedom of Expression

In carefully chosen words, Danish Foreign Minister Lars L. Rasmussen recently announced that the Islamic world has defeated the Danish legal order. The Danish government is ‘considering ways to act in special situations, when, for example, other states, cultures, and religions are insulted and when this can have significant negative consequences for Denmark, not only in terms of security,’ the minister announced. Or, in translation, after a series of protest actions burning the Quran in front of the embassies of Islamic countries in Denmark and, on the other hand, strong threatening reactions from the Islamic world, including condemnation from 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Danish government is seeking a way to legally prohibit the protest burning of the Muslim holy book. And to make it not look like that.

Sweden is on a similar path, whose position is even slightly more delicate than Denmark’s. Namely, Turkey, which has established itself in recent years as a global representative and spokesperson for the Islamic world, has not yet ratified its NATO accession agreement, although Erdoğan announced at the summit in Vilnius that he would withdraw his veto and support Sweden’s membership. After the protest burnings of the Quran, Turkey has additional, humiliating conditions for Sweden.

Frameworks of Liberal Democracy

For Denmark and Sweden, a legal ban on public burning of the Quran is not a simple step at all. This would (selectively) abolish the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression, which is very broadly defined in these countries that until recently were not only normative but also real models of liberal democracy. Therefore, Minister Rasmussen, announcing the new law, immediately added that all measures the government will take will be ‘within the framework of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.’ This will, of course, be wrapped in a package of protection against insulting all cultures and religions.

However, it is completely misguided to compare protest burnings of the Quran with potential protest burnings of the Bible or Torah. Namely, in the countries of the Western civilizational circle, the latter might provoke condemnation as a vandalistic and offensive act. But there would also be progressive NGOs who would bring matches with drums of support, in case the first burning fails. And these are the frameworks of liberal democracy. On the other hand, in some Islamic countries that vehemently condemn and demand a ban on the burning of the Quran in Denmark and Sweden, not only is the burning of the Bible or Torah desirable, but also the killing of people who read the Bible or Torah. Denmark and Sweden will not change their laws even to protect Buddhists, Hindus, or Baha’is from insult…

There is no ‘general’ package that can conceal the essence of these coerced changes: Denmark and Sweden are changing their legal order because of Islam and fear of internal conflicts and destabilization. However, this time it is not just about a unilateral fear of possible terrorist actions by radical Islamist groups but also about a possible real conflict between ‘awakened’ native Danes and Swedes and their immigrant compatriots. Those who have immigrated (also) to Denmark and Sweden from Islamic countries in recent decades and have created parallel societies there where, in a democratic environment of respect for diversity, under conditions of social deprivation, supported by money and religious teachers from Islamic countries, they have developed and nurtured Islamist ideas about the victory of Islam in the world.

Ignoring and Concealing

Danish and Swedish official authorities, just like the authorities of all Western European countries, initially ignored and neglected this problem, and in recent years have tried to conceal it. For example, by avoiding mentioning religious (Islamic) affiliation in various criminal acts (from theft to sexual offenses to murders) or avoiding religious motivation for criminal acts.

But this has, predictably, produced radicalization of the local population and a situation that Danish and Swedish Prime Ministers Mette Frederiksen and Ulf Kristersson have recently jointly defined as a ‘dangerous situation.’ In Denmark and Sweden, mass reports of protest burnings of the Quran in front of the embassies of Islamic states are being made. The official authorities emphasize that these provocative burnings of the Quran are organized by radical right-wing groups. But every conflict is initiated by radicals, and the polarization of society is so great that each of these burnings can ignite a real social conflict, on the brink of civil or religious war.

Denmark and Sweden will certainly find some legal form that will stop mass burnings of the Quran while not admitting that they have given up their own democracy. But this is just putting out a fire. The problem remains. And it is getting bigger.