David Inserra
Last week, Salwan Momika, an Iraqi immigrant to Sweden was murdered because he burned Qurans to show his opposition to Islam. His murderers remain at large, though the Swedish government said that the killing could be connected to a foreign power, similar to how author Salman Rushdie has been frequently targeted by Iran for his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses and was almost killed in 2022.
And yet, liberal, modern Sweden and the likely fundamentalist murderer or foreign actor were aligned in their belief that Mr. Momika and his expression were a problem and violence was needed to stop him. He was murdered shortly before he was set to be convicted by the Swedish state for his Quran-burning “hate crimes.” Mr. Momika’s fellow activist Salwan Najem was convicted days after Momika’s murder for his burning of Qurans and hateful statements, with the Swedish courts saying their actions “by a wide margin” had gone beyond acceptable religious criticism.
Sweden got rid of its laws against blasphemy in the 20th century. But significant unrest in Scandinavia over the past few years has led to governments rolling back their protections for free speech to criticize religions, even with book burnings. Last year, Denmark fully capitulated, reestablishing formal blasphemy laws on its books. Sweden is instead expanding the use of its other hate speech laws to effectively act as blasphemy laws that prevent criticism of religious ideas, books, or other materials.
While Sweden’s punishments are certainly less severe than other blasphemy laws around the world, they are still using the force of the state to compel and punish speech that some find offensive.
And it’s not alone. Facing various incidents of unrest of its own, the UK has increasingly resorted to censorship. The UK is prosecuting a man, Martin Frost, for hate speech after burning the Quran in solidarity with the murdered Momika after his daughter was killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite England having repealed its blasphemy laws in 2008, the judge found that “The Koran is a sacred book to Muslims, and treating it as you did is going to cause extreme distress. This is a tolerant country, but we just do not tolerate this behaviour.”
While burning Qurans may elicit thoughts of Nazi book burnings and other prejudicial views, these actions are ultimately peaceful protests by individuals burning their own property to criticize a religion with which they vehemently disagree. It’s no different than desecrating a bible, burning an American flag, or burning your Harry Potter books because of JK Rowling’s views of sex and gender or its sinful promotion of magic and demonic influence. Whatever their motivation, these acts may be offensive, but liberal societies do not criminalize offense.
Nearly everything can be offensive to someone. Fervent followers of various religions may find attacks on their beliefs, symbols, or holy texts deeply offensive. Atheists may find all religious influence offensive. LGBTQ groups may find traditional sexual mores deeply upsetting. Conservative and traditional religions may find LGBTQ sexual views corrupting and evil. One nationality may find the mannerisms or behavior of another nationality to be disrespectful, and vice versa. Men and women may fault each other for objectionable or indecent speech. Comedians may offend nearly everyone. Whether they are microaggressions, jokes, or purposeful burning of a religious text, offensive speech can also take any number of forms because it ultimately is in the eye of the offended.
And so criminalizing speech because another group finds it offensive is to give into the most intolerant and illiberal parts of society. If applied broadly, laws against blasphemy and offense will leave us in a totalitarian state without any humor, art, or public discussion. But more commonly, hate and offensive speech laws are inevitably used selectively to silence viewpoints. While banning anti-Islamic speech is currently in vogue in these countries, nothing stops a change in government from turning these laws against Muslims. History is full of examples in which laws against offensive speech are used to silence minorities and the oppressed.
Not only do such laws backfire against the groups they are meant to protect, but they fundamentally undermine tolerance across society. Mr. Momika’s prosecution and now murder inspired Mr. Frost in the UK, whose arrest will inspire others. And if peaceful speech isn’t allowed, more people will unfortunately turn to increasingly radical ideas, unrest, and violence as they have no lawful way to express their non-violent ideas. Indeed, research indicates that free speech is essential to reducing social conflict as it gives the dissatisfied in society a way to make their voice heard without violence.
Even for those who don’t go on to engage in criminality, blasphemy and hate speech laws cannot force people to respect ideas they do not respect. If anything, these prosecutions are likely to drive an even deeper wedge between Muslims and the rest of society, which will wonder why Muslims need special legal protection for their ideas.
The state of free expression in Europe and around the world is growing more and more concerning. And the ideas being popularized and enacted likely are having an impact on how Americans view expression. So it is important that liberty lovers call attention to this worldwide backslide on free expression.