Swedish police detained a woman who sprayed an anti-Islam activist with a fire extinguisher as he staged a Quran-burning protest outside the Iranian Embassy in Stockholm.
Video of the scene showed the woman rushing up to Salwan Momika and spraying white powder towards him before she was intercepted by plainclothes police officers who led her away. Momika, who appeared stunned but unhurt on Friday, then resumed his demonstration, which had been authorised by police.
Police spokeswoman Towe Hagg said the woman, who was not identified by police, was detained on suspicion of disturbing public order and violence against a police officer.
Momika, a refugee from Iraq, has desecrated the Quran in a series of anti-Islam protests that have caused anger in many Muslim countries. Swedish police have allowed his demonstrations, citing freedom of speech while filing preliminary hate speech charges against him.
Prosecutors are investigating whether his actions are permissible under Sweden’s hate speech law, which prohibits incitement of hatred against groups or individuals based on race, religion or sexual orientation. Momika has said his protests target the religion of Islam, not Muslim people.
The Quran-burnings have sparked angry protests in Muslim countries, attacks on Swedish diplomatic missions and threats.
Sweden on Thursday raised its terrorism alert to the second-highest level, saying the country had become a priority target for armed groups.
Momika said he would continue to burn the Quran despite threats directed at him and Sweden, saying he wants to protect Sweden’s population from the messages of the Quran.
“I have freedom of speech,” Swedish news agency TT quoted him as saying.
Muslim leaders in Sweden have called on the government to find ways to stop the Quran burnings. Sweden dropped its last blasphemy laws in the 1970s and the government has said it has no intention to reintroduce them.
However, the government on Friday announced an inquiry into legal possibilities for enabling police to reject permits for demonstrations over national security concerns.
According to Justice Minister Gunnar Strommer, the inquiry will study legislation in countries such as France, Norway and the Netherlands that he said have extensive freedom of speech but “greater scope for including security in this type of assessment”
I agree people should have the right to burn it.
What's important I think is that burning ANYTHING that people like / consider culturally important is going to make them upset, regardless of what the contents actually are. People absolutely shouldn't get violent over that, but I don't like how some comments (not yours) on these threads are fanning the flames to the conflicts. Hoping for things to escalate just to prove a point is... a bad look.
This next bit is opinion on the burnings: I don't think the burnings are that productive and they don't get much of a meaningful dialogue. Instead they just escalate tensions, deepen divisions / resentment, and when it happens it undermines the goals of the entire thing.
That's not the point of the recent discussions, which are around if it should be legal. I guess I'm trying to say "it's legal, but the act still harms everyone involved"
related example: Burning the Canadian flag is a valid form of protest, and it's legal to do / should stay legal. However, it's usually not productive
It's productive in the sense of raising awareness. Everytime someone burns a book or a flag it sends a clear message and the outrage is usually part of the message.
The message is "I don't care about your culture, your culture does not define me and I refuse to adhere to it" which is perfectly understandable when said culture is trying to force change in areas where people don't want that change.
That's the idea behind it, but it causes more harm to that cause than whatever the gains from it are. Other forms of protest/raising awareness are more effective in the long run.
While I don't know much about the specifics of "culture is trying to force change in areas where people don't want that change", my gut says that the vast majority of people already oppose those changes. An inflammatory 'burning' protest isn't helping much.
Another example that comes to mind are the different types of climate protests. A lot of the public already supports positive changes. So when certain climate groups block roads or access to hospitals, while it's a loud and clear message, it might hurt the cause more than it helps.
What if the goal of the entire thing is escalating tensions? Threats by Islamists lead to fear in the population lead to rising far-right sentiment in the population. This is a very effective method to get people to support your side (if your side is far-right).