Summary
Salwan Momika, the Iraqi man who staged several Quran burnings in Sweden in 2023, was shot and killed in Sodertalje, near Stockholm.
His actions had sparked international outrage, riots, and diplomatic tensions. Swedish police confirmed a murder investigation is underway, and several arrests have been made.
Momika, who sought asylum in Sweden in 2018, faced charges of incitement to hatred, with a verdict scheduled for the day after his death.
His protests were permitted under free speech laws but led to legal action against him.
I’m not for the death penalty or killing people generally (very rare exceptions, maybe).
That said, he did it to rile up millions of people with hate speech (for them it is I bet), so like don’t do that or you might face consequences.
Free speech isn’t about the right to hate speeching. What a douchebag.
Edit: idiot below trying to frame it I think you shouldn’t “blasphemy”. No lol go ahead and blasphemy all you want, that’s free speech IMO.
Blasting religion for it’s cruelty is always appreciated.
To bad he was a raging hypocrite who targeted Muslims due to himself being targeted as a Christian. Religion is gonna religion until they all stop believing the nonsense or everyone gets converted (alive or dead).
You say it better than me :-)
Being offended is not a justification for killing nor is it hate speech.
Where the hell do you see me saying killing is okay? I say literally the opposite.
Also, he did hate speech, he was on trial for it, read the article!
Are you one of the bigots trying to stir things up or what the hell is your agenda?
No agenda. Free speech absolutist. Criticism of a topic no matter how offensive must be allowed.
Ah, an idiot.
Publicly burning symbols of a minority group or a world view is an incitement to violence against that group or people holding that world view.
It has nothing to do with constructive criticism. It is symbolizing a violent act, with the goal to incite more violence.
It is more offensive to kill someone rather than destroying a book. Any group of people that kills over offense is a danger to their society and the world.
Which group? How do you define that group? Do you think groups of people should be collectively punished for the actions of individuals of that group?
Also i fail to see why incitement to kill people, which is the ultimate goal of the book burning becomes acceptable, because killing people is worse? Is every lesser crime acceptable? is every hate speech acceptable? Is everything acceptable that falls short of killing someone?
I think it should be obvious that lesser crimes are still crimes and i think it should be obvious, that hate speech against minorities is particular problematic, as it leads to killing people of that minority, which as you point out is the most severe crime.
If a group of people collectively is outraged enough to kill over a certain value system, they should be mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized for that belief. In the united states we have radicals that will kill over abortion. They are mocked and ridiculed. If Muslims get offended, they should be mocked and ridiculed for being soft.
Burning a book is not a “lesser crime.” It is speech. If you are offended, how about you put your big boy pants on and act like a man and get over it.
Im against hate speech but it should not be criminalized. Violent speech can be. “This person should be killed” then a overt act made towards violence should be criminal.
But if Muslims get so upset about a book buring and kill, then Muslims are in the wrong and need to realize this is the real world and people don’t bow down to babies that cry about offense.
You do know that there is 2 billion Muslims in the world?
So for the act of unknown assailants you think 2 billion people should be “mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized”
By your own example, because some women who got abortions have committed crimes in their life and many women rights advocates get offended by insults towards women seeking abortions, you would want to “mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized” them all too.
There is anti fascists who got so outraged by fascists that they have killed them too. So you must mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized" anti-fascists too.
By your own logic you just justify hating everyone in the world, because in every group of people you will find someone who you find reprehensible, which you then apply to the entire group.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It seems to stem more from some personal things that have nothing to do with any particular group.
I don’t think we should consider blasphemy as hate speech. Or do you want to be required to follow the rules of all religions because they are all offended by it?
It wasn’t the blasphemy that was hate speech, it was the whole rhing riling them up ffs.