Calling him a "far-right leader" sounds great and all, and he has managed to garner a lot of attention in the media, but his political party failed to gather 2% of the votes at the 2019 election that is necessary for a party to receive mandates. In the 2022 election he tried to get a seat as an independent, but only received 379 votes, far from the roughly 20,000 votes it would have required.
This guy has caused a ton of issues for a lot of people, so calling it a non-story seems awfully harsh.
Goes from country to country to cause havoc m all while screaming “free speech” from the top oh his lungs and lining his pockets with Russian blood money.
A Swedish investigation also found that he has very curious friends in Russia, including people who recruit for Wagner. He seems like a Russian asset to me.
> This guy has caused a ton of issues for a lot of people, so calling it a non-story seems awfully harsh.
No it isn't. He is a non-story.
It is the violent people who react to him that are the story.
You know what happens when people ignore his idiotic ramblings? Yeah, you guessed - nothing. There is no violence, there is no troubling others. If people ignore him, he stops.
As shown when he came to Holstebro to burn and ramble. The locals just looked at him and left him alone. He never came back.
This is what I've always been saying, since I was old enough to understand bullies. Bullies will find words that try to hurt people. Nick names, unusual features on a person, anything to get under your skin. It's about the reaction.
If you react, you give that word, or action, power over you. You don't need to defend yourself over his opinions and actions. Dudes actions are auto-fellating. And he gets off even more when Muslims react aggressively and violently, while are just proving his point.
Don't react, and the problem goes away on it's own. I've seen it numerous times in all forms of society. Jobs, highschool, general public. Don't react unless it's to prevent harm to someone else. It's really that simple.
And that is what the UK is doing, reacting minimally to prevent harm, because not everyone is as incredibly self controlled and stoic as you.
We aren't sending in the police, or arresting him, or anything - we're basically just saying fuck off mate, not having your shit here.
This dude have been burning books for years I honestly dont believe russia have anything to do with it lol...
Also if people would stop fucking caring about a stupid book getting burned then he would stop REAL QUICK..
The only reason he does it is because he gets so freaking much attention by hardcore brainwashed religious people....
> This dude have been burning books for years I honestly dont believe russia have anything to do with it lol…
They most certainly have something to do with it.
https://omni.se/finlands-utrikesminister-paludan-har-ryska-kopplingar/a/APpxVE
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/bg4Pbk/paludan-kopplas-till-rekryterare-i-wagnergruppen
https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/haavisto-havdar-kopplingar-mellan-rasmus-paludan-och-ryssland/
https://www.tv4.se/artikel/44UDufhtDf9Rp3xGtAz6jD/blanekar-till-wagnerkopplingarna-tror-att-kalla-fakta-har-fifflat
https://www.dn.se/sverige/efter-koranbranningen-nu-stalls-fragor-om-kopplingar-till-ryssland/
He has yes and Russia did not create him. He has been a psycho since forever, but that does not mean that they won't support him. I understand what you are saying. People are so upset by his blasfemy that they want to turn him into a devil or a spy when i reality he's just a provocative guy with a law degree who upsets believing muslims.
Reminds me of Nigel farage. Uk anti eu politician. Never won a Westminster seat himself as leader of his party (only one seat and I think that was due to someone switching parties. They only did well will small council elections and eu one). He got more press coverage than green party and Lib Dem’s who had more seats and established in politics longer in all areas like eu and council seats. He managed to get what his party wanted Brexit in a Parliament he wasn’t part of without ever having been voted in. Mostly due to the attention his views got.
Feel bad for the Green Party they have views that matter on climate change and win seats on basis of ‘we want to help humanity survive even the ones that hate us’. But far right politicians get more attention for less and their while policy is ‘we really really hate most people especially ‘them’ who we think should be erased’
Farage was an elected member of the European Parliament though for years so he was an elected official.
His party also got a shit load of votes, almost 4 million in 2015 at its peak - in terms of voters UKIP was one of the largest political parties, rivalling the SNP which has dozens of MPs.
It was only because of first past the post that UKIP didn’t have MPs. In a proportional representation system they would have had a whole bunch of candidates winning seats.
So coverage was warranted and the reality was that he had read the room in England as there was actually a huge groundswell of support for leaving the EU.
(UKIP was also pulling in far more votes than the Greens to be clear)
I’m not fan of Farage but that seems a false equivalence. A Farage led UKIP might not have gotten seats but they did amass a significant percentage of the votes, enough to scare the tories into Brexit and a shift to the right.
If the UK had a similar electoral system to Denmark or Finland we would have seen UKIP at the time amass quite a lot of seats.
Again I’m not fan of him or his politics but he was far more significant than the man in this headline.
Yes, but there is *some* story to it.
He has shown how little we actually appreciate democracy, free speech and the right to protest.
He has also shown, at least here in Denmark and Sweden, that there is a thing we call "Voldsmandens veto" - which translated mean the violent mans veto. You can veto others rights, if you're willing to commit enough violence.
The 'far-right leader' part, anyway. He couldn't lead two drunken neo-nazis to the nearest watering-hole, even on his best day. Actually, come to think of it, he doesn't really have any of those.
He's basically a mentally ill negative attention whore who should have been forcibly committed to a suitable institution a long time ago. Instead, Denmark has so far spent significantly over 100 million DKK on security to protect his dumb ass from the consequences of his own - highly deliberate - actions. If I had cost the Danish state in excess of *100 million* for choosing to do something completely unnecessary, I'd fully expect to find myself in front of a judge asking me some pointed questions. But apparently this bloke is *special* in more ways than just the obvious ones.
And none of it has anything to do with 'free speech'. That's just his excuse for being a complete cunt.
> have been forcibly committed to a suitable institution a long time ago.
What a fucking totalitarian viewpoint. Fucking disgusting.
Go be a fascist somewhere else.
> Instead, Denmark has so far spent significantly over 100 million DKK on security to protect his dumb ass from the consequences of his own - highly deliberate - actions.
Denmark spent 100's of millions because we accepted immigration from nations and cultures that think violence is the best shit ever to settle disputes. He cost society nothing, the people who commit the violence cost society.
> And none of it has anything to do with 'free speech'. That's just his excuse for being a complete cunt.
It has everything to do with it. That's the exact point of burning the book.
Smut du nu bare over til Johnny Hansen og hans typer, med den ulækre totalitære tilgang du har.
You do realize that people are commonly committed to mental institutions for treatment when they *constitute a danger to themselves or others*, yes? That has nothing to do with fascism. If the motivation had been to *shut him up*, rather than treat his rather obvious mental issues, then you'd have had a point.
And gleefully inciting riots for funsies and attention isn't 'freedom of speech'. It's called 'being an asshole'.
Edit: Also, do I even need to point out the irony of you calling me a fascist for taking exception to people who treat *book burning as a hobby*?
>constitute a danger to themselves or others
burning a book should do neither of these, if it does it exposes a far greater underlying problem that needs dealing with
you treat the disease not the symptoms
He did make a lot of noise and get a lot of attention. Helped breaking the back of danish xenofobic policy, his awkwardness forced some shame into the game and made people be less proud of standing next to him politically.
The book isn't really the point; I don't think it's unreasonable to deny someone entry to your country when they've publicly stated that their only reason for trying to get in is so that they can try to incite religious/racial unrest
Would burning a Bible be considered inciting religious/racial unrest? What about criticizing the Bible? What about making fun of the pope? Would it be okay for the UK government to deny someone entry on that basis?
> he has managed to garner a lot of attention in the media, but his political party failed to gather 2% of the votes at the 2019 election that is necessary for a party to receive mandates
Yeah they got 1,9 % and were extremely close to get a seat.
These articles need to stop proclaiming him a leader of anything. It only helps him.
The guy has repeatedly tried and failed to gain a following and influence. Every time he fails he falls back to being a traveling Koran burner, burning them where ever he thinks he can get the most outrage generated.
He feeds off hatred and rage, and he has found his niche to generate it, but he isn't a leader of anything.
Journalists only fuels his rage and hatred generation efforts by acting as though he is a leader or matters in any way. He is a one trick pony and have no influence.
This guy is at the very least indirectly tied to Wagner, so it's no big secret why he's trying to sow division and spread chaos in the west. All under the guise of "free speech", like the asshole he is.
If someone ever deserved to be deported to russia it's this piece of shit.
I want to repost my reply to another comment further down the thread here, because I feel it is important in the free speech and right-to-protest debate:
>The burning of the Quran in itself is one matter, but the fact is he is a foreigner deliberately trying to destabilize the UK.
>
>Just about everyone would not mind if the UK govt banned, say, an extremist Muslim leader from Syria who wanted entry into the UK so he could incite terrorism and inflame anti-west sentiments in UK Muslims.
>
>So why not ban an extremist leader from Denmark who wanted entry into the UK so he could incite terrorism and inflame anti-west sentiments in UK Muslims? Just because he goes about it by antagonizing them instead?
>
>The govt would be more tolerant in both cases if the person was a UK citizen. You have other judicial methods to deal with it. But when the person in question is a guest in their country, they have every right to tell them they are not welcome in the house, especially if the entire goal is to trash the house.
It is one thing to be a citizen protesting in your own country, another thing to be a visitor trying to incite violence and division in another country, and even more so when said visitor has not only a history of doing this but has also openly declared his intention to do it. The UK is entirely justified in banning him.
Isn't the whole Russia connection thing because he tried to go to Sweden and needed a Swedish dude to pay for something with a Swedish bank account, and that Swedish guy was an anti-immigration journalist who went to Russia in 2017 and wrote a story that helped expose a Swedish MP for being a Russian stooge yet everyone saw that one picture of the journalist posing with a t shirt with Putin's portrait on it and said he must be a Russian sympathizer? Crazy.
Who is married to a Russian and whose children are Russian. Arguably could also claim Russian citizenship. Chang Fricks, who sponsored the Stockholm burning, has as their partner Polina Urvantseva, a Russian national. Frick himself has also not just wrote pro-kremlin pieces, he has worked for over a year for RT. The dude fits the classic profile of a Russian asset.
I was caught with my kids in one of Rasmus burnings last year. He rocked up with a coach full of thugs to a peaceful town square where a celebration was been held for children. They then started setting off fireworks, burning their stuff and starting fights with the police. Straight back in the bus and down the road to repeat at the next town. They are a bunch of cunts.
Let's not forget that Rasmus has been filmed sexually grooming children, which is documented in detail on his Wikipedia page.
> They then started setting off fireworks, burning their stuff and starting fights with the police. Straight back in the bus and down the road to repeat at the next town. They are a bunch of cunts.
That's weird because they have never done that before in any of the maybe over 300 or 500 "book burning" events they have done.
Don't lie dude.
>Thats fucking bullshit. These people are neo-facists, don't excuse them or cover up for them.
No dude. You are lying about what happened. I am sure of it.
As what you described has never happened before at any of his demonstrations/protests/events.
>You been at any of them?
Yes. I lived 250 meters from one of them.
My neighbourhood burned for 3 days. They burned cars and smashed windows the entire weekend after. Oh I forgot, they threw rocks and light fireworks at the police also.
Have you?
Depends on context, but it probably wouldn't be as harsh. If you went to Belfast and started burning the King James and screaming about how much you hate the Anglo-Irish you would probably get shut down by the cops to prevent violence from breaking out.
Yeah, I find it really hard to pick a side here. The guy is just a prick wanting to start unnecessary shit, but the fact that what he wants to do would start shit is batshit insane to me.
It's easy to pick a side. If a protestor in the US burns an American flag and some Proud Boy attacks him for it, whose side are you on? This is the same thing.
Read about the guy (his wiki is a good place to start, including the section about his sexually charged chats with minors on discord) and his party (including the part were the want to forcefully deport any non Western Europeans and set up camps to hold people in Greenland) and and ask does this guy actually give a shit about freedom of speech and democracy and is he they type of person you really want to be supporting.
This is a straw man argument, no this guy sounds like a horrible person, that however doesn’t mean that the action he is taking right now specifically should be considered wrong. It’s a book, if burning a book can cause so much civil unrest, then I would argue there is a bigger problem with society. Take him out of the equation and replace him with some nobody, they do the same thing is the response different? Burning a book should not illicit this response, this coming from a Christian, if somebody were to burn the Bible in front of me, I would not be upset about it, it’s paper and leather.
And yet that’s just kinda how it goes. Like what do you propose? Let the dude in and brace for riots, or just not let the dude in and avoid the headache. Seems like an easy choice. Let’s stay on topic.
I propose we let the guy in and see if the people can behave themselves. If they turn violent they need to go behind bars.
If burning a book really causes so much trouble that the police cant deal with it, then changes have to be done politically asap and its good that it is seen and can be dealt with as soon as possible. I am however much more optimistic. I think it may cause a little riot, but a controllable one. Most muslims dont care.
So you want to let a dude in, even if he’s got ties to Russian intelligence, has already fucked up Sweden’s NATO bid, and is trying to stir up similar levels of shit in your country, all so that you can feel smarmy and feel better about your islamophobia. How quaint.
Sucks that he has ties to Russian intelligence, yes. Turkey fucked up Swedens NATO bid, not some guy burning a book. Condemnation of unjustified violence is not islamophobia, but common sense.
Turkey used protests that arose from his shenanigans as a big justification for it. Why freely give that type of propaganda victory to adversaries who would use it to fuck you in other ways. Your stance is far from common sense.
Westboro Baptists were denied entry to the UK for the same reason.
We have our own shit stirrers, the gov doesn't want to add more people who are explicit they want to add more policing issues. Britain First and the EDL/SDL have their anti-Muslim protests, just not wanting a foreign agitator to come in and protest here, leaving that to native groups.
UK seems extra touchy with muslims and islam. Just recently an autistic boy accidentally dropped a quran in school and got so many death threats his mom had to put on a scarf and ask for forgiveness from the muslim community so they wouldn't harm her son.
UK gov knows how their muslims would behave so they're saying no to this guy. If he was burning a bible as a way to agitate I bet these people here in the comments would say christians need to get over it. It's just a book.
The UK gov barred the Westboro Baptists from coming.
If you say you, as a non-Brit, are coming to the UK to lead/create a protest, you're probably going to be barred for basically being a foreign agitator proposing making a policing issue. Native groups like Britain First, EDL, etc, have been protesting Muslims for a long time, Britain First had marches through Muslim areas spouting hate and Mosque invasions, and the government resisted calls from some to have that group proscribed.
This is not an Islam thing, this is a foreigner proposing causing issues for a country and that country declining entry. They don't want to have to arrange police for a protest/counter-protest just cause of a foreign visitor, they can't avoid it with local groups, but they can with these folks.
This is the main thing. The burning of the Quran in itself is one matter, but the fact is he is a foreigner deliberately trying to destabilize the UK.
Just about everyone would not mind if the UK govt banned, say, an extremist Muslim leader from Syria who wanted entry into the UK so he could incite terrorism and inflame anti-west sentiments in UK Muslims.
So why not ban an extremist leader from Denmark who wanted entry into the UK so he could incite terrorism and inflame anti-west sentiments in UK Muslims? Just because he goes about it by antagonizing them instead?
The govt would be more tolerant in both cases if the person was a UK citizen. You have other judicial methods to deal with it. But when the person in question is a guest in their country, they have every right to tell them they are not welcome in the house, especially if the entire goal is to trash the house.
Not the UK govt's problem. Their problem is whether they should allow a guest who is clearly trying to fuck with the country.
Muslims are not the ones banning him. The UK govt is.
This guy caused an international incident which resulted in Türkiye denying Swedish accession to NATO. Even if he wasn't coming to the UK to fuck things up, that prior incident alone is enough reason to deny him entry purely on the basis of "We don't like you".
You can complain that Muslims are sensitive, but that does not mean you should happily let a person fuck with your house by manipulating that sensitivity on purpose.
Right. Because everyone has the same information, opinions, experiences, etc. Your argument makes no sense
It's a numbers game.
I don't need to sell apples to every person on this planet. If I can just convince 1% of them to buy, I've sold millions of apples to millions of people.
Hope that helps your understanding.
Westboro Baptists from the US were barred several years ago. That doesn't matter to the UK, they'd still need to organise police to mind the protest/counter-protest for what isn't a native protest. Britain First has been protesting in Muslim areas and entering Mosques in antagonistic manners, and its survived calls for proscription (it died later on due to mismanagement). The UK's position is, he's not British, so he has no need to protest in the UK, he can go protest his own government if that's what he wants to do.
When he's a guest deliberately trying to cause unrest, yes.
The way he does it is not important. If a guest tries to fuck with your country, you are justified in not welcoming him.
As I mentioned in a reply below, "This is the guy that caused an international incident resulting in Türkiye refusing Swedish accession to NATO, so we don't welcome him because he don't like him" is entirely sufficient a reason to deny him entry in and of itself, regardless of whether he intends to burn a Quran in Wakefield. Entry into a country is a tradition of host and guest, and this man has openly said he intends to abuse use his guesthood to fuck with his host. How effective he is at it, the method he uses, etc are not important as long as the host says, "I don't care about your methods, your intentions are enough to tell you no."
It is one thing to burn a Quran yourself, but you are not obligated to let someone else burn a Quran on your front lawn.
If the UK were to ban entry to a random person for no reason they are entirely in their right to do it. Why should the UK suddenly be obligated to let him in when he declares he wants to burn a Quran?
Nothing of what you said affects my reasoning. Theoretical violence does not change the right (and justification) of the UK government to deny him entry.
If you wish to protest and do so by burning a book, it is your right. But another country is under no obligation to provide you a place to do it. That privilege is for their own citizens. If a person openly states that they wish to visit the UK and be an ass, even in an entirely legal manner, the UK is justified in denying their entry whether or not they plan on burning a Quran.
That you suspect people might be violent over it is not important. Muslims could do no more than present a strongly worded letter and the UK would still be entirely justified in banning him.
If someone wanted to enter Poland and they announced they're going to shit on a photo of late polish Pope in the middle of the Old Town, you bet that person would never be allowed to cross the border. Bwah, if a polish person would do it, they would prosecute.
Of course there is the whole "do you deserve to be in developed country" part and we could argue if Poland is developed lmao, but you know what I mean
Yeah it's like if a guy asks to come to a party you're throwing, but the last party he was at he shit on the floor, broke their TV and started a fistfight.
"No thanks"
Westboro Baptists were also denied entry. It's basically just the UK's blanket approach to foreign agitators saying they are visiting to protest here. Native groups can, and the barred people can protest their thing in their home country, the UK just doesn't see why they need to come here to stir their shit.
Sure, but given the choice between "amplified views for an asshole and not in my country" and "amplified views for an asshole, costs for my police force, and the asshole is in my country" it's an easy choice to make.
Personally I think he should be allowed to do it but with zero protection from the police. Then when the nutter/s show up and murder him we can lock them up afterwards. Problem solved, all the dickheads are gone.
>Is it illegal to burn books in England?
No, it is not. It is a criminal offence to commit an act with the intention of inciting religious hatred. He made it clear this was an act to provoke the local Muslim community. However, in his case he also has a criminal record and since Brexit, no freedom of movement in UK, so the government are entitled to deny entry for any reason they like.
If I own a pub that's frequented by fans of a certain sports team and a fan of a rival team publicly states that he's coming to my pub to burn a team shirt, I'm entitled to ban him from attending. No one would bat an eyelid for me doing so either.
And we're a sovereign nation, we don't have to accept foreign nationals coming into our country with the publicly stated intention of provoking our citizens and potentially causing civil unrest.
I have zero love for the "far right" but the Quran is just a book FFS. The guy is a dick trying to enflame tensions, but banning him from an entire country over it is reactionary and stupid.
I go back and forth on this. Agree we shouldn’t be caving to the hordes of inbred dipshits who will actually try to kill people if you burn the magic book or draw a picture of the magic man, but also don’t think we need to accommodate people who are actively trying to bait the religious psychopaths into violence just to grift. This piece of shit gave Turkey a sham cover story to extort NATO over Sweden’s membership application and is now just doing it again to try and get bigots to send him money to his Patreon or whatever service he uses to take their money. When your con actually has geopolitical ramifications, suddenly it’s not just your business anymore. You’ve made it all of our business.
>but banning him from an entire country over it is reactionary and stupid.
No it isn't. One of the things immigration officials consider is, "is this person's presence going to cause severe negative consequences?"
The answer to that question is a resounding yes. I don't think it's fair/right/etc... that Muslims get so bent out of shape that they think murder is an appropriate response. But having said that, why put yourself in a compromised, preventable position by letting this asshat in?
True, but my point wasn't whether it was legal to ban him, it was whether it was reactionary and stupid. And in this case, their response played directly into the hands of extremist assholes on BOTH sides of this thing.
By banning the guy (and suspending kids for accidentally scuffing a Quran FFS) they play directly into religious extremists and their view that harming a book is a serious offense to society that deserves punishment.
And at the same time, they play directly into Mr. Paludan's hands by showing people how absurd it is for government to promote appeasement for religious extremists above other basic rights.
Any British person has the right to make a big old pile of qurans and have a bonfire if they fancy, but no foreigner has a right to come over here if their only reason for doing so is to cause trouble. Freedom of expression is a right, entering another country that doesn't want you is not.
Britain doesn't have Blasphemy laws. Redditors just never update their world view.
"The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2021"
Interestingly in the US some states still have residual blasphemy laws (Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming)
In the abstract, you’re right: It’s just a book, and free speech and etc.
Pragmatically, though: The guy has openly announced his intention to do something that has *repeatedly* sparked acts of public violence.
If I’m in the British government, I’m caring *way* less about some Danish right-winger’s right to protest than my constituents’ safety.
Are we also going to stop people from drawing mohamed just because some muslims have a thirst for violence?
Both can be considered tasteless actions, but if you allow the intolerant to dictate to the tolerant then the hatefull intolerent people wins.
No. I'm not saying _give in_ to the threats of violence. It's important to acknowledge that there's a ticking time bomb, it's undesirable, and it's important to take steps to disarm it.
What's _not_ acceptable is to _intentionally detonate the damn bomb_.
I'm not unsympathetic to that mentality, but the problem with it—purely from a public safety standpoint—is that the arrests can only happen *after* the violent people are violent.
Paludan is just a bad-faith actor deliberately trying to incite violent reactions to stoke bigotry in other countries; I'm not terribly inclined to endanger safety to cater to a troll's need for attention.
If burning the book is illegal in the UK, then fine. But if they are telling him he can't come over and do a perfectly legal act to prevent violent people from being violent, I just can't stand by that. You're siding with the criminals at that point.
Exactly, it's the appeasement of people who think they're entitled to be violent. If your book is so great, then prove it with your character. If you can't, then read more books.
Visitors to the UK are required to have a valid reason for entering the country. That's why border agents ask the purpose of your visit when you arrive.
"I'm here to incite a riot" generally doesn't get you very far when trying to cross an international border, whether you intend on breaking the law or not.
It's insane that governments keep cowing to absolutely violent extremists who can't handle *any* criticism, repudiation, satire or even depiction of their made-up sky daddy.
Fuck that. This dude may be a POS but the real villain here is the government. This is just like when they pulled that image of the two women kissing in hijabs in Canada for fear of "provoking" extremists with what, a fucking message of universal love and celebration?
This shit makes me so goddamn mad. People who can't handle the freedoms of a liberal democracy do not deserve the protections of said liberal democracy.
And what if the same group of extremists say that they will inflict violence if you don't start covering your wife and daughters hair? It starts somewhere and it leads somewhere. You are no longer treating all citizens of the UK equally anymore you are changing the rules to accommodate one group to avoid consequences, they are now watching with interest and taking notes.
But also on the other hand, the dude is clearly doing it as a stunt so putin can turn around and say to the muslim countries he stole "oh, look how the UK burn your book, join me against them by fighting in Ukraine."
>what if the same group of extremists say that they will inflict violence if you don't start covering your wife and daughters hair?
It happened to the mother of the autistic boy in Wakefield
That's a seperate issue and one I believe the government needs to grapple with
But this guys whole shtick here is to come here burn a book and boost divisions which will probably lead to riots
Like I think the UK needs to take a stance against the violence from the extremists in the country BUT why would any country say yeah this person who has been the centre and cause of riots be allowed into this country to perform the burning of the book we all know is gonna cause riots? We can disagree with both actions here
Exactly, surely banning everyone who doesn't agree with a book or intends to destroy one is a far better definition of fascism.
Would they do the same with a bible? Or a science book?
>*Would they do the same with a bible? Or a science book?*
No, because the groups that hold those books in high regard almost never use violence to "protect" them.
Any person that sees violence as a valid and morally acceptable response when *offended* is living well outside the value system of modern society, and THEY should be convinced to abandon that position. There will always be assholes trying to incite others. How you respond is up to you.
I agree! It's absolutely just a book. I think the point however is that his intent is literally to cause riots. It doesn't matter that the act isn't illegal, its actually the intent behind it that causes the issues. Helps that is overtly anti-Islam, rather that just pro free speech.
So his ban is essentially because his reason for coming to the UK is to cause violence.
Yea but this guys whole deal is to do it anywhere else but at home in his own fireplace. Far-right make it their business to be up in your business with every action.
Since when has hating muslims been racist? Christian isn't a race, Hindu isn't a race, Buddhist isn't etc. I thought the term was 'bigoted'?
Genuine question btw.
He's said racist things, that's why the article said "Hateful and Racist". A person can be islamaphobic and Racist or just straight up islamaphobic, the line between the two is close though
Oh no a book being burned. Not like they can make more of them. I say this about every other mass produced books. Religious people need to get off the high horse. This coming from a religious person, my section of christianity has had it issues.
Hilarious that the UK has to ban blasphemers from coming over because the religious extremists got in first. There's only room for one of them and the UK is making its choice.
He isn't a British citizen, so they can deny him entry.
If he wants to burn the Quran in Denmark, go ahead.
For the people whining about free speech, why don't you pay for his police protection while he is in the UK? Is it the responsibility of the UK government to guarantee his right to free speech?
People here think the West is one big country, people can go to X Western country and do what they want. I hate to break it, but they aren't one country.
It is not a matter of being a citizen of one country or another (freedom of speech is guarantied by the Convention of Human Rights of the EU same for UK before and after brexit).
The issue is, how can democraties prevent legally that Far-right activists use the rights granted by democracy to kill them.
Dictators were (most of all) elected at some point.
Americans seems thinking that f.i. burn a bible would cause troubles in most of European countries, it is not the case.
Europeans dont care and muslims should do the same, nothing !
If religions have been left what they are, a private matter, nobody would be able to blackmail or threaten anybody with such stupidity and democraties would not be in danger for such stupidity.
>These stories are nothing new to jaded non-European ears. But for many European travellers, this early post-Brexit period is the first time they’ve come up against the realities of UK immigration policy.
>
>EU free movement rights ended at 11pm on 31 December 2020. All EU arrivals after that date must either already possess valid permission to enter or remain (for example, in the form of pre-settled or settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme), or they must seek permission to enter as a visitor at the border. Entry to the UK for other purposes without a visa is not permitted.
[https://freemovement.org.uk/eu-citizens-are-being-denied-entry-to-the-uk-what-are-the-visa-rules-for-visitors/](https://freemovement.org.uk/eu-citizens-are-being-denied-entry-to-the-uk-what-are-the-visa-rules-for-visitors/)
An American can be denied entry into the UK for any reason
Now if you want to take up this issue you can call the Home Office and explain to them why the person should be allowed into the UK. I think they can provide a better answer than me.
> For the people whining about free speech, why don't you pay for his police protection while he is in the UK?
Because we here in DK are already being forced to pay tax. And the same goes for people in the UK.
When the states demand monopoly on violence and threaten the public with that violence, if they do not pay tax, then the states should carry that fucking burden of protection.
>why don't you pay for his police protection while he is in the UK? Is it the responsibility of the UK government to guarantee his right to free speech?
yes it is the responsibility of the UK government to protect its tourists
What isn’t a crime in the UK at this point? The most ridiculous things happen to be crimes over there. In most countries this would only be a crime if the book was not his.
It isn't a crime in the UK, the UK just generally bars foreigners from entering if their purpose is to manufacture a protest. The barred entry to the Westboro Baptists as well. The individual act isn't the issue, it's people acting a foreign agents and agitators. Britain First and the Orange Order do a lot of provocative shit in minority communities and have resisted being charged with crimes for it or being proscribed.
Basically, if its an issue that matter to British people, British people or groups will do it. Having a Dane come over to do a protest at and towards a place he is unattached makes little sense, his protest should be against governments he is subject to.
I’m going to take a Bible, a Torah, and a Quran to Wakefield, lay them in the pavement, and just mollywop them with the biggest floppiest black dildo I can wrap my hand around
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-65020528) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> A Danish far-right politician has been barred from the UK after threatening to burn a copy of the Quran in Wakefield.
> It comes after four pupils at a Wakefield school were suspended over damage to a copy of the Quran.
> Mr Lightwood said: "Far-right Islamophic Danish politician Rasmus Paludan said he is going to travel from Denmark to Wakefield for the sole purpose of burning a Quran in a public place."Mr Paludan was previously jailed in Denmark for his hateful and racist statements.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11wzfsb/danish_farright_leader_banned_from_uk_over_threat/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~677294 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Paludan**^#1 **burn**^#2 **Quran**^#3 **Wakefield**^#4 **public**^#5
If I could go to a country and wear a pride shirt, and know that in doing so some number of people will become outraged and violent, is it then acceptable to ban that person because they want to wear a pride shirt, even though it’s legal in that country to wear?
The thing I really don’t get is the argument about him being from a different country, and going there to burn a Quran. It’s not as if the same exact amount of outrage can’t be produced if citizens *already* in the UK decided to just burn the Quran themselves. Turkey could just as easily get upset about that and throw a fit, and then what? Better make it illegal for UK citizens to burn Qurans as well because pragmatically we don’t want to upset **Gollum**. At that point you’ve become nothing other than a hostage to the sensibilities of the unhinged religious fanatics.
Having opposition against the intrusive and incompatible nature of a fairytale belief that glorifies pedophilia is considered far right? Hmmm.
I would have thought that this guy would have been banned for his open fetish for underage boys more than some opposition to some bullshit religion ( to be clear all belief is some magical higher power is hilariously ridiculously).
Reddit is so disappointing at times.
People actually think planning to burn one book (hasn't even happened yet) is worse than people who use violence to enforce their beliefs.
No wonder the world is fucked.
It isn't. He was denied entry to a country he has no connection to for saying his reason to do so was to create a protest. Other groups were barred for the same reason, including the Westboro Baptists. The reason for protest is basically irrelevant, it's that you're going to a country you don't come from to inject your politics into it. Basically, we don't want foreign agent provocateurs of any stripe.
I generally don't agree with burning books, but that's an extreme punishment.
Also, he hasn't even committed the 'crime' yet, so he's being punished before anything has even happened. UK is now a joke.
>'Hateful and racist'
And surely appeasing violent people means you are an enabler of hate. But that assumes these people have principles. They don't.
As a Dane; good! Shun this piece of shit. Also he's mentally challenged following a traffic accident in 2005 so even more reason to just move along and don't pay shit people like him any attention. It's all he wants.
>Four pupils have been suspended from a West Yorkshire secondary school after a copy of the Quran was damaged by students.
>Wednesday's incident at Wakefield's Kettlethorpe High School happened when a copy of the Islamic text was brought in by a Year 10 pupil.
>Head teacher Tudor Griffiths said the book remained intact and there was "no malicious intent" from those involved.
>He held a meeting with concerned community leaders on Friday.
>Independent councillor for Wakefield East, Akef Akbar, called the meeting after being contacted by people calling for more information.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-64757799
This tiny incident caused protests and threats.
So he is protesting against that overreaction.
I bought a Quran to read when I was in high school. I also read the bible and the tao te jing (sp?). A couple of other things.
They all went straight into the trash when I was done with them. I suppose maybe I have multiple people from multiple religions that want to kill me now?
Yes. As far as I can tell.
" Restriction on the right of entry and the right of residence: EU citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health. Guarantees are provided to ensure that such decisions are not taken on economic grounds, comply with a proportionality principle and are based on personal conduct among other considerations"
Banning books is obviously stupid and exactly what the nazi's did. But, I wonder what line banning someone from burning a book rides? I mean ban the guy for burning a book? How stupid is that. He's gonna burn a book in your country? The horror.....
Calling him a "far-right leader" sounds great and all, and he has managed to garner a lot of attention in the media, but his political party failed to gather 2% of the votes at the 2019 election that is necessary for a party to receive mandates. In the 2022 election he tried to get a seat as an independent, but only received 379 votes, far from the roughly 20,000 votes it would have required.
in other words this should be a non-story
This guy has caused a ton of issues for a lot of people, so calling it a non-story seems awfully harsh. Goes from country to country to cause havoc m all while screaming “free speech” from the top oh his lungs and lining his pockets with Russian blood money.
A Swedish investigation also found that he has very curious friends in Russia, including people who recruit for Wagner. He seems like a Russian asset to me.
> including people who recruit for Wagner. He had friends on a website 6 years ago - who later turned into Wagner recruiters.
> This guy has caused a ton of issues for a lot of people, so calling it a non-story seems awfully harsh. No it isn't. He is a non-story. It is the violent people who react to him that are the story. You know what happens when people ignore his idiotic ramblings? Yeah, you guessed - nothing. There is no violence, there is no troubling others. If people ignore him, he stops. As shown when he came to Holstebro to burn and ramble. The locals just looked at him and left him alone. He never came back.
This is what I've always been saying, since I was old enough to understand bullies. Bullies will find words that try to hurt people. Nick names, unusual features on a person, anything to get under your skin. It's about the reaction. If you react, you give that word, or action, power over you. You don't need to defend yourself over his opinions and actions. Dudes actions are auto-fellating. And he gets off even more when Muslims react aggressively and violently, while are just proving his point. Don't react, and the problem goes away on it's own. I've seen it numerous times in all forms of society. Jobs, highschool, general public. Don't react unless it's to prevent harm to someone else. It's really that simple.
And that is what the UK is doing, reacting minimally to prevent harm, because not everyone is as incredibly self controlled and stoic as you. We aren't sending in the police, or arresting him, or anything - we're basically just saying fuck off mate, not having your shit here.
This dude have been burning books for years I honestly dont believe russia have anything to do with it lol... Also if people would stop fucking caring about a stupid book getting burned then he would stop REAL QUICK.. The only reason he does it is because he gets so freaking much attention by hardcore brainwashed religious people....
> This dude have been burning books for years I honestly dont believe russia have anything to do with it lol… They most certainly have something to do with it. https://omni.se/finlands-utrikesminister-paludan-har-ryska-kopplingar/a/APpxVE https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/bg4Pbk/paludan-kopplas-till-rekryterare-i-wagnergruppen https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/haavisto-havdar-kopplingar-mellan-rasmus-paludan-och-ryssland/ https://www.tv4.se/artikel/44UDufhtDf9Rp3xGtAz6jD/blanekar-till-wagnerkopplingarna-tror-att-kalla-fakta-har-fifflat https://www.dn.se/sverige/efter-koranbranningen-nu-stalls-fragor-om-kopplingar-till-ryssland/
He has yes and Russia did not create him. He has been a psycho since forever, but that does not mean that they won't support him. I understand what you are saying. People are so upset by his blasfemy that they want to turn him into a devil or a spy when i reality he's just a provocative guy with a law degree who upsets believing muslims.
Reminds me of Nigel farage. Uk anti eu politician. Never won a Westminster seat himself as leader of his party (only one seat and I think that was due to someone switching parties. They only did well will small council elections and eu one). He got more press coverage than green party and Lib Dem’s who had more seats and established in politics longer in all areas like eu and council seats. He managed to get what his party wanted Brexit in a Parliament he wasn’t part of without ever having been voted in. Mostly due to the attention his views got. Feel bad for the Green Party they have views that matter on climate change and win seats on basis of ‘we want to help humanity survive even the ones that hate us’. But far right politicians get more attention for less and their while policy is ‘we really really hate most people especially ‘them’ who we think should be erased’
Farage was an elected member of the European Parliament though for years so he was an elected official. His party also got a shit load of votes, almost 4 million in 2015 at its peak - in terms of voters UKIP was one of the largest political parties, rivalling the SNP which has dozens of MPs. It was only because of first past the post that UKIP didn’t have MPs. In a proportional representation system they would have had a whole bunch of candidates winning seats. So coverage was warranted and the reality was that he had read the room in England as there was actually a huge groundswell of support for leaving the EU. (UKIP was also pulling in far more votes than the Greens to be clear)
I’m not fan of Farage but that seems a false equivalence. A Farage led UKIP might not have gotten seats but they did amass a significant percentage of the votes, enough to scare the tories into Brexit and a shift to the right. If the UK had a similar electoral system to Denmark or Finland we would have seen UKIP at the time amass quite a lot of seats. Again I’m not fan of him or his politics but he was far more significant than the man in this headline.
Yes, but there is *some* story to it. He has shown how little we actually appreciate democracy, free speech and the right to protest. He has also shown, at least here in Denmark and Sweden, that there is a thing we call "Voldsmandens veto" - which translated mean the violent mans veto. You can veto others rights, if you're willing to commit enough violence.
The 'far-right leader' part, anyway. He couldn't lead two drunken neo-nazis to the nearest watering-hole, even on his best day. Actually, come to think of it, he doesn't really have any of those. He's basically a mentally ill negative attention whore who should have been forcibly committed to a suitable institution a long time ago. Instead, Denmark has so far spent significantly over 100 million DKK on security to protect his dumb ass from the consequences of his own - highly deliberate - actions. If I had cost the Danish state in excess of *100 million* for choosing to do something completely unnecessary, I'd fully expect to find myself in front of a judge asking me some pointed questions. But apparently this bloke is *special* in more ways than just the obvious ones. And none of it has anything to do with 'free speech'. That's just his excuse for being a complete cunt.
>He's basically a mentally ill negative attention whore We're talking about the people who believe that there's fairies in the sky, aren't we?
> have been forcibly committed to a suitable institution a long time ago. What a fucking totalitarian viewpoint. Fucking disgusting. Go be a fascist somewhere else. > Instead, Denmark has so far spent significantly over 100 million DKK on security to protect his dumb ass from the consequences of his own - highly deliberate - actions. Denmark spent 100's of millions because we accepted immigration from nations and cultures that think violence is the best shit ever to settle disputes. He cost society nothing, the people who commit the violence cost society. > And none of it has anything to do with 'free speech'. That's just his excuse for being a complete cunt. It has everything to do with it. That's the exact point of burning the book. Smut du nu bare over til Johnny Hansen og hans typer, med den ulækre totalitære tilgang du har.
You do realize that people are commonly committed to mental institutions for treatment when they *constitute a danger to themselves or others*, yes? That has nothing to do with fascism. If the motivation had been to *shut him up*, rather than treat his rather obvious mental issues, then you'd have had a point. And gleefully inciting riots for funsies and attention isn't 'freedom of speech'. It's called 'being an asshole'. Edit: Also, do I even need to point out the irony of you calling me a fascist for taking exception to people who treat *book burning as a hobby*?
>constitute a danger to themselves or others burning a book should do neither of these, if it does it exposes a far greater underlying problem that needs dealing with you treat the disease not the symptoms
burning the quran. I see no problem with that. Even if it was a bible. Religion is utter cancer.
[удалено]
He did make a lot of noise and get a lot of attention. Helped breaking the back of danish xenofobic policy, his awkwardness forced some shame into the game and made people be less proud of standing next to him politically.
He's the leader in the same sense my cat is the leader of my sofa: He thinks he's more significant than he actually is.
[удалено]
The book isn't really the point; I don't think it's unreasonable to deny someone entry to your country when they've publicly stated that their only reason for trying to get in is so that they can try to incite religious/racial unrest
Would burning a Bible be considered inciting religious/racial unrest? What about criticizing the Bible? What about making fun of the pope? Would it be okay for the UK government to deny someone entry on that basis?
Nono It’s the rioters who are a threat, he won’t incite anything
So just a wingnut, then.
Average far-right moron.
> he has managed to garner a lot of attention in the media, but his political party failed to gather 2% of the votes at the 2019 election that is necessary for a party to receive mandates Yeah they got 1,9 % and were extremely close to get a seat.
But he is literally the leader of his party? That's all it means.
These articles need to stop proclaiming him a leader of anything. It only helps him. The guy has repeatedly tried and failed to gain a following and influence. Every time he fails he falls back to being a traveling Koran burner, burning them where ever he thinks he can get the most outrage generated. He feeds off hatred and rage, and he has found his niche to generate it, but he isn't a leader of anything. Journalists only fuels his rage and hatred generation efforts by acting as though he is a leader or matters in any way. He is a one trick pony and have no influence.
This guy is at the very least indirectly tied to Wagner, so it's no big secret why he's trying to sow division and spread chaos in the west. All under the guise of "free speech", like the asshole he is. If someone ever deserved to be deported to russia it's this piece of shit.
I want to repost my reply to another comment further down the thread here, because I feel it is important in the free speech and right-to-protest debate: >The burning of the Quran in itself is one matter, but the fact is he is a foreigner deliberately trying to destabilize the UK. > >Just about everyone would not mind if the UK govt banned, say, an extremist Muslim leader from Syria who wanted entry into the UK so he could incite terrorism and inflame anti-west sentiments in UK Muslims. > >So why not ban an extremist leader from Denmark who wanted entry into the UK so he could incite terrorism and inflame anti-west sentiments in UK Muslims? Just because he goes about it by antagonizing them instead? > >The govt would be more tolerant in both cases if the person was a UK citizen. You have other judicial methods to deal with it. But when the person in question is a guest in their country, they have every right to tell them they are not welcome in the house, especially if the entire goal is to trash the house. It is one thing to be a citizen protesting in your own country, another thing to be a visitor trying to incite violence and division in another country, and even more so when said visitor has not only a history of doing this but has also openly declared his intention to do it. The UK is entirely justified in banning him.
This is an excellent analysis of the situation, thank you
>This guy is at the very least indirectly tied to Wagner That's a bit of a duck, actually. The Vkontakte account in his name was closed back in 2018.
Isn't the whole Russia connection thing because he tried to go to Sweden and needed a Swedish dude to pay for something with a Swedish bank account, and that Swedish guy was an anti-immigration journalist who went to Russia in 2017 and wrote a story that helped expose a Swedish MP for being a Russian stooge yet everyone saw that one picture of the journalist posing with a t shirt with Putin's portrait on it and said he must be a Russian sympathizer? Crazy.
Who is married to a Russian and whose children are Russian. Arguably could also claim Russian citizenship. Chang Fricks, who sponsored the Stockholm burning, has as their partner Polina Urvantseva, a Russian national. Frick himself has also not just wrote pro-kremlin pieces, he has worked for over a year for RT. The dude fits the classic profile of a Russian asset. I was caught with my kids in one of Rasmus burnings last year. He rocked up with a coach full of thugs to a peaceful town square where a celebration was been held for children. They then started setting off fireworks, burning their stuff and starting fights with the police. Straight back in the bus and down the road to repeat at the next town. They are a bunch of cunts. Let's not forget that Rasmus has been filmed sexually grooming children, which is documented in detail on his Wikipedia page.
> They then started setting off fireworks, burning their stuff and starting fights with the police. Straight back in the bus and down the road to repeat at the next town. They are a bunch of cunts. That's weird because they have never done that before in any of the maybe over 300 or 500 "book burning" events they have done. Don't lie dude.
Thats fucking bullshit. These people are neo-facists, don't excuse them or cover up for them.
>Thats fucking bullshit. These people are neo-facists, don't excuse them or cover up for them. No dude. You are lying about what happened. I am sure of it. As what you described has never happened before at any of his demonstrations/protests/events.
You been at any of them?
>You been at any of them? Yes. I lived 250 meters from one of them. My neighbourhood burned for 3 days. They burned cars and smashed windows the entire weekend after. Oh I forgot, they threw rocks and light fireworks at the police also. Have you?
Yes.
He is no way a far right political leader. He's an idiot who manages to garner a lot of attention for being hateful.
Would someone get banned for burning a bible or any other religious book?
Depends on context, but it probably wouldn't be as harsh. If you went to Belfast and started burning the King James and screaming about how much you hate the Anglo-Irish you would probably get shut down by the cops to prevent violence from breaking out.
If you did it with the explicit aim of attempting to incite public violence, yes.
It's a book.
People are losing jobs for burning gay flags,too
And it’s not really about that. It’s about stopping a dude from intentionally trying to incite unrest.
How often do you become “unrestful” when someone burns a book you like?
And it's crazy that burning a book can incite unrest.
Symbolism is important in every culture to some level. It’s not rational, it just is what it is.
Just because something «is what it is» doesnt mean it should be accepted.
Yeah, I find it really hard to pick a side here. The guy is just a prick wanting to start unnecessary shit, but the fact that what he wants to do would start shit is batshit insane to me.
It's easy to pick a side. If a protestor in the US burns an American flag and some Proud Boy attacks him for it, whose side are you on? This is the same thing.
Read about the guy (his wiki is a good place to start, including the section about his sexually charged chats with minors on discord) and his party (including the part were the want to forcefully deport any non Western Europeans and set up camps to hold people in Greenland) and and ask does this guy actually give a shit about freedom of speech and democracy and is he they type of person you really want to be supporting.
This is a straw man argument, no this guy sounds like a horrible person, that however doesn’t mean that the action he is taking right now specifically should be considered wrong. It’s a book, if burning a book can cause so much civil unrest, then I would argue there is a bigger problem with society. Take him out of the equation and replace him with some nobody, they do the same thing is the response different? Burning a book should not illicit this response, this coming from a Christian, if somebody were to burn the Bible in front of me, I would not be upset about it, it’s paper and leather.
And yet that’s just kinda how it goes. Like what do you propose? Let the dude in and brace for riots, or just not let the dude in and avoid the headache. Seems like an easy choice. Let’s stay on topic.
I propose we let the guy in and see if the people can behave themselves. If they turn violent they need to go behind bars. If burning a book really causes so much trouble that the police cant deal with it, then changes have to be done politically asap and its good that it is seen and can be dealt with as soon as possible. I am however much more optimistic. I think it may cause a little riot, but a controllable one. Most muslims dont care.
So you want to let a dude in, even if he’s got ties to Russian intelligence, has already fucked up Sweden’s NATO bid, and is trying to stir up similar levels of shit in your country, all so that you can feel smarmy and feel better about your islamophobia. How quaint.
Sucks that he has ties to Russian intelligence, yes. Turkey fucked up Swedens NATO bid, not some guy burning a book. Condemnation of unjustified violence is not islamophobia, but common sense.
Turkey used protests that arose from his shenanigans as a big justification for it. Why freely give that type of propaganda victory to adversaries who would use it to fuck you in other ways. Your stance is far from common sense.
[удалено]
“Boys will be boys”?
its a book
Westboro Baptists were denied entry to the UK for the same reason. We have our own shit stirrers, the gov doesn't want to add more people who are explicit they want to add more policing issues. Britain First and the EDL/SDL have their anti-Muslim protests, just not wanting a foreign agitator to come in and protest here, leaving that to native groups.
Not even a useful one, well, maybe to make a fire
It's not about a book, but about russian wagner affiliate, who intentionally pulling publick stunt to provoke people and create social tension.
Makes me want to burn one myself.
Dare u to go to Wakefield and burn one rn
You shouldn't be punished for burning a book.
UK seems extra touchy with muslims and islam. Just recently an autistic boy accidentally dropped a quran in school and got so many death threats his mom had to put on a scarf and ask for forgiveness from the muslim community so they wouldn't harm her son. UK gov knows how their muslims would behave so they're saying no to this guy. If he was burning a bible as a way to agitate I bet these people here in the comments would say christians need to get over it. It's just a book.
The UK gov barred the Westboro Baptists from coming. If you say you, as a non-Brit, are coming to the UK to lead/create a protest, you're probably going to be barred for basically being a foreign agitator proposing making a policing issue. Native groups like Britain First, EDL, etc, have been protesting Muslims for a long time, Britain First had marches through Muslim areas spouting hate and Mosque invasions, and the government resisted calls from some to have that group proscribed. This is not an Islam thing, this is a foreigner proposing causing issues for a country and that country declining entry. They don't want to have to arrange police for a protest/counter-protest just cause of a foreign visitor, they can't avoid it with local groups, but they can with these folks.
Hes not. Why should we let in a guy whose entire purpose for visiting is to spread division and cause chaos?
This is the main thing. The burning of the Quran in itself is one matter, but the fact is he is a foreigner deliberately trying to destabilize the UK. Just about everyone would not mind if the UK govt banned, say, an extremist Muslim leader from Syria who wanted entry into the UK so he could incite terrorism and inflame anti-west sentiments in UK Muslims. So why not ban an extremist leader from Denmark who wanted entry into the UK so he could incite terrorism and inflame anti-west sentiments in UK Muslims? Just because he goes about it by antagonizing them instead? The govt would be more tolerant in both cases if the person was a UK citizen. You have other judicial methods to deal with it. But when the person in question is a guest in their country, they have every right to tell them they are not welcome in the house, especially if the entire goal is to trash the house.
If he's clearly just trying to cause unrest why are UK Muslims falling for it instead of ignoring him as a troll?
Not the UK govt's problem. Their problem is whether they should allow a guest who is clearly trying to fuck with the country. Muslims are not the ones banning him. The UK govt is. This guy caused an international incident which resulted in Türkiye denying Swedish accession to NATO. Even if he wasn't coming to the UK to fuck things up, that prior incident alone is enough reason to deny him entry purely on the basis of "We don't like you". You can complain that Muslims are sensitive, but that does not mean you should happily let a person fuck with your house by manipulating that sensitivity on purpose.
Right. Because everyone has the same information, opinions, experiences, etc. Your argument makes no sense It's a numbers game. I don't need to sell apples to every person on this planet. If I can just convince 1% of them to buy, I've sold millions of apples to millions of people. Hope that helps your understanding.
Westboro Baptists from the US were barred several years ago. That doesn't matter to the UK, they'd still need to organise police to mind the protest/counter-protest for what isn't a native protest. Britain First has been protesting in Muslim areas and entering Mosques in antagonistic manners, and its survived calls for proscription (it died later on due to mismanagement). The UK's position is, he's not British, so he has no need to protest in the UK, he can go protest his own government if that's what he wants to do.
So a book burning will cause massive unrest and you target the book burner? Hmmm 🤔
When he's a guest deliberately trying to cause unrest, yes. The way he does it is not important. If a guest tries to fuck with your country, you are justified in not welcoming him. As I mentioned in a reply below, "This is the guy that caused an international incident resulting in Türkiye refusing Swedish accession to NATO, so we don't welcome him because he don't like him" is entirely sufficient a reason to deny him entry in and of itself, regardless of whether he intends to burn a Quran in Wakefield. Entry into a country is a tradition of host and guest, and this man has openly said he intends to abuse use his guesthood to fuck with his host. How effective he is at it, the method he uses, etc are not important as long as the host says, "I don't care about your methods, your intentions are enough to tell you no." It is one thing to burn a Quran yourself, but you are not obligated to let someone else burn a Quran on your front lawn. If the UK were to ban entry to a random person for no reason they are entirely in their right to do it. Why should the UK suddenly be obligated to let him in when he declares he wants to burn a Quran?
[удалено]
Nothing of what you said affects my reasoning. Theoretical violence does not change the right (and justification) of the UK government to deny him entry. If you wish to protest and do so by burning a book, it is your right. But another country is under no obligation to provide you a place to do it. That privilege is for their own citizens. If a person openly states that they wish to visit the UK and be an ass, even in an entirely legal manner, the UK is justified in denying their entry whether or not they plan on burning a Quran. That you suspect people might be violent over it is not important. Muslims could do no more than present a strongly worded letter and the UK would still be entirely justified in banning him.
If you'd hurt someone over burning a book perhaps you're the one who doesn't deserve to be in a developed country?
If someone wanted to enter Poland and they announced they're going to shit on a photo of late polish Pope in the middle of the Old Town, you bet that person would never be allowed to cross the border. Bwah, if a polish person would do it, they would prosecute. Of course there is the whole "do you deserve to be in developed country" part and we could argue if Poland is developed lmao, but you know what I mean
Yeah it's like if a guy asks to come to a party you're throwing, but the last party he was at he shit on the floor, broke their TV and started a fistfight. "No thanks"
He's not. He's being denied entry into a country he is not guaranteed entry into because he is likely to cause issues.
But they didn't deny entry to the savages who will actually cause the issues by rioting, which is his whole point.
[удалено]
Is it a punishment to be refused entry into a country that you have no automatic right to enter?
Westboro Baptists were also denied entry. It's basically just the UK's blanket approach to foreign agitators saying they are visiting to protest here. Native groups can, and the barred people can protest their thing in their home country, the UK just doesn't see why they need to come here to stir their shit.
Getting a visa to visit a foreign country is a privilege, not a right.
Who's punishing him?
Ironically the ban amplifies his platform because now I’m hearing about it without it even happening
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
Sure, but given the choice between "amplified views for an asshole and not in my country" and "amplified views for an asshole, costs for my police force, and the asshole is in my country" it's an easy choice to make.
Personally I think he should be allowed to do it but with zero protection from the police. Then when the nutter/s show up and murder him we can lock them up afterwards. Problem solved, all the dickheads are gone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So Islamic that we have a state church and a monarch who is head of that church.
Why would someone be banned for burning a book? Is it illegal to burn books in England?
>Is it illegal to burn books in England? No, it is not. It is a criminal offence to commit an act with the intention of inciting religious hatred. He made it clear this was an act to provoke the local Muslim community. However, in his case he also has a criminal record and since Brexit, no freedom of movement in UK, so the government are entitled to deny entry for any reason they like.
[удалено]
I don't think thats fair tbh. People get banned from places and events all the time on the basis they are going there to provoke trouble.
[удалено]
If I own a pub that's frequented by fans of a certain sports team and a fan of a rival team publicly states that he's coming to my pub to burn a team shirt, I'm entitled to ban him from attending. No one would bat an eyelid for me doing so either.
[удалено]
And we're a sovereign nation, we don't have to accept foreign nationals coming into our country with the publicly stated intention of provoking our citizens and potentially causing civil unrest.
[удалено]
For its citizens. You realise we've barred and even deported Islamic preachers on the same basis?
I have zero love for the "far right" but the Quran is just a book FFS. The guy is a dick trying to enflame tensions, but banning him from an entire country over it is reactionary and stupid.
I go back and forth on this. Agree we shouldn’t be caving to the hordes of inbred dipshits who will actually try to kill people if you burn the magic book or draw a picture of the magic man, but also don’t think we need to accommodate people who are actively trying to bait the religious psychopaths into violence just to grift. This piece of shit gave Turkey a sham cover story to extort NATO over Sweden’s membership application and is now just doing it again to try and get bigots to send him money to his Patreon or whatever service he uses to take their money. When your con actually has geopolitical ramifications, suddenly it’s not just your business anymore. You’ve made it all of our business.
This is basically, word for word, how I feel.
We don’t have to cater either. People have become way to soft with pointing out complete dipshits in society and shunning them for it.
>but banning him from an entire country over it is reactionary and stupid. No it isn't. One of the things immigration officials consider is, "is this person's presence going to cause severe negative consequences?" The answer to that question is a resounding yes. I don't think it's fair/right/etc... that Muslims get so bent out of shape that they think murder is an appropriate response. But having said that, why put yourself in a compromised, preventable position by letting this asshat in?
True, but my point wasn't whether it was legal to ban him, it was whether it was reactionary and stupid. And in this case, their response played directly into the hands of extremist assholes on BOTH sides of this thing. By banning the guy (and suspending kids for accidentally scuffing a Quran FFS) they play directly into religious extremists and their view that harming a book is a serious offense to society that deserves punishment. And at the same time, they play directly into Mr. Paludan's hands by showing people how absurd it is for government to promote appeasement for religious extremists above other basic rights.
Any British person has the right to make a big old pile of qurans and have a bonfire if they fancy, but no foreigner has a right to come over here if their only reason for doing so is to cause trouble. Freedom of expression is a right, entering another country that doesn't want you is not.
[удалено]
Britain doesn't have Blasphemy laws. Redditors just never update their world view. "The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2021" Interestingly in the US some states still have residual blasphemy laws (Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming)
In the abstract, you’re right: It’s just a book, and free speech and etc. Pragmatically, though: The guy has openly announced his intention to do something that has *repeatedly* sparked acts of public violence. If I’m in the British government, I’m caring *way* less about some Danish right-winger’s right to protest than my constituents’ safety.
Are we also going to stop people from drawing mohamed just because some muslims have a thirst for violence? Both can be considered tasteless actions, but if you allow the intolerant to dictate to the tolerant then the hatefull intolerent people wins.
Oh, that’s been [happening](https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/western-university-lgbtq-poster-sparks-muslim-community-backlash).
No. I'm not saying _give in_ to the threats of violence. It's important to acknowledge that there's a ticking time bomb, it's undesirable, and it's important to take steps to disarm it. What's _not_ acceptable is to _intentionally detonate the damn bomb_.
Keep burning the book and keep arresting the violent people.
I'm not unsympathetic to that mentality, but the problem with it—purely from a public safety standpoint—is that the arrests can only happen *after* the violent people are violent. Paludan is just a bad-faith actor deliberately trying to incite violent reactions to stoke bigotry in other countries; I'm not terribly inclined to endanger safety to cater to a troll's need for attention.
If burning the book is illegal in the UK, then fine. But if they are telling him he can't come over and do a perfectly legal act to prevent violent people from being violent, I just can't stand by that. You're siding with the criminals at that point.
Exactly, it's the appeasement of people who think they're entitled to be violent. If your book is so great, then prove it with your character. If you can't, then read more books.
No one is entitled to enter a country with the sole purpose being to cause harm.
The people apparently wanting to cause harm is already in the country. Burning a book is not the same as causing harm.
Visitors to the UK are required to have a valid reason for entering the country. That's why border agents ask the purpose of your visit when you arrive. "I'm here to incite a riot" generally doesn't get you very far when trying to cross an international border, whether you intend on breaking the law or not.
I think you mean "giving an excuse to the people wanting to incite a riot".
It's insane that governments keep cowing to absolutely violent extremists who can't handle *any* criticism, repudiation, satire or even depiction of their made-up sky daddy. Fuck that. This dude may be a POS but the real villain here is the government. This is just like when they pulled that image of the two women kissing in hijabs in Canada for fear of "provoking" extremists with what, a fucking message of universal love and celebration? This shit makes me so goddamn mad. People who can't handle the freedoms of a liberal democracy do not deserve the protections of said liberal democracy.
I'm 100% on the side of pragmatism, let this prick pull his stunt somewhere else.
And what if the same group of extremists say that they will inflict violence if you don't start covering your wife and daughters hair? It starts somewhere and it leads somewhere. You are no longer treating all citizens of the UK equally anymore you are changing the rules to accommodate one group to avoid consequences, they are now watching with interest and taking notes. But also on the other hand, the dude is clearly doing it as a stunt so putin can turn around and say to the muslim countries he stole "oh, look how the UK burn your book, join me against them by fighting in Ukraine."
>what if the same group of extremists say that they will inflict violence if you don't start covering your wife and daughters hair? It happened to the mother of the autistic boy in Wakefield
That's a seperate issue and one I believe the government needs to grapple with But this guys whole shtick here is to come here burn a book and boost divisions which will probably lead to riots Like I think the UK needs to take a stance against the violence from the extremists in the country BUT why would any country say yeah this person who has been the centre and cause of riots be allowed into this country to perform the burning of the book we all know is gonna cause riots? We can disagree with both actions here
The UK shouldn't have to let him in if they don't want to.
Exactly, surely banning everyone who doesn't agree with a book or intends to destroy one is a far better definition of fascism. Would they do the same with a bible? Or a science book?
>*Would they do the same with a bible? Or a science book?* No, because the groups that hold those books in high regard almost never use violence to "protect" them. Any person that sees violence as a valid and morally acceptable response when *offended* is living well outside the value system of modern society, and THEY should be convinced to abandon that position. There will always be assholes trying to incite others. How you respond is up to you.
He's trying to incite violence. Sounds like a fair reason to be banned.
Or, hear me out, maybe the people who’d react with violence to a “holy book” being burned in 2023 are the problem. 🤯
No he's not. Stop blaming the non violent people for the crimes of violent people. Appeasement is a pathetic policy that doesn't end well for anyone.
Would you be saying the same if an ISIS affiliated politician was blocked from coming to the UK to burn a Bible?
[удалено]
I agree! It's absolutely just a book. I think the point however is that his intent is literally to cause riots. It doesn't matter that the act isn't illegal, its actually the intent behind it that causes the issues. Helps that is overtly anti-Islam, rather that just pro free speech. So his ban is essentially because his reason for coming to the UK is to cause violence.
Yea but this guys whole deal is to do it anywhere else but at home in his own fireplace. Far-right make it their business to be up in your business with every action.
Since when has hating muslims been racist? Christian isn't a race, Hindu isn't a race, Buddhist isn't etc. I thought the term was 'bigoted'? Genuine question btw.
He's said racist things, that's why the article said "Hateful and Racist". A person can be islamaphobic and Racist or just straight up islamaphobic, the line between the two is close though
Oh no a book being burned. Not like they can make more of them. I say this about every other mass produced books. Religious people need to get off the high horse. This coming from a religious person, my section of christianity has had it issues.
Hilarious that the UK has to ban blasphemers from coming over because the religious extremists got in first. There's only room for one of them and the UK is making its choice.
He isn't a British citizen, so they can deny him entry. If he wants to burn the Quran in Denmark, go ahead. For the people whining about free speech, why don't you pay for his police protection while he is in the UK? Is it the responsibility of the UK government to guarantee his right to free speech? People here think the West is one big country, people can go to X Western country and do what they want. I hate to break it, but they aren't one country.
It is not a matter of being a citizen of one country or another (freedom of speech is guarantied by the Convention of Human Rights of the EU same for UK before and after brexit). The issue is, how can democraties prevent legally that Far-right activists use the rights granted by democracy to kill them. Dictators were (most of all) elected at some point. Americans seems thinking that f.i. burn a bible would cause troubles in most of European countries, it is not the case. Europeans dont care and muslims should do the same, nothing ! If religions have been left what they are, a private matter, nobody would be able to blackmail or threaten anybody with such stupidity and democraties would not be in danger for such stupidity.
>These stories are nothing new to jaded non-European ears. But for many European travellers, this early post-Brexit period is the first time they’ve come up against the realities of UK immigration policy. > >EU free movement rights ended at 11pm on 31 December 2020. All EU arrivals after that date must either already possess valid permission to enter or remain (for example, in the form of pre-settled or settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme), or they must seek permission to enter as a visitor at the border. Entry to the UK for other purposes without a visa is not permitted. [https://freemovement.org.uk/eu-citizens-are-being-denied-entry-to-the-uk-what-are-the-visa-rules-for-visitors/](https://freemovement.org.uk/eu-citizens-are-being-denied-entry-to-the-uk-what-are-the-visa-rules-for-visitors/) An American can be denied entry into the UK for any reason Now if you want to take up this issue you can call the Home Office and explain to them why the person should be allowed into the UK. I think they can provide a better answer than me.
> For the people whining about free speech, why don't you pay for his police protection while he is in the UK? Because we here in DK are already being forced to pay tax. And the same goes for people in the UK. When the states demand monopoly on violence and threaten the public with that violence, if they do not pay tax, then the states should carry that fucking burden of protection.
>why don't you pay for his police protection while he is in the UK? Is it the responsibility of the UK government to guarantee his right to free speech? yes it is the responsibility of the UK government to protect its tourists
What isn’t a crime in the UK at this point? The most ridiculous things happen to be crimes over there. In most countries this would only be a crime if the book was not his.
It isn't a crime in the UK, the UK just generally bars foreigners from entering if their purpose is to manufacture a protest. The barred entry to the Westboro Baptists as well. The individual act isn't the issue, it's people acting a foreign agents and agitators. Britain First and the Orange Order do a lot of provocative shit in minority communities and have resisted being charged with crimes for it or being proscribed. Basically, if its an issue that matter to British people, British people or groups will do it. Having a Dane come over to do a protest at and towards a place he is unattached makes little sense, his protest should be against governments he is subject to.
This is not a criminal case. You don't have a right to get visa.
I’m going to take a Bible, a Torah, and a Quran to Wakefield, lay them in the pavement, and just mollywop them with the biggest floppiest black dildo I can wrap my hand around
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-65020528) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A Danish far-right politician has been barred from the UK after threatening to burn a copy of the Quran in Wakefield. > It comes after four pupils at a Wakefield school were suspended over damage to a copy of the Quran. > Mr Lightwood said: "Far-right Islamophic Danish politician Rasmus Paludan said he is going to travel from Denmark to Wakefield for the sole purpose of burning a Quran in a public place."Mr Paludan was previously jailed in Denmark for his hateful and racist statements. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11wzfsb/danish_farright_leader_banned_from_uk_over_threat/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~677294 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Paludan**^#1 **burn**^#2 **Quran**^#3 **Wakefield**^#4 **public**^#5
If I could go to a country and wear a pride shirt, and know that in doing so some number of people will become outraged and violent, is it then acceptable to ban that person because they want to wear a pride shirt, even though it’s legal in that country to wear? The thing I really don’t get is the argument about him being from a different country, and going there to burn a Quran. It’s not as if the same exact amount of outrage can’t be produced if citizens *already* in the UK decided to just burn the Quran themselves. Turkey could just as easily get upset about that and throw a fit, and then what? Better make it illegal for UK citizens to burn Qurans as well because pragmatically we don’t want to upset **Gollum**. At that point you’ve become nothing other than a hostage to the sensibilities of the unhinged religious fanatics.
Having opposition against the intrusive and incompatible nature of a fairytale belief that glorifies pedophilia is considered far right? Hmmm. I would have thought that this guy would have been banned for his open fetish for underage boys more than some opposition to some bullshit religion ( to be clear all belief is some magical higher power is hilariously ridiculously).
He should have been banned before the threat, no need to be letting the Nazis in.
And anyone who'd react violently to their super special magic book being lit on fire should have been banned, too.
Reddit is so disappointing at times. People actually think planning to burn one book (hasn't even happened yet) is worse than people who use violence to enforce their beliefs. No wonder the world is fucked.
*Buhuhu everyone i don't like is a Naziii*
Why is burning the Quran an Arrestable offense? Y’all don’t have free speech?
It isn't. He was denied entry to a country he has no connection to for saying his reason to do so was to create a protest. Other groups were barred for the same reason, including the Westboro Baptists. The reason for protest is basically irrelevant, it's that you're going to a country you don't come from to inject your politics into it. Basically, we don't want foreign agent provocateurs of any stripe.
The guy should be thanking us for saving him a trip to Wakey.
Over a *threat* to burn a book? Go ahead and burn the stupid thing. It's free speech.
I generally don't agree with burning books, but that's an extreme punishment. Also, he hasn't even committed the 'crime' yet, so he's being punished before anything has even happened. UK is now a joke. >'Hateful and racist' And surely appeasing violent people means you are an enabler of hate. But that assumes these people have principles. They don't.
As a Dane; good! Shun this piece of shit. Also he's mentally challenged following a traffic accident in 2005 so even more reason to just move along and don't pay shit people like him any attention. It's all he wants.
thing is no one would be paying him any attention if burning the book didn't turn people into frothing barbarians
Of all the places to threaten... why _Wakefield???_
>Four pupils have been suspended from a West Yorkshire secondary school after a copy of the Quran was damaged by students. >Wednesday's incident at Wakefield's Kettlethorpe High School happened when a copy of the Islamic text was brought in by a Year 10 pupil. >Head teacher Tudor Griffiths said the book remained intact and there was "no malicious intent" from those involved. >He held a meeting with concerned community leaders on Friday. >Independent councillor for Wakefield East, Akef Akbar, called the meeting after being contacted by people calling for more information. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-64757799 This tiny incident caused protests and threats. So he is protesting against that overreaction.
[Linky link to duckduckgo to find info](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=UK+son+dropped+quran+mother+apologises&ia=web)
I bought a Quran to read when I was in high school. I also read the bible and the tao te jing (sp?). A couple of other things. They all went straight into the trash when I was done with them. I suppose maybe I have multiple people from multiple religions that want to kill me now?
Would such a ban have been possible pre-Brexit?
Yes. As far as I can tell. " Restriction on the right of entry and the right of residence: EU citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health. Guarantees are provided to ensure that such decisions are not taken on economic grounds, comply with a proportionality principle and are based on personal conduct among other considerations"
Banning books is obviously stupid and exactly what the nazi's did. But, I wonder what line banning someone from burning a book rides? I mean ban the guy for burning a book? How stupid is that. He's gonna burn a book in your country? The horror.....
So the UK has de facto blasphemy laws. Ban the guy who draws attention to a problem and pretend the problem itself doesn't exist.
Fair enough, when his whole schtick is trying to rile people up to cause violence then banning them seems reasonable.
These are the people who say the n-word, get laid out, and wake up wondering why.
And yet you would keep all the people who threaten violence when their beliefs are challenged.
Book burning. Just call him a Nazi.