Jew-hater logic: Support children's rights? Burn a Torah!

Sweden's SVT Nyheter reports:

Police have granted a public gathering outside the Israeli embassy in Stockholm on Friday. The woman behind the application states that she plans to "light the Torah with a lighter".

The demonstration is scheduled for 12 noon on Friday.

"We are conducting a dialogue with the organizer and other parties who may be affected, for example the Israeli embassy,"​​says Mats Eriksson, press spokesperson at the police.

The application is submitted by a woman in her 50s who states that it is a "manifestation for children's rights in Sweden which are systematically violated". She writes that the plan is to "light the Torah with a lighter".

 What, exactly, does burning a Torah (more likely a printed Chumash) have to do with children's rights? 

There are only two answers - both of which are profoundly antisemitic.

One is that they have nothing to do with each other, but the woman wants publicity, and she knows that attacking Jewish holy objects will get her the publicity she wants. Which means that every crank in Sweden will now seek to burn sacred Jewish objects to get their cause in the newspapers, and antisemitism has become a gimmick. 

The other is that somehow she is associating Judaism with violating children's rights. Which is not so far fetched - "progressives" in Europe and the US always associate Israel with every social justice crime they can think of.

And as this incident shows, the modern antisemites don't distinguish between Judaism and Israel, as much as they claim to. Otherwise, why is she intending to do her stunt outside the Israeli embassy?

Either way, antisemitism is becoming cheapened and commoditized, which means that people are becoming less and less outraged at attacks on Jews and Judaism as more of these stunts get approved. 

I support freedom of speech. Technically, what she wants to do is legal. Nazis in 1933 could also justify their book burnings as freedom of their own expression - yet everyone knows what it really meant.

History shows that book burners are the people who care the least about freedom of expression. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

The UN just said that burning the Quran is against international law

In 2019, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 73/328, "Promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech." It included this paragraph:

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centres or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines that are in violation of international law, 

A resolution voted on yesterday thas an identical title. But it has a paragraph that says this:

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their religious symbols, holy books, homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centres or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines in violation of international law,

It adds "religious symbols" and "holy books" to what cannot be attacked, and it changes "that are in violation of international law" to "in violation of international law." 

In other words, Pakistan just managed to pass a UNGA resolution that states that burning Qurans is against international law.

There was, by all accounts, a major debate. Spain tried to take out the words "in violation of international law" from the text, but its attempt was voted down, 62-44 with 24 abstentions.

And then the entire resolution was adopted by consensus.

While burning the Quran is something to be condemned, it is not against international law, and this is on the slippery slope of adopting Islamic concepts of blasphemy as something the entire world must adopt. 

The text is in the preamble, and UNGA resolution itself, has no legal effect, but this is still significant - people use the text of UN resolutions as evidence of what international law is.

Two weeks ago, the UN Human Rights Council passed its own resolution that "Calls upon States to adopt national laws, policies and law enforcement frameworks that address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or  violence, and to take immediate steps to ensure accountability." 

As one critic notes, "One only has to look at some of the 28 states that voted in favor of the (HRC) resolution to realize that the real purpose is not to counter hate speech or foster equality and tolerance, but to provide authoritarian governments cover and legitimacy when suppressing dissent."

There is a thin line between hate speech that could lead to violence - which is incitement - and legitimate criticism. Muslim-majority states are trying to blur that line to force the West to adopt their own bans on blasphemy as international law.

As we saw in the UN yesterday, the West caved. But free speech is not something to give up on. 

I don't have the text of the UNGA resolution, but the UNHRC resolution has at least two other problematic elements.

One is that, as we've seen, any statements against antisemitism are always paired with condemnations of Islamophobia. But the UNHRC resolution, supposedly against religious hatred, mentioned Islamophobia - and not a word about antisemitism. Which makes it pretty obvious that people are not serious about combating antisemitism.

The other is that the UNHRC resolution refers to the Quran consistently as "the Holy Qur’an." The word "Holy" should not be there - the Quran is only holy to Muslims. The insistence of that language indicates again that these resolutions are not meant to fight religious hatred as much as they are to elevate Islam as a belief over others. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Man plans to burn Jewish holy books in Sweden outside Israel embassy - proving anti-Zionism is antisemitism

From Times of Israel:

Outrage mounted in Israel on Friday after Swedish police accepted a request to allow the burning of a Bible outside of the Israeli embassy in Stockholm on Saturday, just weeks after Quran burnings took place in the city.

Local police confirmed two weeks ago to Sweden’s national public broadcaster that it had received an application from an individual in his 30s to burn a Jewish and a Christian Bible outside Israel’s Embassy in Stockholm on July 15 as “a symbolic gathering for the sake of freedom of speech.”

It was not immediately clear if the person planned to burn a copy of the Bible or a Torah scroll.

The person planning to do the burning appears to be the same Egyptian who threatened to burn a Torah and a Christian Bible in January. He ended up postponing the action but said he planned to do it in the future. 

The Quran burning earlier this month was done outside a mosque. But this one is being done outside the Israeli embassy.

In January, the man told Swedish media,  "Burning holy books is somewhat disgusting, but I am angry and will do it to have a discussion." He also said that the Islamic Association in Stockholm's mosque urged him not to do it, saying it is against Islam.

Israel has laws that explicitly criminalize burning any holy book, including the Quran, and forbids the insulting of any religion. In its penal code, it says:

170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of to reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then he is liable to three years imprisonment.

173. If a person does any of the following, then he is liable to one year imprisonment: (1) he publishes a publication that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others; (2) he voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.  

So why would someone who ostensibly wants to protest freedom of expression to insult religious groups choose to protest outside the embassy of a country that protects the rights of religious groups from such insults?

Because this has nothing to do with freedom of expression. As I've mentioned before, if he wants to do something symbolic, he could burn a symbolic Torah or Bible. These aren't acts to protect freedom of expression but to express hate. 

In this case, "freedom of expression"  is an excuse to perform an antisemitic act - and to the person who plans to burn the Scriptures, he does not distinguish between hating Jews and hating Israel. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More