What distinguishes the attack on the Quran in Sweden from other hate crimes? How are Swedish authorities responding to the recent attack on the Quran? Why can't words and actions containing hatred or insults directed at sacred values be considered freedom of expression? Is Sweden's stance consistent with international human rights law? What does the 2018 ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) say about attacks on religious values?
1. What distinguishes the attack on the Quran in Sweden from other hate crimes?
First of all, this attack should not be considered an isolated, ordinary hate crime. This is because it was carried out by Rasmus Paludan, the leader of the Danish racist Hard Line Party (in Sweden). Paludan, a Swedish citizen, has had his racism recognized by a court, was sentenced to prison in Denmark in 2020, and was disbarred from his bar association as a lawyer. Paludan's provocations consistently pose a threat to Muslims in both Sweden and Denmark. Despite his history of committing hate crimes against Islam and disrupting public order since 2017, Paludan's actions are being protected by the Swedish police. The fact that the attacks were carried out by a collective/political movement, that they have gained international significance, and that they are protected by government officials only exacerbates the situation.
2. How are Swedish authorities responding to the latest attack on the Quran?
Last year, during Ramadan, despite the protests of both the Muslim minority in the country (which constitutes approximately 8 percent of the population) and Muslim states, the Swedish police and the Minister of Justice permitted Paludan's actions, citing freedom of expression. A similar situation prevailed in the recent incident. Despite Turkey's warning, Paludan carried out his attack on the Quran near the Turkish embassy in Stockholm with police permission. Swedish police's statement on the protest emphasized freedom of expression and demonstration. However, what Sweden and other European officials with similar stances seem to overlook is the fact that condoned racist movements are increasingly taking over mainstream politics on the continent.
3. Why can't words and actions that contain hatred/insult towards sacred values be considered freedom of expression?
Like many rights and freedoms in modern democracies, neither freedom of expression nor the freedom to organize demonstrations are unlimited. These freedoms cannot be exercised in a way that violates the rights of others or public order. Indeed, according to the United Nations (UN) Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1966, freedom of expression may be limited for the purposes of respecting the rights and reputations of others and protecting national security, public order, health, and morals (Article 19). Furthermore, Article 20 of the covenant provides a more mandatory provision, requiring that "any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hatred, or violence" be prohibited by law.
A similar provision exists in the European Convention on Human Rights. This convention states that freedom of expression may be restricted for the purposes of maintaining public safety and order, preventing crime, and protecting the rights of others (Article 10). On the other hand, the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination also prohibits racist propaganda and activities.
The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice) also emphasizes the need to punish acts that incite hate crimes/discrimination. The Commission states that these penalties will send a strong signal to all segments of society that it disapproves of acts that violate fundamental democratic values such as tolerance, respect for human rights, pluralism, and non-discrimination.
Undoubtedly, freedom of expression is an indispensable condition of liberal democracies. However, it is unacceptable for this freedom to threaten pluralism, the fundamental goal of democracy, and coexistence within it. This is precisely why international norms provide grounds for limitation. It is clear that the primary target of insults and attacks targeting Islamic values such as the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are Muslims in Europe, and therefore, a target for a pluralistic society.
4. Is Sweden's stance consistent with international human rights law?
Sweden is a party to the aforementioned UN and Council of Europe conventions. Therefore, Sweden's repeated permitting of Paludan's provocation, a move proven by last year's events that disrupted public order in its country, constitutes an abuse of freedom of expression and violates the rights and freedoms of others, as well as public order. Sweden's conduct violates its commitments under international law. These attacks, which fuel discrimination and target multiculturalism and tolerance, also threaten Swedish democracy.
Indeed, the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, in its recommendations Nos. 5 and 15, based on concerns about racist and hate crime attacks targeting Islam in Europe, recommended that member states, including Sweden, prevent and deter hate speech. It is clear that insults to the Quran both pave the way for racist/discriminatory attacks against Muslims and are intended to provoke them. Consequently, allowing Paludan's actions, despite the grave and imminent threat they pose to public order, violates international human rights law.
5. What does the 2018 decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) say about attacks on religious values?
In its decision in the E.S. v. Austria case, delivered on October 25, 2018, the ECtHR emphasized that words insulting sacred values cannot be considered within the scope of freedom of expression, that they are likely to incite religious intolerance, and that, as in the recent attack in Sweden, states' prohibition of acts of harassment targeting religious values is legitimate and necessary for a democratic social order. The Court accepted the Austrian courts' determination that expressions targeting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) constitute "harassment," and that these words provoked justified anger among Muslims, fueled prejudices, and jeopardized religious peace.
Ultimately, this ECtHR decision demonstrates that Sweden's defense of freedom of expression cannot be considered lawful. Sweden's freedom of expression: It must review its national legislation and practices to prevent its misuse in ways that undermine a culture of tolerance and a pluralistic society and disrupt public order.
Furthermore, it is impossible to reconcile the Swedish government's approach with its own domestic laws. The Swedish Constitution obliges state institutions to combat religious discrimination. The Swedish Penal Code stipulates that a person who insults a segment of society because of their religious beliefs, thereby inciting others against that religious group, can be sentenced to up to four years in prison.
Official data shows that a total of 3,150 hate crimes were committed in Sweden in 2020 alone. The weakness of Swedish public institutions in applying both international law and their own domestic laws in the face of the rise in Islamophobia and hate crimes is alarming.
