Saturday, February 24, 2007

Ban (Parts of) the Koran in Denmark!

I have written previously about the Danish organization SIAD, “Stop the Islamification of Denmark”. SIAD’s latest tactic against the encroachment of Islam in Denmark is is to demand that parts of the Koran be banned, in accordance with Danish law:

It seemed that the mainstream media in Denmark would not release our press release. But one newspaper has just defied the fear(!) and made an article (in Danish) at Politiken.

We have sent it to Al Jazeera, and we will try to get in touch with the foreign media. Maybe they are not so reluctant as the Danish, who definitely are afraid of making another Muhammed crisis.

The GrundlovThe Danish party, SIAD, demands parts of the Koran be forbidden in Denmark in accordance with the Danish Constitution. SIAD hereby draws attention to the fact that the Koran is in violation of the Danish Constitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69. SIAD further claims that mosques should be forbidden in consonance with paragraph 78, clause 2.

SIAD also demands that all Koran verses incompatible with Danish customs and traditional values should be banned in accordance with the Danish Constitution’s paragraphs 67 and 69, which state that “Citizens have the right to form communities with a view to practising religion in accordance with their faith, but on condition that nothing is taught or done that is at odds with morality or public order”.

Paragraph 69 explains this injunction in more detail. “The status of religious communities outside the Danish Folkekirke shall be specified by law”.

We also demand that the Minister of Justice apply paragraph 78, clause 2 of the Danish constitution, which states that “societies using violence or seeking to achieve their ends with violence, fomentation of violence or other unlawful pressure on those of a different opinion, shall by dissolved by law”.

According to paragraph 78 clause 2 this automatically includes every mosque in so far as those parts of the Koran in inciting to violence, murder or threats to people of different opinions are read out there. SIAD has previously demanded a prohibition of the Koran in 2005, but this time we demand it in accordance with the Danish Constitution [The Grundlov], which the minister of justice has sworn to uphold.

It’s an interesting way of tackling the Islamification problem. But what effect is it likely to have?

I asked Kepiblanc, our regular Danish reader and commenter, for his take on SIAD’s initiative. Here’s what he said:
- - - - - - - - - -
The relevant part of the Danish constitution says :

Section 78 [Freedom of Association]

(1) The citizens shall be entitled without previous permission to form associations for any lawful purpose.
(2) Associations employing violence, or aiming at attaining their object by violence, by instigation to violence, or by similar punishable influence on people of other views, shall be dissolved by judgment.

Personally, I thinks it’s quite funny, but a stunt nevertheless. The Constitution is violated on a daily basis and nobody takes it seriously aside from the fact that people can take a day off on June 5. every year.

For example:

  • The King has the executive power (ha)
  • Private property is sacrosanct (tax?, expropriation?)
  • Sovereignty cannot be delegated (EU?)
  • ‘My home is my castle’ (113 laws with exceptions)

And so on ad infinitum…

I don’t think SIAD even expects an answer. But taken literally it’s 100% relevant.

This is something that other countries might want to consider, maybe even the USA. Does the religion clause of the First Amendment trump laws against incitement? Has anybody ever tried to find out?

It’s worth looking into.

Hat tip: LN, via email.


tnpat said...

"This is something that other countries might want to consider, maybe even the USA."

Well, it would seem that the US Constitution would prohibit Sharia since it amounts to establishment of religion. Also, to the extent Islam in the US is funded and promoted by the Saudi Wahabis, it amount to establishment of a religion by a government---if the Constituion prohibits our government from doing it, why do we permit a foreign government to do it?

livfreerdie said...

If there were any money in it you would have thousands of lawyers lined up to take the case. They could start in the Michigan town/city where loud speakers are allowed for the calls to prayer. Seems like that would fall under the "no government established religion" clause. Guess money really does talk.
I'm not a lawyer but it sure sounds, and here's the catch, sensible and reasonable.


Consul-At-Arms said...

Very interesting idea, declaring Islam unconstitional.

I've linked to you here:

Consul-At-Arms said...

Nick, the burqa wearer isn't worried about what the infidel might do to her, she has much more to worry about her co-religionists and their, ahem, impulse-control issues.

YoelB said...

This confirms my fears that SIAD is somehow both sincere and unserious. There is no way that banning part of the Koran will inhibit the jihadi promulgation of those verses and their views. On the other hand, if Gates of Vienna quotes a banned verse from the Koran, SIAD's law would undoubtedly be used to ban Gates.

Baron Bodissey said...

Left Coast --

Your comment is unserious.

1. Describing something which is or should be illegal is not the same as doing it. When that something is speech, the description may well include the speech itself. If I say, “Saying ‘I’m going to shoot the President’ should be illegal”, it’s not in the same category as saying, “I’m going to shoot the President.” The comparison is specious; the first instance is meta-speech; the second is speech itself.

There is a big difference between describing incitement and engaging in incitement. You are being disingenuous by making such a comparison.

2. If publishing or reading from certain verses of the Koran were made illegal, I would have no more need to quote them. If the law were widely ignored, then I would be no more liable for breaking it than the imams.

History Snark said...


I assume you refer to Dearborn(istan). I see your point, but in the end, the call to prayer is similar to the use of church bells. On a Constitutional level, I think it's kinda weak (with all due respect of course).

But still, I grew up in Detroit, near Dearborn. Went down there a few years ago and was shocked at how it's changed. Driving down the main drag (Michigan ave, in case anyone cares), the downtown area seemed to have all the storefront signs in Arabic. I remember one funeral home had a sign proclaiming that they ship to the Mideast.

For someone of my age, it's almost amusing. I remember when the City was ruled with an iron fist by Mayor Hubbard. Don't think that he would have allowed that many furriners in His City.

(Note: here's a quote from Wikipedia's article on Dearborn...

"Dearborn was known nationally for its de facto racial segregation under Mayor Orville L. Hubbard, whose 36 year tenure ended in 1978. Hubbard became the most famous segregationist north of the Mason-Dixon line and openly admitted to allowing the use of intimidation tactics against African-American families looking to move to Dearborn. This unsubtle policy is, in part, responsible for the minute black population in Dearborn today. Hubbard was known for running a highly effective government, so residents overlooked or laughed at his politically incorrect statements, which also targeted Irish and Italians (who make up much of the city's population). Hubbard was never as powerful or influential as Henry Ford or the Ford Motor Company. Ford was known to treat African-Americans well, which attracted them to Detroit to work at his factories."

Even when I was in high school though, about the time Hubbard left office (I think he died, but can't be certain), I remember people commenting on all the Arabs there, and I even recall a religion teacher at the school commenting on the calls to prayer.

At any rate, while I agree that having some guy yelling from atop a church would *seem* to be forcing his religion on others, I don't think that argument would last long in court.

scott said...

I've posted a proposal on-line at which would allow us to ban Islam in the US. Here is the text:

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Background and justification

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice the religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion to religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by the religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenant the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim high-jackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbolla, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America will cease to exist;

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;

Therefore: Islam is not a religion but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Amendment 28

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its current war on democratic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as proscribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Scott (Phx, AZ)

YoelB said...

I may have been a bit cryptic. Here's my scenario:

Selected verses from the Koran are banned in Denmark.

Rather than being explicitly quoted in the Friday kutbas, they are alluded to; verbum sap.

Meanwhile, Gates of Vienna continues to discuss and quote the violent verses in the Koran as a part of its ongoing mission.

The Danish Government is now sued by lawyers representing Danish Muslims and forced to institute a Chinese style internet censorship to keep Gates and other US antijihad sites out of Denmark.

Captain USpace said...

Very great and bold idea, let's see if they can make it happen, or make some headway because of it. At least it will get more people talking about, and hopefully facing the facts of, Islam.

absurd thought-
God of the Universe says
teach the children lies

white-wash religion of peace
denigrate the kids' culture