STOCKHOLM — In a groundbreaking legal decision, a Swedish court has handed down a conviction to an individual for inciting ethnic hatred through a sacrilegious act committed in 2020. This marks the first instance where the country’s judicial system has addressed a case involving the desecration of the Holy Quran.
The verdict arrives in the wake of a series of desecrations earlier this year, which not only ignited international outrage but also designated Sweden as a “prioritized target,” prompting the nation’s intelligence agency to elevate its terrorism alert level.
The Swedish government has unequivocally condemned these acts; however, it has consistently upheld the country’s robust freedom of expression laws.
The Linkoping district court, located in central Sweden, has found a 27-year-old individual guilty of “agitation against an ethnic group.” The court determined that the accused’s actions specifically “targeted Muslims and not Islam as a religion” and asserted that they “can hardly be said to have encouraged an objective and responsible debate.”
The incident, which took place in September 2020, involved the man recording a video outside the Linkoping cathedral. In the video, he depicted the burning of the Holy Quran alongside bacon on a barbecue while displaying a derogatory message about the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) on a sign near the barbecue. This video was subsequently shared on social media platforms, including Twitter (now known as X) and YouTube.
The controversial song “Remove Kebab” was featured in the video, a song associated with far-right groups, advocating for the religious cleansing of Muslims. Notably, the court underlined that this music was strongly linked to the tragic attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019, where an Australian white supremacist horrifically claimed the lives of 51 individuals at two mosques.
Despite the accused’s claims of innocence and that his actions constituted criticism of Islam as a religion, the court firmly dismissed this argument. In an official statement, the court declared, “The chosen music for a film with such content can only be interpreted as a threat against Muslims with an allusion to their faith. The film’s content and the manner of its dissemination leave no room for doubt that the defendant’s primary intent was to convey threats and contempt.”
