Swedish court issues first conviction for holy quran burning and ethnic hatred incitement.

In a historic decision, a Swedish court has found a 27-year-old man guilty of inciting ethnic hatred by burning the Holy Quran in 2020. This marks the first time such an accusation has been prosecuted in the nation’s legal system. The verdict follows a series of Holy Quran burnings earlier this year, which not only sparked global outrage but also led to Sweden’s intelligence agency raising its terror alert level, designating the country a “prioritized target.”

Despite strongly condemning these desecrations, the Swedish government upheld the nation’s robust freedom of expression laws.

The Linkoping district court, located in central Sweden, convicted the individual of “agitation against an ethnic group,” asserting that his actions specifically “targeted Muslims and not Islam as a religion.” The court ruled that these actions did not encourage an objective and responsible debate.

The defendant had recorded a video in September 2020 outside the Linkoping mosque, showing the burning of a Holy Quran and bacon on a barbecue, accompanied by a derogatory remark about the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) on a sign beneath the barbecue. He posted the video on social media platforms, including Twitter (now known as X) and YouTube, and placed the burnt Holy Quran and bacon outside the Linkoping mosque.

The court highlighted the use of the song “Remove Kebab” in the video, a tune popular among far-right groups that calls for the religious cleansing of Muslims. This song is strongly associated with the 2019 Christchurch attack in New Zealand, when an Australian white supremacist live-streamed himself killing 51 people at two mosques.

The defendant maintained his actions were a criticism of Islam as a religion, but the court rejected this argument, asserting that the music choice in the video left no room for interpretation other than as a threat against Muslims and their faith. The court stated that “the film’s content and the form of its publication are such that it is clear that the defendant’s primary purpose could not have been other than to express threats and contempt.