When Free Speech Becomes Selective

By Mohamad Hammoud

Quran Burnings, Holocaust Laws and the Uneven Moral Map of the West

In recent years, images of the Quran set on fire in European capitals have circulated widely, defended by authorities as protected speech and dismissed by officials as regrettable but legal. According to Reuters, Swedish police repeatedly approved permits for Quran burnings in 2023, arguing that freedom of expression under constitutional law left them little choice. At the same time, in much of Europe, it remains a criminal offense to deny or question the Holocaust, punishable by fines or imprisonment. The contrast has forced an uncomfortable question into the open: why is insulting a living religious community defended as liberty, while questioning a historical event is treated as a crime?

The Legal Shelter for Provocation

In Sweden and Denmark, courts first allowed Quran burnings because they saw them as political expression, not religious hatred. Reuters said Swedish judges decided police could not refuse permits just because Muslims found the acts offensive. This approach was soon adopted in other places. CNN noted that Danish officials also approved such demonstrations, pointing to their strong free-speech traditions, even for actions that provoke strong reactions. Police protected these events, sometimes holding them in front of mosques, which drew a lot of attention and anger.

Yet officials were not blind to the consequences. According to Reuters, Swedish authorities admitted the burnings hurt national security and increased tensions in other countries, especially those with Muslim majorities. Still, the prevailing argument remained that free expression must tolerate offense, even when the offense is deliberate and incendiary.

Where Speech Suddenly Has Limits

That absolutist logic collapses when the subject turns to the Holocaust. In France, Germany, Belgium and Austria, Holocaust denial is punishable by law. CNN reported that European courts justify these bans by defining denial as hate speech that threatens democratic order. Reuters has noted that these laws emerged from Europe’s post-war reckoning, rooted in guilt and fear of fascism’s return.

The inconsistency is stark. Burning the Quran is treated as speech; questioning the Holocaust is treated as violence. One is defended as liberty; the other prosecuted as danger. Western governments insist the distinction is principled, yet it reveals a hierarchy shaped by history and power rather than neutral free-speech doctrine.

Bodies, Beaches and Cultural Permission

The same contradiction appears in cultural norms. Public nudity or near-nudity on beaches is widely tolerated in Europe, often framed as bodily freedom. CNN reported that French officials have long defended topless sunbathing as a symbol of secular modernity. That permissiveness, however, vanishes when modesty is religious.

Reuters reported that several French municipalities attempted to ban the burkini, arguing it violated secular values or public order. Although courts overturned some bans, the impulse itself was revealing. Exposing the body is treated as liberation; covering it for faith is treated as suspicion. Freedom applies only when it aligns with dominant cultural expectations.

Why the Quran Is Targeted

Those who burn the Quran rarely act from abstract devotion to free speech. Their motivations, when examined closely, point less to principle than to politics. According to Reuters, many perpetrators in Scandinavia were linked to far-right or anti-immigrant movements openly hostile to Muslims. CNN reported that these acts are calculated stunts, intended to provoke outrage, command media attention, and reinforce narratives portraying Islam as incompatible with Western society.

Seen in that light, the burnings take on a different meaning. They function less as expression than as political theater—performances designed to assert dominance, probe legal boundaries, and provoke reactions that can then be recast as evidence of Muslim “intolerance.” In this cycle, free speech ceases to be a neutral right and becomes a tactical shield, legally protected while deliberately aimed at a specific minority.

Selective Memory and Moral Authority

Western leaders frame Holocaust denial laws as a moral necessity while defending Quran burnings as a legal inevitability. But morality cannot be compartmentalized. When freedom protects humiliation yet prohibits historical skepticism, it ceases to be universal.

This selectivity undermines Western claims of principled liberalism. It signals that Muslim sacred symbols are expendable, while other sensitivities are legally untouchable. The result is not freedom, but hierarchy.

Conclusion

The debate over Quran burnings, Holocaust denial laws and cultural norms is not truly about speech. It is about power, memory and whose dignity is protected. Western societies insist they defend freedom equally, yet their laws suggest otherwise. Until these contradictions are confronted honestly, appeals to tolerance will continue to ring hollow—especially for those told to endure offense in the name of liberty while others are shielded by law.