Hundreds of intellectuals and artists are concerned about its implications for freedom of expression, while police, lawyers, and prosecutors consider it too imprecise.
Meh, it is supposed to be a provocation, but is a completely harmless one. It’s not like they are doing bodily harm to anyone or destroying anyone elses property. Of course there are nutjobs out there that does it due to racisim, but that it so transparent and obvious that anyone should be able to write it of as such. But I also think that it can be a legit demonstration agains a system that has wronged them or against something horrific that has been done in the name of and/or by partisipants of whatever religion.
And now religious people will come up with something new that upsets them and demand it to be declared illeagal.
Removed by mod
The other way. In private, you can make the rules and demand everybody to abide to your religious views or leave.
In public, people are free to ignore your religious demands.
Doing in public what others want to outlaw in public can be a form of protest to this encroachment.
Meh, it is supposed to be a provocation, but is a completely harmless one. It’s not like they are doing bodily harm to anyone or destroying anyone elses property. Of course there are nutjobs out there that does it due to racisim, but that it so transparent and obvious that anyone should be able to write it of as such. But I also think that it can be a legit demonstration agains a system that has wronged them or against something horrific that has been done in the name of and/or by partisipants of whatever religion.
Say I do another act in public that provokes them, should that also be banned?