What? There doesn't have to be a violent response for something to be incitement.

Do you understand what incitement means? It's what we call actions that intend to provoke unlawful behavior.

There does not need to be a response for something to be provokiotive. The question is. How much provocation us too much.

You have to balance freedom against what is too much provocation. We do it all the time. If you go into town and just start to insult random people. You might be charged with disturbance of the peace. Freedom isn't limitless.

You can be charged with "Incitement against ethnic/religious groups" that is already illegal. And we decided those are actions punishable by law. That already exists.

They are arguing that burning their holy scripture in public, is a form of hateful incitement. That it is inciting enough that it shouldn't be allowed in public.

Others are arguing that it is not inciting enough to be deemed unlawful. Even if done in public.

You are, and will be allowed to burn whatever book you want in private. No one is banning that. No one is taking that right away from you. This is solely about if it should be allowed in public. If it's just a form of protest. Or if it is too inciting.

Personally. In general. I don't think it is too inciting to be banned in public. Unless done outside of embassies or religious buildings. I think that's too far, that is too inciting with the sole purpose of needless incitement.

If your opinion differ that's fine.