Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Prosecuting Free Speech in Sweden

I’m sure you are curious to hear the news from the capital of Multikultistan. That would be, Sweden. You know about Sweden, the feminist paradise where schoolboys are not allowed to pee standing up and where women are offered up as human sacrifices to Muslim sexual predators. Ah yes, Sweden, the rape capital of the Western world.

As happens throughout most of Multikultistan when refugees cannot find jobs and resort to crime the fault lies with Islamophobic Swedes. Recall when our own former president refused even to state that radical Islamist terrorism was a problem, preferring to fight the good fight against Islamophobia. Nice way to divide a nation, Barack.

Anyway, in Sweden a 70 year old woman is being prosecuted for complaining about Muslim migrants on Facebook. She is facing more time than the rapist who televised the rape of a Swedish girl on Facebook.

Here is the story, with all the gory details, from the Swedish press (via Maggie’s Farm):

A 70 year old woman in Dalarna prosecuted for hate speech after writing on Facebook that immigrants are defecating in the streets, writes DT.se.

According to the prosecution, the woman via Facebook wrote disparagingly of people with a foreign background.

In a post from 2015, she has written that immigrants “set cars on fire and urinate and defecate in the streets.”

This violates the law on incitement to racial hatred, according to the prosecutor.

The accused woman in police interrogation admitted that she wrote the post, but denied that she committed a criminal act.

The evidence against the 70-year-old woman is a screenshot from Facebook.

The penalty for incitement to racial hatred is imprisonment not exceeding two years or, for petty offenses, fines. If the offense is considered to be grave sentenced the defendants to prison terms of between six months and four years.

13 comments:

Sam L. said...

Sweden has peremptorily surrendered to the Muslim invasion.

Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: You know about Sweden, the feminist paradise where schoolboys are not allowed to pee standing up and where women are offered up as human sacrifices to Muslim sexual predators.

Why all the strawman contempt here?

I see. This is called virtue signalling.

And its a way of pulling in readers to blindly accept whatever follows as self-evident truth, since all the skeptical readers have stopped reading.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Remember when Sweden was hailed as the model for us all? Not so much anymore.

I continue to believe the legendary "wonders" of the Swedish social safety net and the Finnish education system were driven by a homogeneous population that shared core values and related culturally on a level that made such large-scale bureaucracies functional. That, and the Swedes are a constitutional monarchy with 10 million people, and the Finns are a republic with 5 million people.

There was never a clear comparison to the United States culturally, making economic comparisons (or the portability of economic or social ideas) laughable. No wonder this kind of utopianism caught on so well in Vermont, a state with 626,000 people in the second-whitest population in the U.S. Just think of what REAL diversity could do for Vermont.

And now the Swedes go after old-age pensioners reporting on her experience, accompanied by facts about public exhibition of bodily functions and malicious destruction of property. The Left is so tolerant.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Straw Man: (n-informal) An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than the opponent's real argument.

Which argument is easier to defeat, Ares? Feminism? Rape? Multiculturalism? Censorship? Immigration policy?

Your straw man is your claim of straw man as a logical fallacy. You don't even know what it is.

"... since all the skeptical readers have stopped reading."

You're still here, contemptuous as they come. And feigning any sense of logic. Someone who isn't very bright being contemptuous of others who are. Your own blog failed. You abandoned it. Since you didn't have the talent to have what you desired -- people who actually gave a hoot what you had to say -- you had to come to someone else's blog to be a destroyer. After all, someone brighter than you with more readers than you ever had really does not need to have his comments riddled with nonsense. You are not a skeptic, you are a pest. A troll. A fool. You couldn't succeed writing yourself, so you are driven to ruin someone else's success. It's called ENVY. And like your political compadres, you're ruled by your envy to the point of madness.

The hook, Stuart, if you please.

Anonymous said...

IAC,

Just ignore Ares. I did a long time ago as I have zero interest at what he has to say. By responding to him, you give him a certain amount of power.

As for Sweden, well not really all that shocking. Europe is pretty much lost at this point literally and figuratively. The center and center-right have failed and nothing operates in a vacuum. Either the Muslims will win there or the far right will decide that enough is enough and deal with it in their fashion, which will not be pretty.

Blahgga the Hutt

L. Beau said...

Stuart: You know about Sweden, the feminist paradise where schoolboys are not allowed to pee standing up and where women are offered up as human sacrifices to Muslim sexual predators.

ARES: Why all the strawman contempt here?


Strawman? No, I think it's closer to "poisoning the well", if I understand the term properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Blahgga: I will take your advice. If Ares is going to say whatever he wants and Stuart doesn't think there's any point in acting, why should I care? I don't want to give anymore power or time away. I'm done. Onward and upward. Thank you.

Ares Olympus said...

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said... Which argument is easier to defeat, Ares? Feminism? Rape? Multiculturalism? Censorship? Immigration policy?

Strawman claim: schoolboys are not allowed to pee standing up

A false claim, representing a position that doesn't exist, except in the minds of hysterical consevatives.

Strawman claim: women are offered up as human sacrifices to Muslim sexual predators

A false claim, representing an imagined position that women's need for safety are ignored by liberals, and a false characterization that sexual predators can be identified and eliminated by their religion or culture.

If you take away the strawmen, you are left with simple self-interested hysteria, a willfully cherry picking or distort every fact to fit a desired conclusion.

James said...

IAC,
Don't go! I mean it. I agree with Blahgga and rarely if ever with AO, it is still Stuart's blog and I don't think AO should be banned or censored. Anyway I enjoy your take always. So don't go.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

James, I'm not going anywhere. Thanks for the kudos... much appreciated. "I'm done" refers to my decision that I'm not going to comment on Ares' comments anymore. Stuart unfortunately hasn't censored/banned Ares, though he has taken recent action to tamp things down. I appreciated the gist of Blahgga's point: If you don't feed the beast, maybe he'll go away. Stuart has created a wonderful thing here, though I believe it definitively unwise to allow one failed blogger to mar others' experience of it. But if that doesn't matter to Stuart, then that's the final verdict. Unfortunate, but out of my control.

James said...

IAC,
Good.

Ares Olympus said...

James said... it is still Stuart's blog and I don't think AO should be banned or censored.

Thanks for the middle ground! I don't think Stuart has been censoring me, even with a couple deletes recently, and mostly kindly. I strive to learn, now including word counts before posting. It's still a black box process and subjective boundary to guess where and how I overstep.

IAC: You are not a skeptic, you are a pest. A troll. A fool. You couldn't succeed writing yourself, so you are driven to ruin someone else's success. It's called ENVY. And like your political compadres, you're ruled by your envy to the point of madness.

I find these assertions inexplicable, while I understand now you no longer need to reply to me. I've tried to reflect on envy and it seems foreign to me. I can identify arrogance in myself, and resentment at times at unchallenged hypocritical expressions, but envy, no.

Stuart must spend a couple hours every day on his daily blog topics, and so I feel gratitude not envy at that devotion, however much I disagree with with the completeness or usefulness of any specific narratives or opinions.

I've never found much value in only hanging out with people I most agree with, even if one can get more positive strokes that way. My ego, at least on intellectual explorations, needs minimal positive reinforcement from others to keep exploring.

Sam L. said...

Ares, cut it short. Pithy comment(s), not essays. Edit thyself mercilessly.