Swedish Pol Accused of “Hate Speech” Against Islam
We read:
"Swedish politician Jimmie Åkesson has been charged with “hate speech” for writing an opinion piece in which he calls Islam the biggest threat to his country since World War II. In piece published in Swedish daily Aftonbladet, the Sweden Democrats leader writes that his country has the most rapes per capita in Europe, and most of the perpetrators are Muslim. Åkesson also claims that ten Muslim terrorist groups have established cells in Sweden.
According to Åkesson, “today’s multicultural Swedish power-elite are totally blind to the dangers of Islam.” “As a Sweden Democrat, I see this as our greatest external threat since World War II and I promise to use all my power to change the trend during next year’s election,” he writes.
Many Left-wing political players have called for the prosecution of Åkesson on “hate speech” charges, including Jan Hjärpe, an emeritus professor of Islamic Studies at Lund University. “This is the same sort of propaganda as the Nazis’ anti-Semitism,” says Hjärpe. [Really?? Then it was true what Hitler said about the Jews??]
Source
More details here. I have followed the Swedish situation for some time and, as far as I can see, everything Jimmie says is the plain truth -- but truth has never been of much interest to Leftists.
25 comments:
I'm sure he hates muslims, but what he said wasn't hateful.
"I'm sure he hates muslims"
Proof?
I could have said "assume", but who doesn't hate an invader? An occupier? And who doesn't hate muslims. Even muslims hate muslims. Shites hate sunnis and sunnis hate shites and they both hate everybody eles. They even hate a liberator.
You really need to pull your head out, Mr. Clean.
"I could have said "assume"
So, why didn't you? I just called you on it. Period.
Congrats Mr. Clean, you have an acute grasp of the trivial. The important part of the story is than a man's rights are being violated because he expressed his thoughts (whether they were hateful or not).
Also, I did not make a statement of fact - "He hates muslims". I preceeded it with the qualifier "I'm sure", not "It's sure". This makes it a subjective statement that I personally don't have any feelings of doubt about whether he hates muslims or not. No proof is required.
It's been fun. You will have to take me at my word. I will not offer any proof.
The important part of the story is than a man's rights are being violated because he expressed his thoughts (whether they were hateful or not).
How were his rights violated?
Or is that an "acute grasp of the trivial" as well?
Anon 10:07,
So let me see if I've got this right. Attempting to get him thrown into jail so that he can't exercise his right to free speech is somehow not a violation of his rights???
Hmmmmm…
So let me see if I've got this right. Attempting to get him thrown into jail so that he can't exercise his right to free speech is somehow not a violation of his rights???
Actually no, it is not. It is the person exercising their rights to say "that is hate speech."
"Your words hateful and you should be put in jail" is not a violation of anyone's rights.
You apparently didn't follow the links. From the link in "More details here":
"An opinion piece by Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Åkesson in which he labels Muslims a major threat has been reported to Sweden's highest legal official by the Centre Against Racism (Centrum Mot Rasism)."
They're trying to start legal proceedings against him.
Furthermore, it's obvious that they're trying to silence him, even if their legal maneuverings don't pan out.
You apparently didn't follow the links. From the link in "More details here":
No, YOU didn't follow all the links.
The link on Tongue Tied goes to a site that links to the actual article. In that article there is this quote:
But Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz said he has no plans to launch a preliminary investigation himself as to whether Åkesson’s article violates Swedish rules governing the freedom of expression.
Right now, everyone is exercising their freedom of speech. No rights have been violated. It is silly to say that someone advocating that this guy broke the law is a violation of his rights.
It's Sweeden for Christ's sake. I mean, who cares. If they want radical muslims running all over their country, that's fine with me. They will surely pay the price. There's nothing more enjoyable than watching fuzzy-brained socialist running head-on into reality. FCUK 'EM!
Anon,
Keep reading. Here is what is in the very next paragraph from the portion you quoted:
"“This isn’t an obvious case of agitation against an ethnic group. If it had been, I would have launched an investigation myself. But I’ll probably receive complaints about the article and then I’ll look more closely into the matter,” Lambertz told TT."
Furthermore, your quote does not negate the fact that an official complaint intended to get the process rolling has already been filed!
Use The Name,
What you seem to be missing is that complaints have to be investigated. That doesn't mean that the rights of anyone have been trampled upon.
The guy has the right to make the statements he did. As it stands right now, some people have complained about it. That is their right as well.
Are you really saying that someone doesn't have the right to complain about what someone said?
They have the right of free speech too. They just don't have the right to attempt to trample others' rights.
They just don't have the right to attempt to trample others' rights.
So now you want to restrict "attempted free speech?"
Sigh…
I repeat…
"An opinion piece by Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Åkesson in which he labels Muslims a major threat has been reported to Sweden's highest legal official by the Centre Against Racism (Centrum Mot Rasism)."
They're trying to start legal proceedings against him.
They ARE attempting to make it illegal to exercise free speech which opposes Islam.
People and the government are different entities with different powers. If people don't like what he said and complain about it, that is there right. But if the government even threatens to investigate, that is inniating the use of force. They have the power to charge him with anything they can make up and throw him in jail. The public threat also harms him as people are demanding some action be taken. The government should just keep its 'collective' mouth shut until it determines whether there actually was a crime committed and then the so-called crime should not be against his right to free speech.
They ARE attempting to make it illegal to exercise free speech which opposes Islam.
sigh.
They are allowed to make the report. The complaints are free speech as well. Once again, you seem to want to limit their reaction to what was said.
islam is a criminal cockroach religion and should be destroyed as it is a religion of hate and violence.
"Spoken like a true Xian."
Whats'a matter? Too afraid of Christ to even mention his title?
BTW, there are plenty of hard core atheists who say exactly the same about Islam, and for many of the same reasons. After all, the Muslims who are "extreme" are actually being faithful to Mohammad's example.
Too afraid of Christ to even mention his title?
And what title is that? Mr. Christ, Dr. Christ, Professor Christ.
"Christ" is his title, not his name. Specifically, "The Christ".
Christ: anointed, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word rendered “Messiah” (q.v.), the official title of our Lord, occurring five hundred and fourteen times in the New Testament. It denotes that he was anointed or consecrated to his great redemptive work as Prophet, Priest, and King of his people. He is Jesus the Christ (Acts 17:3; 18:5; Matt. 22:42), the Anointed One. He is thus spoken of by Isaiah (Isa. 61:1), and by Daniel (Dan. 9:24-26), who styles him “Messiah the Prince.”
— Definition from Easton's Bible Dictionary
"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”"
(Matthew 16:16 NAS95)
"For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many."
(Matthew 24:5 NAS95)
"Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ,"
(Luke 3:15 NAS95)
"The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”"
(John 10:24 NAS95)
"Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son."
(1 John 2:22 NAS95)
There are many other similar verses, but these should be more than sufficient to make the point.
"Christ" is his title, not his name. Specifically, "The Christ". etc.
Oops. My bad.
No sweat.
Post a Comment