Is Sweden becoming nazi?

Post Reply New Topic

The EU has some pretty tyrannical elements to it, not least of which is the fact that it's ruled by a council of unelected officials. But I digress.

Swedish law translates pretty poorly, and "anti-racist" laws are usually written as being "laws against incitement of violence against racial groups". So, saying "brown people are bad" isn't illegal, but saying "hey, let's gather some buddies and go punch some brown people" is. And if having "terrorist sympathies" is illegal, then I wonder why we have about 1000 returned ISIS fighters currently not being in jail (I'd support them either being in jail or being barred from returning, by the by).

In Denmark we have several laws banning certain speeches.

Recently someone was jailed for saying that black people are stupid/have lower intelligence than white people.
He said that South African black people cannot govern a country due to low intelligence, which "most black people suffer from".

I support these laws to ban such speeches.

We recently got more freedom to critisize religion though, as the blasphemy law was abolished in 2017, which of course is a good thing. You can't put a ban on anti-religious teachings in a liberal democracy, but you can ban wrong speeches like racist talks and pro-terrorist sympathies. It makes sense.

It is also illegal to encourage to any crime/offences.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 06 Apr 2019, 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How is it that you can understand that blasphemy laws have no place in a liberal democracy, but you don't understand why the concepts of thought-crime and wrong-think also don't?

Because you choose your religious faith. But you don't choose your ethnicity or skin color.

I support anti-political and anti-religious speeches as the core of freedom of speech, because YOU can CHOOSE your political opinions or religious faith.

But you cannot choose your skin color or ethnicity, and therefore people should be protected from harmful or hurting speeches directed against them because of stuff they had no say in.

Denmark doesn't have laws protecting disabled people from the same kind of speeches, but I think they should protect disabled people too, like they protect people because of their ethnicity, skin color etc.

You're still not getting it. Laws need to apply equally to all citizens, even those with whom you disagree.
Saying "this person is a racist, arrest him!" is no different from saying "this person blasphemed against Allah, arrest him!"

I reserve the right to like or not to like anyone for whatever reasons I deem valid. The government has no say in this. Because of this principle, I cannot support the government saying "you're not allowed to be racist" any more than I can support the government saying "you have to be racist". I can dislike racists because their opinions are stupid, and the government can't stop me. And when the government tries to stop the racists from expressing their stupid opinions, they stop me from hearing their reasoning and honing my understanding as to why it's stupid. The government is in the wrong for doing so.

Additionally, saying that the government can ban any speech it deems to be racist without letting people hear it is a hugely powerful weapon for stifling dissent, one that I wouldn't trust any government with.


and if you CHOOSE your political opinions, does that mean that you can CHOOSE to stop being an authoritarian?

"Allah" doesn't exist, we can prove that scientifically. At the very least, nobody can prove "Allah" exists.
And so you cannot prove that "Allah" is or might be offended, as "Allah's" existence is non-verified.

But a white, or black or brown or whatever colored real-existing human being can be offended by having his or her IQ score lowered and reputation damaged by claims which can be scientifically verified or - in the case of racism - proved to be outright wrong.

THAT is THE difference!

I'm offended by your suggestion that people have some sort of right not to be offended. Now what are you going to do?

The main power body in the EU is the European Parliament, which is elected directly by the people using a proportional system. That's why we have European Elections.

The secondary body, which ultimately answers to the Parliament, is the Commission. To call this body "unelected officials" is a bad distortion of the truth. In reality, the Commission is appointed by the leaders of the member states. As a condition of EU membership is being a democracy, this is no different to, for example, a Prime Minister appointing their cabinet.

The EU is more democratic than several member states, including the United Kingdom, and is at least as democratic as the Swedish government.


I realise you're being rhetorical, but there is a clear and meaningful difference between blasphemy and racism. "The law must apply equally to all people" doesn't mean what you think it means. It is not discriminatory for a law to punish racism (or blasphemy for that matter, but let's leave that to one side), just as it is not discriminatory for a law to punish littering. Framing racism as "just something I disagree with" is valid and all, but let's not pretend that reasonable people can't disagree about whether racism is more like blasphemy or more like, I don't know, graffiti or libel or public drunkenness or littering.

I think ultimately the difference of opinion you have is what constitutes "inciting racial hatred" (as we'd put it in this country). It seems you accept that saying "kill the green team!" should be illegal. It seems thinkinginpictures thinks "the green team are stupid subhumans and should go back to Greenland" should be illegal, but that you might not, although I don't want to speak for you. Do you think there's a sharp dividing line between "inciting racial hatred" and generic "racism", or might there be a continuum with a lot fringe cases where it is difficult to make a judgement?

Littering, libel and public drunkeness are all actions. Racism, on its own, is a thought or a way of thinking. Then there is racist speech, racist violence, racist literature etc.

Also, unless you prohibit blasphemy against all religions, I don't see how a blasphemy law can be "not discriminatory".




Unless it could reasonably be argued that "kill the green team" was said in an obviously rhetorical/metaphorical context such as say, an ongoing MMA bout, then yes, that would be an obvious incitement to violence and murder. The second example is really two examples; "the green team are stupid subhumans" and "the green team should go back to greenland" (I presume not the actual greenland, but a hypothetical place from which the green team hails. nevermind, digression). The first part is an example of a racist thought/opinion, the second part is a position one might have for numerous reasons, not just racial prejudice, though naturally not excluding racial prejudice.

While law should have room for judgement and interpretation, I think it's in the best interest of everyone that the line of punishing people for what they think rather than for what they do not be crossed.

FWIW, I agree with Wolfram. We can think whatever we want, but what only what we actually do should be subject to law.

Wolfram can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is the Swedish were very close to the action WWII and had to walk a narrow line between the Nazis and the Russians. I remember there were Nazi sympathizers in Sweden, and also those who sheltered Jewish refugees.

Those of us in the US forget how close to the war were Europe, Scandinavia (Northern Europe) and the British Isles.

Hitler's war effort depended upon iron imported from Sweden during the war Germany invaded and occupied both Denmark and Norway, and had troops in Finland helping the Finns fight Russia. Britain almost went to war in Finland against Russia (while fighting Germany at the same time), and the Brits did many military actions against the Germans in occupied Norway (notably bombing heavy water plants to thwart Hitler's nuke program, and the many attempts by various means to sink the Tirpitz). So yes, the war did rage all around the country of Sweden.

probably not its always been a bit egalitarian there .. but in the netherlands after the utrecht incident FvD surged in polls might become another austria who knows might affect german and swedish election too although i doubt it akk has made it a bit harder for afd rn akk looks like merkel wiedel nahles and akk had a daughter together.. sweden idk nothing is particularly happening.. in france le front national rebranded itself as le ressemblement national and surging in polls i doubt she will win the general election but its def gaining more traction also probably because jordan bardella has more serious appeal than florian phillipot does while melencheon struggles to find his ocasio... honestly whats this whole thing all about in the end i dont know.. stream billie eilish on spotify ..

Okay, well then can't you prove that there are no average IQ differences between races and ethnic groups then? The races evolved in different climates and with different surroundings, and there are physiological differences, so the idea that there could also be average IQ differences shouldn't be dismissed just because it makes you uncomfortable

According to science, there are no IQ differences between "races" which are considered a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

It depends on which media you consume. Change the channel or read a different article and they might say everyone to the left of Sauron is an SJW communist.

I don't think anyone in this thread has proposed outlawing racist thoughts. thinkinginpictures, for example, has repeatedly said that he supports bans on certain "speeches". He doesn't want to ban racists, just ban people from saying certain things.

They are discriminatory in terms of the outcome of the law, but not in a strict "who does the law apply to" sense. If you blaspheme, it doesn't matter whether you are a Christian, Muslim, or atheist, you still blasphemed. If you litter, you're not being unfairly targeted due to your status as "someone who litters", you're being prosecuted for the act of littering. If you say something racist, it isn't a case of the law only applying to you while everyone else goes around being racist with impunity.


Yes, I think that's uncontroversial. But I think it's important to note that racist speech isn't necessarily a victimless crime (although of course it can be, such as if you say something nobody else hears). We've already talked about incitement, but things like threats and intimidation are pretty much universally accepted as forms of speech that we as liberals can't allow. Again there will inevitably be cases which stretch the law and sometimes the law will get it wrong either way. I note that the girl from Liverpool who got charged for quoting a violent rap lyric that contained a racial epithet in tribute to a dead friend has had her conviction quashed on appeal, so I'm feeling much more confident than a year ago that the system is working in this country.