these are strange days for you me and Germany

My job is not an audio technician or designer (as you probably already know  8) ) but I work as a police officer… as an squad leader of a task force in a highly segregated part of my hometown. we had an lecturer from the secret police that is monitoring arabic extremism in sweden.

Sweden like Germany has had its borders wide open the last decade and it is showing… "as tension is rising".

We asked this expert from the secret police what he would do to stop the escalating Jihadism in Sweden… He said "I would send home 400000 men, and possibly bring back another 400000 without extremist thoughts. In military number that is roughly 400 battalions.

I am not saying that we in Sweden has had many acts of terrorism, but there has been a few acts… a lot more that never reaches the news or public media in any way.

My personal opinion, based on this and a lot more "secret" information is that tension is rising in Sweden and Europe.

/John

johnheath said:

I am not saying that we in Sweden has had many acts of terrorism, but there has been a few acts… a lot more that never reaches the news or public media in any way.
/John

Click to expand...

Well, now you have me curious.... What are examples of these terrorist acts that never reached the media in any way?

Well, MattiasNYC, it is not so easy for me to comment that in a whole here in an open forum on the internet so I will answer it from personal observations and reports to me as a squad leader (from) my own personnel.

What we have seen is a vast increase in funding, storing, hiding and planning of terrorist groups of militant islamic beliefs. We hear reports on men from other parts of Sweden (especially from Gothenburg) that come to my hometown to recruit men to fight with IS, We have reports on confirmed IS-fighters that live in the area.

All of this should not be a problem if it wasn't for the incredibly passive statements from the Government. It seems to be a hot potato that nobody really would like to grab. I usually say that people with a cause won't stop just because you say that they are not allowed… action is what is needed here.

But on the other hand… action is what France and Belgium been taken and they are nowadays facing a major threat to their society from militant islamists. So perhaps the "friendly" swedish "way" is the way to deal with these people to avoid their anger??? But then this problem will soon be the a REAL threat to the society… unless you are a person that actually wants to live in a islamic society… because these people won't stop.

In fact Sweden has always been a sanctuary for terrorist-marked organizations like the PLO, Islamic Jihad and many others and we get reports on how IS-fighters come to Sweden to "rest" for a while and then go back to whatever they are stationed. We know for sure that a least one of the organizers of the Paris-shooting lived well in sweden.

I could go on for days writing and talking about this if I want, but I am on vacation so I rather not.

Regards

/John

Ok, well I certainly won't dispute anything you write, but it's quite different from the gist I got from what you wrote, which was actual terrorist activity in Sweden.

Now, it's one thing to have "reports of" various things, and the one thing I think is true in virtually all cases is that if evidence is sufficient for someone to know something is true, then you can pretty much take it to court. In other words, someone saying that someone is an IS fighter doesn't really prove the person it. It is a report of that, but it isn't really something to build a legal case on I'm sure. So if the legal system works it's actually too little information to go on. Now, if you're saying you really do know a person is an IS fighter at least I would think there'd be enough evidence to try the person in court.

I don't want to be or sound dismissive of the problem, but it's a problem we've fought with for a long time, as you stated already. And if it wasn't the organizations you mentioned it was people from the IRA, ETA etc, not to mention being cuddly with regimes that have committed or supported acts of terrorism or similar.

So in a sense (again) I think a lot of this has to do with us in the west being unused to this level of violence in very recent history.

Yes, I hear you, and I really wish I could write in english right now to express myself easier and more precise… but anyway.

Reports or known facts could be the same and it could be very different matters. When I say reports here I mean in fact … facts. So the issue of bringing someone to court or not is not up to me in this case… which I really pity.

The problem in Sweden is that we have no real objective point of view on this… it is a big ball of subjective thoughts and opinions that must be cleared before action can be taken. Freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a lot more. The people in sweden have no experience in dealing with this type of social problem.

I will give you an example of how the government deal with peoples problems when it comes down to dealing with extremists. (This is a true story only the names has been changed): A man working as a police officer and training boxing on his free time, got the information from the secret police that in his hometown there are two men from Chechnya, that are confirmed IS-fighters. He is asked, with his team, to report on their whereabouts to the secret police… if they spot them or hear anything about them.

As soon as he sees their pictures he realizes that these two men, with their children, are in fact members of the boxing club. He also realizes that he now know two potential murderers practicing boxing among other members and what not.

Of course he wants them out of the boxing club as soon as possible and rather see them sent to trial… he contacts the secret police via a colluege to see what he can do to get rid of them from the boxing club… the answer is terrifying: "You are not allowed to use the information in any way, BUT you can report to us about their friends and behavior and all… He just took his own son and left the boxing club in which he have been training since the late 70's… The secret police is just gathering information and thats it.

This is how sweden is dealing with this.

As far as I know you are now living in a country that actually deals with this type of problem while sweden is doing whatever they can not to be like the U.S.

And while this is going on the problem will rise and only the future can tell us where it will end but I can tell you that it doesn't look good.

Regards

/John

John,
Your English is amazing and we understand you perfectly, I wish my French was as good!!

Thank you for your insights into this part of Swedish life.

Sweden, like Switzerland, has a history of neutrality, so I guess this affects the mindset of the government more than it does in other countries.

Let us hope that they pass on their intelligence to other countries who are prepared to take action.

DaveP

Thank you Dave

Yes the long history of proclaimed neutrality is of course affecting the governments state of mind and it is very cute on papers, but to me there is no such thing as neutrality. For example… during the WW2 the social democratic government let german troops pass through sweden to fight the russians in the north, they sold millions of tons of steel to the germans and probably many more acts of "support" that we don't even know about.

another problem that is facing the soceity is that people and politicians in general tend to wake up too late… after the sh*t hits the fan. There is a lot of discussions among normal people that they fear that something really nasty must happen before a more reality based action will be taken against extremists and others that are fighting the social life in sweden… what that is is a pure guessing for most people… but also this is where opposite extremists are born which in itself is a tragedy.


Regards

/John

johnheath said:

I will give you an example of how the government deal with peoples problems when it comes down to dealing with extremists. (This is a true story only the names has been changed): A man working as a police officer and training boxing on his free time, got the information from the secret police that in his hometown there are two men from Chechnya, that are confirmed IS-fighters. He is asked, with his team, to report on their whereabouts to the secret police… if they spot them or hear anything about them.

As soon as he sees their pictures he realizes that these two men, with their children, are in fact members of the boxing club. He also realizes that he now know two potential murderers practicing boxing among other members and what not.

Of course he wants them out of the boxing club as soon as possible and rather see them sent to trial… he contacts the secret police via a colluege to see what he can do to get rid of them from the boxing club… the answer is terrifying: "You are not allowed to use the information in any way, BUT you can report to us about their friends and behavior and all… He just took his own son and left the boxing club in which he have been training since the late 70's… The secret police is just gathering information and thats it.

This is how sweden is dealing with this.

Click to expand...

But there are things to consider in the above example;

1) If this police starts to act in a manner that is possibly detectable by the suspects then they might realize they're being watched and escape future capture.

2) If this police starts to act in a manner that infringes upon their civil liberties and it turns out a mistake was made along the way then they've been wronged. This is why we have law enforcement agencies and courts dealing with this using specific procedures.

3) I'm not seeing any information on why the secret police didn't want any action taken by the police - was it because the information they were gathering would lead to further arrests for example? - and I'm not seeing any clear word on if it's actually a crime in Sweden to have fought for a foreign state or sub-state's armed forces.

To me this is a fairly typical story that relies on our emotional response to something to make a point. But we've gone from extremely brutal societies to where Sweden is today by doing away with willy-nilly punishments and instead rely on a legal system founded upon a constitution, hopefully all of which making sense. I actually see much bigger issues with law enforcement and the legal system using Billy Butt's and Thoma Quick's trials as examples. Those are both cases showing something rotten in the actual system, something that affects any potential civilian in Sweden.

johnheath said:

As far as I know you are now living in a country that actually deals with this type of problem while sweden is doing whatever they can not to be like the U.S.

Click to expand...

The way the US has dealt with the issue of terrorism is highly questionable. The US has a constitution that gives people civil rights, including the rights to privacy in their own homes and the right to not have their property searched etc. A lot of this freedom has been infringed upon all in the name of fighting terrorism and crime, and it's an ongoing fight with civil rights advocates on one side and government agencies on the other. It's all well and fine if you trust your government, and if you think you're never going to be the one suffering at the hands of the governments policies. But that's usually a stance only people with blinders on will support.

In the case of the US, and actually any other nation-state, the issue is as usual not only about the individual case, although every individual needs to be protected, but about what the nation-state might do to all its people and other states. In other words we  have civil rights not only to protect an individual, but also to put a leash on the state. You can pretty much go through history as far back as you can and the by far biggest atrocities have been committed by states or similar organizations. Power must be watched and kept in check.

Since I'm now in NY I'll just give a very short version of a local story where law enforcement caught a terrorist. Well, to be more accurate, the state created a terrorist out of a person who wanted nothing to do with it but eventually - after months of pressure by a convicted criminal (informant) - went along with laundering money for profit that he could use for something entirely unrelated to terrorism. So the state had the option of a) engaging with the community and try to spread a good philosophy and advocate peace, civility, civil rights etc, or it could b) take an innocent person and make that person a terrorist supporter only to then punish him to set an example, thereby further eroding what little trust the NYPD had left. Obviously news headlines were telling us all that we are now safer because they caught another terrorist.

And that's not the only example of ridiculous "law enforcement" in the US.

So, 'no', I really don't think the US is dealing with it the right way. Some agencies in some areas are, others are not. By and large it's a very very dangerous game being played when civil liberties go out the window. Very dangerous.

johnheath said:

And while this is going on the problem will rise and only the future can tell us where it will end but I can tell you that it doesn't look good.

Regards

/John

Click to expand...

I too think there will get worse before it gets better. But I think the solution ultimately lies in a much better education upon arrival by refugees, as well as offering real opportunities where possible. They need to be taught what the Swedish legal system is, how our culture is different especially concerning equal rights for women and what that actually means in practice, and how to navigate socially in our culture. It really shouldn't take too long to do, although I'm sure resources (people) are hard to find. Volunteers might be the only way to make it happen. And I also think that as far as opportunities go Swedes need to be honest and realize that for some people it's going to be a lot harder getting a job simply because of the ethnicity of the applicant. We don't want to hear that but it's true unfortunately.

johnheath said:

Thank you Dave

Yes the long history of proclaimed neutrality is of course affecting the governments state of mind and it is very cute on papers, but to me there is no such thing as neutrality. For example… during the WW2 the social democratic government let german troops pass through sweden to fight the russians in the north, they sold millions of tons of steel to the germans and probably many more acts of "support" that we don't even know about.

Click to expand...

Like the spying on the USSR sending data over to the US during the cold war while Palme was out demonstrating against the US' involvement in Vietnam......

I agree with you, and despite Sweden's "neutrality" it's been surprisingly "pragmatic".... for lack of more misleadingly neutral terms.

johnheath said:

another problem that is facing the soceity is that people and politicians in general tend to wake up too late… after the sh*t hits the fan. There is a lot of discussions among normal people that they fear that something really nasty must happen before a more reality based action will be taken against extremists and others that are fighting the social life in sweden… what that is is a pure guessing for most people… but also this is where opposite extremists are born which in itself is a tragedy.


Regards

/John

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you. Without picking sides, I find the following really interesting (it's a personal anecdote and reflection):

I was awake at night many moons ago listening to news on radio, and there was a piece about a radio station called "Radio Islam" being anti-semitic. And it was. Clearly so. But in this one episode the host(s) had invited a Swedish neo-nazi to voice his support against Jews. My thought at the time was "Well that's incredibly stupid; if you're a Muslim in Sweden, do you really expect these neo-Nazis to stop at Jews after Sweden has gotten rid of them?" And of course they wouldn't have.

And so only last year I think we had a statement from one of the leading Sweden Democrat politicians saying that Jews weren't really Swedish, which along with the rest of their rhetoric is really worrying. But again, I found it ironic in that people got so upset about it as well as surprised; ironic because it was the reverse of what happened before - an agreement on excluding or working against one group of people, brown non-ethnic Swedes in this latter case, thinking that it would end there. Of course these people (SD) won't be satisfied with tossing all Muslims and all brown Swedes out, because the basic philosophy is rotten. Just as was the philosophy of the hosts of "Radio Islam".

So, yes, I agree. I suppose it's a fine line between freedom of expression and political campaigning on not so flattering platforms and on the other hand actually violating the law.

Yes, I have made the same reflection about how many muslims in Sweden have a fundamental issue with the jewish population and they are really open with it as well. They tend to listen to neo-nazi thoughts about it and I do not know what they believe will happen in the end.

But, also, we have a situation that when a muslim is being hateful to a jewish person nobody seems to react… but if a sweden democrat just as much touch that subject media goes insane and they will report about it for days. I am not a fan of either side… I simply want my old sweden back where all religions and political point of views could be discussed in the open.

Today we tend to have a fear of discussing "ill meant" thoughts from muslims regarding… separated open hours for men and women at swimming halls, muslim men and women that refuse to shake hands with the opposite sex, areas where none muslims are being harassed just because they are not muslims and much more and to me this is also some sort of racism if not a self appointed regulation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion… growing in a so called democratic country.

I hear a lot of stories from christian immigrants that are forced to move from certain parts of a town because they are being harassed by their muslim neighbors… and the society is doing nothing about it… One should remember that this how it all started in Germany in the 30's or in former Yugoslavia in the early 90's

johnheath said:

Yes, I have made the same reflection about how many muslims in Sweden have a fundamental issue with the jewish population and they are really open with it as well. They tend to listen to neo-nazi thoughts about it and I do not know what they believe will happen in the end.

But, also, we have a situation that when a muslim is being hateful to a jewish person nobody seems to react… but if a sweden democrat just as much touch that subject media goes insane and they will report about it for days.

Click to expand...

But to be fair here we have to acknowledge that there's a huge difference between individuals being hateful and politicians being hateful. The latter have the actual power to legislate highly discriminatory policies whereas the former does not.

johnheath said:

Today we tend to have a fear of discussing "ill meant" thoughts from muslims regarding… separated open hours for men and women at swimming halls, muslim men and women that refuse to shake hands with the opposite sex, areas where none muslims are being harassed just because they are not muslims and much more and to me this is also some sort of racism if not a self appointed regulation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion… growing in a so called democratic country.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand. The things you bring up I've even seen from here in the US, reading Scandinavian news. Where is it not brought up and discussed? I mean, I feel I've seen topics like this every two weeks or so. And let's be careful with the term "racism" because it doesn't apply to religion.

johnheath said:

I hear a lot of stories from christian immigrants that are forced to move from certain parts of a town because they are being harassed by their muslim neighbors… and the society is doing nothing about it… One should remember that this how it all started in Germany in the 30's or in former Yugoslavia in the early 90's

Click to expand...

Sure, but then let's also be fair and acknowledge that people with foreign sounding names have been suffering from discrimination for years and years, even decades. It goes back further than the recent influx of Muslim refugees. So the integration problem goes both ways.

And again, if you want to talk about Germany leading up to WWII then we should remember again that the problem was a government and its policies, not just a subset of the total population.

Today we tend to have a fear of discussing "ill meant" thoughts from muslims regarding… separated open hours for men and women at swimming halls, muslim men and women that refuse to shake hands with the opposite sex, areas where none muslims are being harassed just because they are not muslims and much more and to me this is also some sort of racism if not a self appointed regulation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion… growing in a so called democratic country.

Click to expand...

As an  "immigrant" to France myself, I have strong views on immigration.

The most essential requirement is that you must love the country you have chosen to live in and you must like and respect their way of life.  If you cannot do this because of your traditions or religion then don't go there!

France defends its freedoms very well (which is why it is attacked more than other countries).  I admire France and what it stands for, if you love France, it will love you.

Any country that makes exceptions for special ethnic or religious  groups is asking for trouble.  It will never work to allow a state within a state, it just breeds apartheid and division.

Any immigrant who cannot shake hands with someone else, or who thinks women are second class citizens or who allows FGM on their daughters, is not fit for modern western democracy and they should " f**k off to where they came from", to quote the Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam.

DaveP

MattiasNYC - I cannot make it work this with inserting quotes so I will try to answer in general.

First: This stupid tactics by only observing is not a good tactic… it is ridicule. And what kind of civil liberties do you suggest these IS-murderers should have?

Let me ask you a rhetoric question: If I would join a neo-nazi gang and randomly started to attack people without reason other than that I don't like them… and later I start a civil war in which me and my buddies starts to rape in a industrial way, beheading of children and all the things I don't even want to mention here… Do you think I could get away with it by claiming that I personally did not do anything…. I was there but I did not do anything… I wore their uniform and drove the cars and ate together with them but I did not do anything? My guess is that … If I am there I am participating and therefore my civil liberties are used… no more freedom for me?

Second: The issues with separated opening hours and what not is not being discussed… it will result in an article in the local news and the next week it is silent. But the new opening hours remains. Actually the police hired a civilian passport controller (he is a muslim) and he, as a representative of the swedish police, refused to shake hands with women and there was an avalanche of complaints about it all, but all that happened was that some executive from HR one week later explained that "he now greats women in another special way"… Oh, sorry now I see - in a special way you say? This way of giving way for these ideas is an educational question but education must go hand in hand with some sort of demands from the society, like DaveP says. If you don't like it here… you don't have to come here in the first place.

Third: I KNOW how the swedish police approach these problems (being a police officer myself for 12 Yrs within different branches). I will tell you that it is a far greater risk of  him leaving the country when he is free to move rather being locked up. And further - there is no way that I can accept murderers to move freely within a society (see above statement).

Fourth: Being careful with the use of the word "Racism"… does it include being careful with the use of the word "racist"?

Fifth: Individual or politician? Well, to me the politician is also an individual and an individual can become a politician. Being hateful based just upon individual beliefs is noting we should accept in a democratic society… and please do not forget that we (in Sweden) have a lot of people ( in this specific example muslims) that doesn't approve with the way we live here and really would like to see their way of life being implemented into our society. For your knowledge we do have individuals that are politicians within the "Green party" that actually said: " Death penalty or not for atheists is a difficult question".

To me the most worrying thing about this debate is that it is only accelerating the segregation between immigrants and the people who try to live the "swedish way" if there is one?

One should really understand that if an immigrant wants to succeed in Sweden it is an fact really easy… free school, a very democratic legal system, health care, welfare and freedom…

Oh, I can go on for days with this, but it is clear to me that we really don't agree on this matter and I won't argue with you because I respect your point of view but if we push this further my guess is that we would have to call each other to have a further discussions, which I really would like. But here the answers would be too long

/John

DaveP said:

The most essential requirement is that you must love the country you have chosen to live in and you must like and respect their way of life.  If you cannot do this because of your traditions or religion then don't go there!

Click to expand...

I think there are a few things worth noting regarding the above though.

Firstly, a lot of people end up in new countries not because that was their primary choice, but because it was the best they could do in a terrible situation. So if you get a bunch of refugees from the middle east or some other sh!thole it's mostly not because they wanted to abuse your society but because they're trying to save their lives and the lives of their loved ones. So while I agree that immigrants who have a reasonable choice should probably like and respect where they're going, that certainly won't apply to all people. I'm incredibly lucky to have been born in a nation at peace, lived my life mostly in a nation not at war, and even now when I'm in a nation at war that war is taking place far far away. So, for giggles, imagine that every day you're fearing not just a bomb killing your loved ones and maiming you, but getting captured and tortured etc, and you flee to where you can be safe, and you're then told you have to love that country or else f-off. Your priority is probably not dying, not not loving a new country.

Secondly I don't entirely disagree with your feelings about it all, but I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. On the one hand we have pretty obvious things like obeying the law. Clearly if you can't just grope women without their consent then... well, you can't. Accepting that is a no-brainer, just as we accept the laws in the countries we emigrate to. But on the other hand those very laws also give a lot of leeway in free societies, leeway in how we live our lives. So it's actually very common for people to bring with them their own customs and culture and integrate to some extent with the host country's population, but never 100%. So the question really becomes 'how many percent is sufficient?', and on the part of the nation 'at what point does even a large percentage become an issue because there are many immigrants?'. I'm bringing it up because a lot of times people (not you) end up not having a problem with pizza, kebab, jeans or whatever a new culture brings with it, yet when it touches on other cultural aspects it's a horrible thing apparently. It's a problem because this "leeway" I mentioned typically doesn't make narrow distinctions between what's fine or not. I think France is probably more protective of its culture than other nations actually.

DaveP said:

Any country that makes exceptions for special ethnic or religious  groups is asking for trouble.  It will never work to allow a state within a state, it just breeds apartheid and division.

Click to expand...

There's a fair amount of that in the US, yet the US is frequently held up as a beacon of freedom. It's an interesting topic that we can't reduce to a mere sentence, or even paragraph, in my opinion.

DaveP said:

Any immigrant who cannot shake hands with someone else, or who thinks women are second class citizens or who allows FGM on their daughters, is not fit for modern western democracy and they should " f**k off to where they came from", to quote the Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam.

DaveP

Click to expand...

And while I agree with the above in a general sense it only leads us to the issue of laws and individual freedom. So while it's reasonable to state the above as a westerner, what's the solution? Do we force people to shake hands? I don't think that's really a way forward because it seems like such a trivial thing for a state to legislate that one wonders what would be next. Do we make illegal the discrimination when shaking hands, meaning that if one shakes the hands of men one has to shake the hands of women? Well, that's still a relatively questionable law to write and I think hard to enforce. Not to mention that the solution for misogynists is to not shake anybody's hand in public.

So again, a lot of this is stuff we agree upon since we have the same background, but from a practical standpoint from the perspective of the state enforcing it is a huge problem. And then if the solution is "don't let them in" you'll have to define "them" somehow, which only opens the door to other 'issues'.........

Like I said, I don't entirely disagree with your sentiments, I just don't think the solution is as easy as what you say make it seem it is.

johnheath said:

MattiasNYC - I cannot make it work this with inserting quotes so I will try to answer in general.

First: This stupid tactics by only observing is not a good tactic… it is ridicule. And what kind of civil liberties do you suggest these IS-murderers should have?

Click to expand...

You're not thinking about this the right way in my opinion. The question isn't only what an individual deserves according to you or me, but what a state does. I asked you if these people, IS soldiers, are breaking any laws in Sweden, and you didn't answer. If they did, then it's clear that action can be taken, but if they did not then action cannot be taken - unless you are in favor of a secret police that does what it wants without following the law. In other words, if you want to invoke Germany in the 30's as a cautionary tale then the latter doesn't sound like the right move.

johnheath said:

Let me ask you a rhetoric question: If I would join a neo-nazi gang and randomly started to attack people without reason other than that I don't like them… and later I start a civil war in which me and my buddies starts to rape in a industrial way, beheading of children and all the things I don't even want to mention here… Do you think I could get away with it by claiming that I personally did not do anything…. I was there but I did not do anything… I wore their uniform and drove the cars and ate together with them but I did not do anything? My guess is that … If I am there I am participating and therefore my civil liberties are used… no more freedom for me?

Click to expand...

The above seems more like an emotional response than a rational one. Again, we have to make a choice between either having a society in which we have rule of law, or we don't have that. In your above question, which I guess  is hypothetical and not rhetorical, if you join a neo-nazi gang and commit crimes (attack people) then as long as there's evidence of course you should be brought to justice. The same is true for these IS fighters living in Sweden. If they break Swedish laws they should be brought to trial. Simple.

Your second question is much more difficult. If you wear a uniform and work for a regime that is engaged in war I'm sure that there are laws regarding that as well. If your regime is guilty of war crimes then you can be dragged to tribunals. Happens regularly on our planet.

The question regarding civil liberties really has a lot to do with putting restraints on the state. We have due process to protect civil liberties in and by themselves, but also to ensure that the verdict we reacch is correct. So, if we skip a thorough legal process and jump straight to the verdict and punishment, we no longer can be certain of guilt. We simply don't punish people based on "I was told by this guy that he heard from secret police this guy is guilty of something". That's the way we've tried to set up our western democratic socieities. So again, there's a huge risk in having a state leaving that behind. As a matter of fact, what is one huge problem with all these sh!tty states in the middle east? It's that they lack a consistent rule of law, and that many of the rules they have essentially violate human rights, the latter which is cloely associated with civil rights.

johnheath said:

Second: The issues with separated opening hours and what not is not being discussed… it will result in an article in the local news and the next week it is silent. But the new opening hours remains.

Click to expand...

The issue with different opening hours is something that should be brought to court then.

johnheath said:

Third: I KNOW how the swedish police approach these problems (being a police officer myself for 12 Yrs within different branches). I will tell you that it is a far greater risk of  him leaving the country when he is free to move rather being locked up. And further - there is no way that I can accept murderers to move freely within a society (see above statement).

Click to expand...

But why is "him leaving the country" a "risk"? Isn't that what you want? I'd rather press charges against someone and have them flee abroad than do nothing. And I'd also rather have that happen than adopt some 'flexible' system where laws no longer apply.

As for you not accepting murderers moving freely; so what are you going to do about it? If you know someone is guilty of breaking Swedish laws then bring them to justice. If not, who gives you the right to act without the support of Swedish legislation - especially as a police officer? The best thing you can do is lobby for a change in the legislation if this is an issue.

johnheath said:

Fourth: Being careful with the use of the word "Racism"… does it include being careful with the use of the word "racist"?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. Being anti-Islam doesn't make one a "racist" and it doesn't even make one an "Islamophobe". I think that in many cases people that are anti-Islam actually are racist and Islamophobes, but those three terms don't mean the same thing.

johnheath said:

Fifth: Individual or politician? Well, to me the politician is also an individual and an individual can become a politician. Being hateful based just upon individual beliefs is noting we should accept in a democratic society… and please do not forget that we (in Sweden) have a lot of people ( in this specific example muslims) that doesn't approve with the way we live here and really would like to see their way of life being implemented into our society. For your knowledge we do have individuals that are politicians within the "Green party" that actually said: " Death penalty or not for atheists is a difficult question".

Click to expand...

You're talking about Yasri Khan or? He's no longer with that party so clearly something is working from your perspective. His biggest problem by far was with communicating clearly and effectively as a politician. If you're thinking specifically about something earlier this year, in April I believe, you'll actually hear him answer the literal question with a clear "No", which is pretty much ignored in some circles. Unfortunately his larger point which got lost was that religion is subject to interpretation, and that not all regimes who do things in the name of religion really have that as a motivation but rather it's power that motivates them and religion is merely an excuse. It's an important point to make if it essentially justifies him DISagreeing with killing atheists. (and btw, I'm wondering if they're talking about apostasy, which is a different matter from just killing atheists).

--- as an aside I can tell you that in the US Atheists are trusted less than Muslims by the general public, and in case you missed it the Democratic party leadership tried to figure out if Bernie Sanders was an Atheist so they could spread that information because he'd lose voters. So this distaste for Atheism isn't limited to nutty Muslims in the middle east but also exists very much in the predominantly Christian and "free" USA.

But anyway I really don't understand how we go about "not accepting" being hateful based on individual beliefs. We're human beings. I'm all for educating hate away, but it seems awfully hard. I'm not sure what else we can do.

johnheath said:

Oh, I can go on for days with this, but it is clear to me that we really don't agree on this matter and I won't argue with you because I respect your point of view but if we push this further my guess is that we would have to call each other to have a further discussions, which I really would like. But here the answers would be too long

/John

Click to expand...

Fair enough...

John,
I had trouble with the quotes too, this is how I do it.
Select the quote and copy and paste in the box.  Then select it again in the box and click the quote button. Done!

Matt,
Switzerland had the same problem with school kids refusing to shake hands or sit next to girls but they enforced it.  It may seem a trivial matter but it should be enforced because it strikes at the heart of social cohesion.  If you are allowed to treat girls as inferior then what is to stop you abusing women when you are older, the lesson is never learned.

Muslim refugees could have gone to several other muslim countries that were not at war, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, even Iran possibly, but they didn't, they chose Christian countries instead.  I think they did this for economic reasons which they put above their religious feelings.  Having made that choice then they are duty bound to conform to the social behaviour of the country which is supporting them.

DaveP

As I said …longer and longer answers here…

I will try to add up some of my statements (as good as I can in english) 

Is-fighters are not within a regime … they are a bunch of criminal murderers that travel around the world resting and recruiting in-between their destructive living in Syria and Iraq. If they obey the swedish laws is important but there is (even in Sweden) a law against terrorism including funding and other deeds aimed to support terrorism. And therefore the secret police should do whatever they can to stop these men and women from living in Sweden under a "secure flag". I guess it is a matter of opinion if a state should fight people like this or not or claim that they have equal rights as long as they obey the law in that specific country in which at the moment live.

My comparison to the "neo-nazi gang" is that if that would be the case the state (or Sweden) would do whatever they could to eliminate this gang… therefore the comparison is adequate.

And about Yasri Khan… he is still active within the party - he just had to leave the parliament. There is a lot that could be said about him and many more that are active in that party that is kind of scary if you have a rudimental interest in having a democracy.


/John

johnheath said:

As I said …longer and longer answers here…

I will try to add up some of my statements (as good as I can in english) 

Is-fighters are not within a regime … they are a bunch of criminal murderers that travel around the world resting and recruiting in-between their destructive living in Syria and Iraq. If they obey the swedish laws is important but there is (even in Sweden) a law against terrorism including funding and other deeds aimed to support terrorism. And therefore the secret police should do whatever they can to stop these men and women from living in Sweden under a "secure flag". I guess it is a matter of opinion if a state should fight people like this or not or claim that they have equal rights as long as they obey the law in that specific country in which at the moment live.

Click to expand...

But if it can be proven that they're terrorists then we agree they should be brought to trial. It just sounds to me that the secret police thinks they're IS fighters but that they don't have enough to convict them. My argument isn't that it's better to let IS fighters walk around freely in Sweden, my argument is that there should be an equal burden of proof for everyone, and as such some will not be convicted of crimes they are guilty of. But the alternative is risking punishing the innocent.

johnheath said:

My comparison to the "neo-nazi gang" is that if that would be the case the state (or Sweden) would do whatever they could to eliminate this gang… therefore the comparison is adequate.

Click to expand...

Is that really true though? Didn't we have plenty of neo-nazi's in Sweden over the post WWII decades? I mean, they demonstrate pretty regularly. They may go by different names at times but they're still there, and they still beat up people every now and then. I don't see any special treatment since their crimes are committed in Sweden - unless you're saying these non-Swedes are going unpunished for crimes in Sweden based on policy.

johnheath said:

And about Yasri Khan… he is still active within the party - he just had to leave the parliament. There is a lot that could be said about him and many more that are active in that party that is kind of scary if you have a rudimental interest in having a democracy.


/John

Click to expand...

Well, all I've seen so far seems to be pretty benign as far as different cultural preferences go. He explained he was against the killing of atheists in Saudi Arabia and people made a big thing about him not keeping the answer simplistic. Of course they'd make a big thing about it, how could they not... He's bad at politics apparently.

What else he's said or done that's been controversial I must have missed. But I'm open to hearing about any propositions by politicians like him, propositions that would fundamentally change Sweden. So far I can't recall hearing a single one.

But here's the thing though John, if you're truly worried about politicians in Sweden moving towards policies that are reminiscent of Germany of the 30's etc, then shouldn't you be worried about Sverigedemokraterna? They're the ones arguing for registering race or ethnicity or as a euphemism 'original nationality', and are also the ones playing fast and loose with the term "nationality". They're the ones making who is or is not Swedish a big thing. I have friends who have adopted children from abroad, and I have friends who have one foreign parent, and according to SD they're all non-Swedish.

It's a dangerous mindset within a party that holds roughly 14% public support now, as opposed to some possible future political movement.

Yes, you have a lot of logical and good points.

About the "think" or "know" about these IS-fighters I wrote that the secret police "confirms" that the two men I was referring to have been fighting for IS and are now well and sound living in Sweden on 100% welfare… This we know. And this is one of the problems… while the state and the legal system is "observing" normal people must deal with these persons in their private lives. Not a good signal to the people… and this is also a fundamental reason for the growth of the sweden democrats ( I stick to their name if someone else is following this thread and don't know what SD stands for )

Most of my friends are immigrants in one way or another (first generation that is) and we often discuss politics. One of my best friends said about the green party with all their comments of legalization of muslim ideas and what not that …"they don't want me any harm"… I countered by saying…"well, the sweden democrats don't want me any harm, but do you think that is a proper way to deal with this"… meaning that if you want to cut extremist ideas you will have to do it in both ends. He said that I was right and apologized about it.

I am not fishing for a "win" in a discussion because that is loosing itself, but many times I find that people tend to feel where they stand and then correct their answer accordingly without looking at the whole picture.

We have had a very open mindset about immigrations and equal rights in sweden for such a long time now that people have been blind speed the last five years when there has been a huge increase in the immigrant flow and mostly it is all funded with welfare which is causing extremist thoughts to rise in both ends… this is my worry… no balance what so ever.

About the neo-nazis in Sweden that had their peak during the late 80's were no real threat in that sense that they mostly were a small ill-organized group of angry young men… today they are estimated to be at most a couple of hundreds while the number of muslims who would like to see Sweden as a muslim country outnumbers those neo-naziz by the thousands and yet thousands and still growing. But still the leading politicians tend to focus on those hundreds of neo-nazis that nobody is listening to anyway… which in itself is a good thing to me.

Polltician tend to forget that their job is to serve the people instead for themselves… It is like this forum… If you want a solution… identify the problem first.

/John

mattiasNYC said:

And again, if you want to talk about Germany leading up to WWII then we should remember again that the problem was a government and its policies, not just a subset of the total population.

Click to expand...

I see the "not just" in his sentence, but seriously? Oops!