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?
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?
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.
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).
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"?
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".
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
Fair enough...