The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Judge refuses to deport Afghan men who gang-raped Swedish child

Scroll to see replies

Original post by MJlover
You actually don't make sense. The British killed more and enslaved more on a shorter time period.


Pretty well all the European-owned slaves were enslaved by other Africans; the Europeans didn't capture them, they bought them. And it was the British that made the trade illegal. Arabs carried on slaving until forced to stop by the Europeans over a century later, and then only grudgingly. You seem to be denying that there was a massive Arab trade in slaves.

Are you saying that, because the Arabs their slaving for longer, it was somehow a better thing?
Reply 121
Avatar for housat
housat
OP
5
Original post by Abstract_Prism
bait.jpg


Objectively true.

Sweden during the 90's was a paradise, crime has increased dramatically since immigration.
Original post by Underscore__
Your point makes zero sense. Someone committing a crime does not mean you should deport them to almost certain torture. Like for like punishment is moronic and archaic


Posted from TSR Mobile


a refugee who comes to European and rapes people forfeits their human rights as far as I am concerned.
Original post by Good bloke
Pretty well all the European-owned slaves were enslaved by other Africans; the Europeans didn't capture them, they bought them. And it was the British that made the trade illegal. Arabs carried on slaving until forced to stop by the Europeans over a century later, and then only grudgingly. You seem to be denying that there was a massive Arab trade in slaves.

Are you saying that, because the Arabs their slaving for longer, it was somehow a better thing?


I didn't deny anything. Actually plenty of Africans were kidnapped, and there was a vast difference in internal slavery and the brutal and murderous slavery of Europeans, where many died being transported to the Americas. There wasn't mutual racism amongst Africans firstly, and that is a huge factor. I think you and the other poster are very ignorant and have a racist agenda.

I am against racist slavery and the ideology behind it, at the very least Ottoman slavery was against difference races.
Original post by MJlover
I think you and the other poster are very ignorant and have a racist agenda.


Which is racist: to abhor slavery against anyone (as I do), or to believe slavery to have a sliding tariff of nastiness depending on the race of the victim and slaver )as you do)?
Original post by Good bloke
Which is racist: to abhor slavery against anyone (as I do), or to believe slavery to have a sliding tariff of nastiness depending on the race of the victim and slaver )as you do)?

Hello? When did I say I support racism etc? You are twisted and twisting things, it was only a few posts ago you were downplaying brutal European slavery!

You have no cause to argue, at all. I don't feel there is an argument to debate against, with you. Its all about protecting your own history with revisionism.

P.S. Quote me fully next time. Why are you hiding from my post?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by MJlover
Hello? When did I say I support racism etc? You are twisted and twisting things, it was only a few posts ago you were downplaying brutal European slavery!

You have no cause to argue, at all. I don't feel there is an argument to debate against, with you. Its all about protecting your own history with revisionism.

P.S. Quote me fully next time. Why are you hiding from my post?


I have never downplayed anything, unlike you who has repeatedly tried to make Arab slavery appear to be kind, non-existent, non-racist, not important or somehow better because it spread the misery across races or because they captured their own slaves and didn't buy them, or because it often didn't involve a sea journey. All slavery is abhorrent and brutal.

As for protecting my own history, I have never been involved in slavery, and condemn all forms of slavery. Presumably you are comfortable that Mohammed kept, captured and sold slaves and cannot bring yourself to condemn him for it.
Original post by NativesofEurope
a refugee who comes to European and rapes people forfeits their human rights as far as I am concerned.


Well thankfully you'll never hold government office, what you think is irrelevant but the law in this area is clear. What about a European who rapes another European, are their rights void in your eyes? Thankfully the defendants in this case only raped one person they still deserve human rights in your opinion.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
Well thankfully you'll never hold government office, what you think is irrelevant but the law in this area is clear. What about a European who rapes another European, are their rights void in your eyes? Thankfully the defendants in this case only raped one person they still deserve human rights in your opinion.


Posted from TSR Mobile


If a European rapes they cant be deported ..... so DERP!
Original post by NativesofEurope
If a European rapes they cant be deported ..... so DERP!


You didn't say non-Europeans should be deported, you said they should lose their human rights


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
You didn't say non-Europeans should be deported, you said they should lose their human rights


Posted from TSR Mobile


deportation and human rights are inextricably linked ..........DERP!
Original post by NativesofEurope
deportation and human rights are inextricably linked ..........DERP!


You said they should lose their human rights, that doesn't automatically mean they would be deported


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by NativesofEurope
a refugee who comes to European and rapes people forfeits their human rights as far as I am concerned.

The great thing about human rights is that they are inalienable.
Original post by Abstract_Prism
The great thing about human rights is that they are inalienable.


The realistic thing about them is that they depend almost entirely on where you are. If you are in North Korea you have none whatever. If you are a woman in Saudi Arabia you cannot even drive a car, lest it corrupts you. If you are a European you can use them to destroy the society that has given them to you, while if you are in Pakistan they depend on you not upsetting one of your neighbours.

Human rights are a societal construct and are no more inalienable than your head is to your body.
Original post by Good bloke
The realistic thing about them is that they depend almost entirely on where you are. If you are in North Korea you have none whatever. If you are a woman in Saudi Arabia you cannot even drive a car, lest it corrupts you. If you are a European you can use them to destroy the society that has given them to you, while if you are in Pakistan they depend on you not upsetting one of your neighbours.

Human rights are a societal construct and are no more inalienable than your head is to your body.


Human rights are entrenched in our constitution and while there is no set of worldwide binding human rights most of Europe derives their human rights from the convention so there is a large degree of uniformity


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Abstract_Prism
The great thing about human rights is that they are inalienable.


In that case you would agree that the people of Sweden have the right to deport foreign child rapists?

Of course you don't, you get more kudos from the rest of the left wing morons defending child rapists than you do from defending their victims.

But hey why worry, as long as its someone elses child getting raped virtue signal all you want.
Original post by Underscore__
Human rights are entrenched in our constitution and while there is no set of worldwide binding human rights most of Europe derives their human rights from the convention so there is a large degree of uniformity


But you said human rights are inalienable. You have now changed to people's rights in Europe are reasonably safe while we continue to have stable government, which is rather more realistic, but is rather a drastic difference, isn't it?
Original post by joe cooley
In that case you would agree that the people of Sweden have the right to deport foreign child rapists?


Can you show me where in the convention this right is mentioned please? How about a ruling from the court? (This is all rhetorical of course, there is no such human right obviously)

Original post by joe cooley
Of course you don't, you get more kudos from the rest of the left wing morons defending child rapists than you do from defending their victims.

But hey why worry, as long as its someone elses child getting raped virtue signal all you want.


It's funny how people are so in favour of removing human rights when it's not them that would suffer


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Good bloke
But you said human rights are inalienable. You have now changed to people's rights in Europe are reasonably safe while we continue to have stable government, which is rather more realistic, but is rather a drastic difference, isn't it?


When did I say human rights are inalienable? I think you're confusing me with someone else pal.

I wouldn't say human rights are inalienable, with the exception of the prohibition of torture. What I'm changing it to is 'people's rights in Europe are incredibly safe'


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
When did I say human rights are inalienable? I think you're confusing me with someone else pal.


You are quite right, I did confuse you with Abstract_Prism. Sorry.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you