The Student Room Group

Sweden makes it illegal to criticise immigration?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fullofsurprises
Call a shovel a shovel. UKIP is a race party that harbours racists. Voting for them in the upcoming Euro elections is voting for a race party.

UKIP is a party that runs thousands of no-hoper candidates. In many areas they will simply be anyone who happens to sign up and is willing to put down their deposit (iirc £50 for a local council seat, though it may have gone up to £500 at some point). Almost all of these "embarrassing stories" come from such people, and they're always immediately expelled.

If you judge parties on the beliefs of their strangest and most embarrassing small-time activists, deliberately cherry-picked from a larger sample, rather than the statements of their leadership or actual manifestos, when are you going to start criticising the fuddy-duddy Lib Dems' active support of and involvement in terrorism? Or Labour's celebration of Margaret Thatcher's death?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
Then why did we bring 100,000 French soldiers off the beaches of Dunkirk in May/June 1940?

Then why did we have 228,000 Polish soldiers under British military command by the end of WWII?

Then why were there 162,339 people of Polish birth living in Britain at the time of the 1951 census?

Then why did we have to lock up more than 22,000 enemy aliens who were already here when war broke out?

Then why did we invite 1,500,000 Americans onto our shores between 1942-4?


While I see your point, they were fighting to stop foreigners gaining sovereignty over this country. There was no suggestion that these soldiers could vote, and 162k Poles weren't going to swing elections.

I'm sympathetic to immigration myself, but it must be recognised that taking the best and the brightest, and being aggressively colonised, are only differences of quantity. Most people, on both sides of the public debate on this issue, realise this instinctively, which is why almost no one favours radical policies like completely open borders. Instead they haggle over numbers and exact qualifications. What UKIP is proposing to do - impose the same barriers to entry on >90% white area that we impose on the rest of the world - is hard to describe as racist, and if you think it's intrinsically immoral to bar people in that way, why isn't it intrinsically immoral to bar the hundreds of millions of Indians, Africans, and Chinese who would move if they could?
Original post by This Is Matt
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/04/sweden-makes-it-illegal-to-criticize-immigrants-on-the-internet/

From Christmas 2014 criticising immigration in Sweden will be outlawed.

Is this one further step of free speech eroded? It's similar to North Korea where it's illegal to criticise the leader.


Free speech free speech. Brainless creatures like you shouldn't get out of bed in the morning
Original post by Observatory
While I see your point, they were fighting to stop foreigners gaining sovereignty over this country. There was no suggestion that these soldiers could vote, and 162k Poles weren't going to swing elections.

I'm sympathetic to immigration myself, but it must be recognised that taking the best and the brightest, and being aggressively colonised, are only differences of quantity. Most people, on both sides of the public debate on this issue, realise this instinctively, which is why almost no one favours radical policies like completely open borders. Instead they haggle over numbers and exact qualifications. What UKIP is proposing to do - impose the same barriers to entry on >90% white area that we impose on the rest of the world - is hard to describe as racist, and if you think it's intrinsically immoral to bar people in that way, why isn't it intrinsically immoral to bar the hundreds of millions of Indians, Africans, and Chinese who would move if they could?


My comment wasn't a comment about modern day immigration but an answer to a nonsense point about the war aims of WWII.

The UKIP problem is this.

It is led by people for whom membership of the EU is the key political argument of the era. That is why you get Farage's nonsense comments about Putin and the Ukraine. Everything they see and do is seen through the prism of hating Brussels.

That attracts racists who see non-whites' presence in the UK as being the key political issue. For the last 13 years or so that hatred for non-whites has been channelled largely as a hatred of Muslims but in reality it is a hatred of non-whites. Before 9/11 the same people who now rail on about Muslims went on about "Asians" or "blacks".

As membership of the EU has led to a large amount of immigration from Eastern Europe, UKIP's policies have attracted these racists and Farage has done little or nothing to weed them out at an early stage and he is now reaping the consequences.

If you look at that man's tweets. He is telling a man born in this country of Commonwealth, not EU, parents to go and live in a "black country" if he doesn't like it here, which he personifies as a white country. That is racism, not a position taken about EU or any other immigration.

Farage has got smaller groups of homophobes and misogynists who present a similar, but smaller, problem.

However, his biggest problem is that he has attracted extremely large numbers of "rose tinted spectacle wearers" who wish to return to a vision of Britain as they perceive it used to be. They may be incidentally racist, but they are primarily anti-modernist. They are the face of political Nimbyism. What it means is that UKIP may adopt populist positions on individual issues but there can never be a coherent policy of the whole.
Original post by Observatory
UKIP is a party that runs thousands of no-hoper candidates. In many areas they will simply be anyone who happens to sign up and is willing to put down their deposit (iirc £50 for a local council seat, though it may have gone up to £500 at some point). Almost all of these "embarrassing stories" come from such people, and they're always immediately expelled.

If you judge parties on the beliefs of their strangest and most embarrassing small-time activists, deliberately cherry-picked from a larger sample, rather than the statements of their leadership or actual manifestos, when are you going to start criticising the fuddy-duddy Lib Dems' active support of and involvement in terrorism? Or Labour's celebration of Margaret Thatcher's death?


The difference is that, love 'em or hate 'em, NuLab and Lib Dumbs don't have a platform to take us back into a little Englander, xenophobic mentality, which is pretty clearly where Farage is coming from - which is why so many soppy little racists are attracted to UKIP in the first place.

What's really annoying about all the apologists for UKIP is that they refuse to look squarely at what the party really is. It isn't just some random collection of nutjobs that have accidentally ragtagged along without being checked over enough, as Farage would like us to believe, it is a core activity of the party to be that way.

Alan Sked, the original founder of the party, has repeatedly described Farage and the party generally as racist and as having much in common with the BNP.

According to others, Farage used to describe people of colour in private by use of the 'n' word.

It's all pretty clear.

People are angry with the existing parties and rightly so, but it will be very sad if they turn that anger into voting for a bunch of neo-fascist headbangers, which alas, is looking increasingly likely.
Even though I like immigration I'm not sure what good outlawing criticism will do. You can't change how people think/feel. Sounds like their government doesn't like criticism towards their policies in general.
Original post by nulli tertius
My comment wasn't a comment about modern day immigration but an answer to a nonsense point about the war aims of WWII.

I think that the war aims of WWII do substantially line up with the 'sovereigntist' view: separate liberals democracy in other countries, and at home. Saying that WWII Britain supported open immigration because it let the American army billet in Kent is much more of a nonsense argument.

The UKIP problem is this.

It is led by people for whom membership of the EU is the key political argument of the era. That is why you get Farage's nonsense comments about Putin and the Ukraine. Everything they see and do is seen through the prism of hating Brussels.

I think that was a tactical point, although it's interesting to contrast it with the views of those on the other side of the aisle who blame US foreign policy for 9/11, etc. The strength of the two arguments to me is pretty much the same, and while I don't agree with either my sense is that it's seen as perfectly respectable to make the latter argument.

That attracts racists who see non-whites' presence in the UK as being the key political issue. For the last 13 years or so that hatred for non-whites has been channelled largely as a hatred of Muslims but in reality it is a hatred of non-whites. Before 9/11 the same people who now rail on about Muslims went on about "Asians" or "blacks".

I think there are a lot more people who object to Islam than to Asians and blacks, and this isn't unreasonable. Islam is an ideology, not a genetic trait.

As membership of the EU has led to a large amount of immigration from Eastern Europe, UKIP's policies have attracted these racists and Farage has done little or nothing to weed them out at an early stage and he is now reaping the consequences.

Please do realise that people from Eastern Europe are not a different race to Farage or the vast majority of UKIP voters. Immigration favouritism to the EU in fact has enormous "adverse impact" in favour of whites.

If you look at that man's tweets. He is telling a man born in this country of Commonwealth, not EU, parents to go and live in a "black country" if he doesn't like it here, which he personifies as a white country. That is racism, not a position taken about EU or any other immigration.

Yes it is, and this man is a small time activist who became a candidate because he was the one in his neighbourhood who could be bothered to apply for his little purple badge. Such people and worse exist in the big three parties. Their views don't represent what that party would do once in office.

However, his biggest problem is that he has attracted extremely large numbers of "rose tinted spectacle wearers" who wish to return to a vision of Britain as they perceive it used to be. They may be incidentally racist, but they are primarily anti-modernist. They are the face of political Nimbyism. What it means is that UKIP may adopt populist positions on individual issues but there can never be a coherent policy of the whole.

I agree here. Aside from the EU and immigration, UKIP has picked up a lot of voters who would want Thatcher back and a lot of voters who would want Michael Foot. I don't think they can offer a complete manifesto without alienating at least a large minority of the supporters they've picked up.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The difference is that, love 'em or hate 'em, NuLab and Lib Dumbs don't have a platform to take us back into a little Englander, xenophobic mentality, which is pretty clearly where Farage is coming from - which is why so many soppy little racists are attracted to UKIP in the first place.

UKIP doesn't have any racist policies. If people wanted racist policies they could vote for the BNP, which openly advertises its racist policies. In fact the BNP vote has declined with the rise of UKIP, which suggests that the flow of voters is the other way.

What's really annoying about all the apologists for UKIP is that they refuse to look squarely at what the party really is. It isn't just some random collection of nutjobs that have accidentally ragtagged along without being checked over enough, as Farage would like us to believe, it is a core activity of the party to be that way.

Alan Sked, the original founder of the party, has repeatedly described Farage and the party generally as racist and as having much in common with the BNP.

According to others, Farage used to describe people of colour in private by use of the 'n' word.

It's all pretty clear.

It might be clear to you that unsourced statements and hearsay from someone's political enemies trump public manifestos and disciplinary actions, but it is not clear to me.

People are angry with the existing parties and rightly so, but it will be very sad if they turn that anger into voting for a bunch of neo-fascist headbangers, which alas, is looking increasingly likely.

People - at least a minority of them - are "angry" that there is no party that represents their views on immigration and the EU (which, given that most immigration is now from the EU, are practically the same issue). But your definition of "a bench of neo-fascist headbangers" seems to be a party that represents their views on immigration and the EU.

I have some sympathy - personally I'm anti-EU but pro-immigration, so I have my own problems with UKIP's platform - but to present them as some lunatic extremist party is a lot of nonsense.
Original post by clh_hilary
Why would saying something that's not true about someone not be libel?


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel
Original post by miser
Headline says 'illegal to criticise immigrants', not immigration.


Good point. In that context it's almost like the recent lenny henry tweet.

Could the ukip member tweet be said to be inciting racial hatred, or does it
stay within the realms of freedom of speech; albeit possibly marginally.
Original post by Birkenhead


So if they publish that that would be libel. It'd obviously damage the reputation of said immigrant.

Not sure in what way it would not be libel?
Original post by nathan2k1
Good point. In that context it's almost like the recent lenny henry tweet.

Could the ukip member tweet be said to be inciting racial hatred, or does it
stay within the realms of freedom of speech; albeit possibly marginally.


After some attempted prosecutions on rather shaky ground failed in this area, the CPS went on to the back foot and are now reluctant to prosecute anyone for tweets unless they are really blatant. It's a shame, as one must suspect that UKIP are deliberately co-ordinating these 'accidental' tweets to stir up their vote immediately before the election.

It's no surprise that the EDL has given its support to UKIP. They are the pleasant face of contemporary racism, the nice chap in the beer garden mouthing soundbites about immigration numbers whilst secretly muttering about the ni****s.
When the amount of people are gettting educated on the "truth" and no longer believe the information the politians and progranda machines are pushing. They try to hard to discredit certain organisation or people has failed. The use of propoganda to tarnish a person who believes in that idea, so that one becauses afraid to speak out in public on that issue because they dont want others to judge them,is no longer working. Then the last resort is for the politians and powers at be, to just ban public from continue to sprending the truth. Then they can work on making the others believe that this is a still a "conspirary theory".

We see this in the

UK - Global Warming back. But now in the past decade the earth is shown to cool down the name has been changed to "climate change"
It is reported that Sceptical individuals are slightly MORE science literate than 'believers' in climate change.Even scientist whose job is to study this disagree with the publicised view of man made global warming. But we dont hear about them on mainsteam media.
So to shut them up Reddit banns comments from Global Warming Skeptics
UK Guardian and other newspapers sensors comments from gloabl warming skeptics
This is so recent, so many people would have remembered the media calling a bann on comments from climate change denier, calling these people who are against the contriversal belief as Global warming Nazi for not believing.

I believe the BBC will never show this documentary again "the great global warming Swindle". Because of the info has sparked the public who saw it to become skeptical of the info we are being presented. The conspirary theory for this push on the man made global warming idea back then was
1- politians want to introduce Co2 tax - basically a tax on breathing and making people want to depopulate the world, believing this will save the planet.
2- Also for corporations to sell and buy Co2 credits so they can pay to pollute our world, rather than investing in greener ways of doing things- as buying credits is cheaper.

Both of these things we have seen in recent years, happened. So in my opinion the BBC and other mainstream media would not broadcast any documentaries or have money to allocated to creat such documentaries that does not sopport the desired idea/story/lie.

USA - 911
From the start the powers at be have name any ideas of what really happened on that day as The people were told that these ideas which did not come from the governement were "conspirary theories" therefore just a theory. We already been nade to associate conspirary belivers as crackpots.
The named the policies that were introduced to give more power to the governement and rid of people of its freedom and rights as "patriot act". So if you questioned it, you was not a patriot. How clever is that. When the truth of being a patiot is to uphold the constitution.
Recently the US governement banned certain groups/ people from going to pay their respects at the 911 momorial service. This is inclusive of families of those who lost their lives that day.
In recent years, we have seen the president coming out to call for the public not to question the offical story, as this is hurtful and disrespectful to the victims families.
To get other ideas, accounts which are not in the mainstream media please watch In plane Sight 9/11
Original post by Old_Simon
Inspired by the EU no doubt.


Sweden is not in the EU.
Original post by joker12345
Ansutwly ridiculous. Free speech is free speech, barring perhaps personal abuse of a person or terror threats.


Not sure what "Ansutwly" means but free speech isn't unbridled. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. It is illegal in this country to incite ethnic or racial hatred, for example.

As for the original question, I haven't found a single reputable newspaper reporting on this "banning" of criticising immigrants. Why is no-one talking about it apart from some far-right papers?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by hexagonalRod
Sweden is not in the EU.


Sweden is in the EU. :yep: You were perhaps thinking of Norway?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union
Original post by andersonsophie_8


We see this in the

UK - Global Warming back. But now in the past decade the earth is shown to cool down the name has been changed to "climate change"



The earth did not cool in the last decade. This is a myth circulated by climate sceptic organisations who are funded by the oil, coal and gas industries. The earth has continued to warm. They were looking at local and regional, not global data.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

Original post by andersonsophie_8

So to shut them up Reddit banns comments from Global Warming Skeptics
UK Guardian and other newspapers sensors comments from gloabl warming skeptics


I doubt you are right about Reddit, as it is user contributed. You are definitely not right about the Guardian - anyone who posts regularly in comment threads there will see scores of climate sceptics spouting nonsense.

If anything, it is the right wing media and blogs in particular who censor anti views - a classic example is Guido Fawkes's 'Order Order' blog - almost every time he posts a climate sceptic view, his people block contrary statements of fact in the comment thread.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Sweden is in the EU. :yep: You were perhaps thinking of Norway?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Good point ty.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
After some attempted prosecutions on rather shaky ground failed in this area, the CPS went on to the back foot and are now reluctant to prosecute anyone for tweets unless they are really blatant. It's a shame, as one must suspect that UKIP are deliberately co-ordinating these 'accidental' tweets to stir up their vote immediately before the election.

It's no surprise that the EDL has given its support to UKIP. They are the pleasant face of contemporary racism, the nice chap in the beer garden mouthing soundbites about immigration numbers whilst secretly muttering about the ni****s.


I'm compelled to agree. I believe your talking about the "grossly" offensive criteria. Clearly an admission by the CPS that they don't have the staff, literally. As it stands though, I believe the more voters ukip get from the Tories the more that will benefit labour, perhaps then they could
concentrate on dismantling ukip after a successful election.
Original post by andersonsophie_8
....xxx...


Please bare with me while I tell the employees in my tin foil hat factory that they are in for some overtime.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you