sarjalim @ sarjalim @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

51

Joined

2 yr. ago

What are you on about, we were asked to have face masks on public transport, in grocery stores, in hospitals etc. Lots of selfish people refused to have the decency to protect others from themselves, but still.

We had worse outcomes compared to Norway, Finland, Denmark. Not necessarily due to the inability of people like you to wear masks, but nothing to brag about.

As a swede: your opinion is in the minority, and it's embarrassing that you have to invoke some sort of "Swedish superiority" mentality. Please stop importing the very worst ideas from the US.

I mean, that's possible. But I can view all the comment replies to a top-level comment (using any sorting) when using Jerboa instead of Connect. So this issue seems to be specific to Connect unfortunately!

I wrote as a top-level comment elsewhere here, but I can see some replies to a comment thread if I use Top sorting and another set of replies if I use Hot... if caching were the issue I don't think I'd be able to view different comment subthreads depending on sorting.

I had this issue in a recent comment thread. Weirdly, the "invisible" set of comments show up if I change sorting from Top to Hot for example, so I had to switch between sortings to answer different subcomment threads.

One particular reply I got, I couldn't see with either sorting: I could see it in my inbox but not view it in Connect. I had to use Jerboa to see and answer it. Very frustrating and strange.

Clarification: Jerboa shows all comment replies to a top-level comment using any sorting.

I think every member of society is entitled to a minimum level of respect. Some groups of people in society face more discrimination and harassment than others due to some common attribute they have, and my opinion is that they should be legally protected from that.

You are in your rights to think Islam is a cancer, you are free to protest Islam publicly, whenever and wherever. The difference is that your critique of Islam is legal and valid, but you can't target Muslims. Certain actions combined with a place and time can turn valid critique into incitement.

Sure, that's technically an issue, but not something that will probably ever become an issue in practice. Prosecutors who get a police report on their table evaluate the merit of the case and choose whether to dismiss it or prosecute it. So while this law could be abused because of a fuzzy definition of "creed"... It would have to be a very elaborate scheme where you'd have to fool both the public and the police that your case is within the spirit of the law, a prosecutor, and then finally a judge and five jurors (Sweden doesn't have a jury system with regular citizens), for extremely little gain? Swedish courts tend to be conservative with punishments and fines. Just wildly guessing here, but a normal fine amount for this type of crime could probably range from $500 to $5000, and this is not awarded to the defendant. There can be damages awarded as well, though damages are generally very unimpressive in Sweden and of similar amounts to fines. There are other problems with the wording of this law that I think are more egregious, I'm not under any illusion that it's a perfect law even though I agree with the sentiment and spirit.

The full law run through Google Translate:

Chapter 16, 8 § Anyone who, in a statement or in another message that is disseminated, threatens or expresses contempt for a national group or another such group of persons with allusions to race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender-transcending identity or expression, is sentenced for incitement against a national group to imprisonment for a maximum of two years or, if the crime is minor, to a fine.

Remember that, while the translation is actually very accurate imo, there are words that have a slightly different nuance in Swedish, and some words here that exist in Swedish but don't have a full equivalent in English. "National group" isn't very correct here as a translation of folkgrupp, and "creed" is an ok but not 100% translation of trosuppfattning. "Contempt" is close, but the nuance is a bit different in the original missaktning.

Some other issues: What is a "message"? What does "expresses contempt" mean here, what constitutes expressing contempt? Is a Quran burning a message, or does the context of the Quran burnings imply a message in this case? Where is the line drawn for "expressing contempt"?

Courts are very protective of the Swedish constitutional right to free speech, which is why the recent Quran burnings are characterized by many legal experts as legal and valid religious critique. But others instead argue that the main intent here was not to critique religion, it was to incite, provoke and disrespect.

It's a fuzzy line to walk, but there is a pretty high bar for sentencing something as incitement under the cited law, when it stands in opposition to the constitutional right to free speech.

I actually agree, it's a problem. As other people also argued here, the existing law is perhaps too fuzzy even though I personally agree with the sentiment (and do believe it is applicable as-is in the recent Quran cases).

Laws can sometimes be intentionally written broadly as to cover future unanticipated cases, but for the recent events it's not clear what is covered and what isn't covered. That has to be tried in court to set a precedent then, and that hasn't been done. And part of why it hasn't been done seems to be that the prosecutors are unsure of how their case will go in court, so they choose not to prosecute... At least that's how I have understood it.

I mean, as a fellow atheist I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that there are groups that are targeted (in Swedish society) specifically for their affiliation with a religion, their sexual orientation etc. Protesting religions is fine and IS protected speech.

But certain actions are only meant to provoke, disrespect and incite. The Iraqi guy is well within his rights to protest and criticize Islam; the question here is whether the manner of his "protest" was protected speech or if choosing that specific action, time and place for his protest, all taken together, tip the scales from valid and protected religious critique into something else. If the main intent was to incite, disrespect and provoke, it might not be protected speech.

That said, I'm not a fan of most religions. Specifically when religion is used as a justification to impose prescriptive and restrictive rules on others both within and outside of that religion (pro life, gender roles, prescriptive clothing like Muslim head coverings, prescriptive rules regarding birth control or sex, discrimination or persecution of LGBTQ people etc).

No problem. It's good to have well reasoned, civilized debates- we don't have to agree at the end!

I mean, that's a matter of personal opinion (and you are entitled to yours). Legality aside, I personally think some groups should have special protections as they are often targets of discrimination or harassment specifically because of their affiliation with a certain group. That includes race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender identity etc.

Of course, these people are also individually protected from harassment and discrimination through other laws as you say, but the incitement law protects them as a group and from being targeted in certain ways. You are allowed to publicly protest against Judaism, but not to publicly wear swastikas (a symbol of the horror of the Holocaust).

It would arguably be worse, since you are allowed to wear swastikas in private. You cannot wear them about town, that's legally considered a hate crime.

We already have that law, so the only thing up for debate is interpretation? Which legal experts are busy with debating now in public discourse in Swedish media, with no clear consensus except that it should be tried in court. I understand what you mean by slippery slope, but if everything is a slippery slope we would never be able to legislate anything. And let me remind you, both Sweden and the US have already imposed certain limits to the right to free speech. Defamation, for example, is not protected speech.

I disagree that a public school isn't a public place, but you're technically right. It doesn't really matter in the eyes of the Swedish law though, arguably it would be worse legally if the student had carved the swastika on a public playground outside, rather then in a semi-public spot in a school.

It's not my proposed idea, it's an actual, contemporary Swedish law which has existed since 1948. What is up for debate is how that law is to be interpreted in this instance, what constitutes "creed" (in, perhaps, a better translation of the original Swedish instead of "religious belief"), and what constitutes a "message" and whether burning a Quran is valid criticism of Islam or if doing it at that time and place is a hate crime targeting Muslims. It hasn't been tried in the Swedish supreme court whether Quran burning in certain contexts like the recent events is illegal under that law or not.

Technically, sure, you could argue that everything can be a religious belief/creed and any belief is covered under that law. But that is not how the law is interpreted and used in practice. I would consider that a strawman argument then, because it intentionally misrepresents the spirit of that law.

I'd mention that the mere act of burning a book that you yourself own is not any of those things

I'm actually going to be in Sweden next year for Eurovision, and I'm really looking forward to it!

Of course, I'd toast you over a rainbow drink while we watched the Quran burn along with the "God hates fags" flyers, some 1950s books on how to be a good wife, possibly the book of Mormon, Torah, a Bible, a Taylor Swift poster and Harry Potter for good measure in my back yard! Just perhaps not in front of an embassy, mosque, synagogue, church etc... Just to be on the safe side legally 😊 Very nice and refreshing debate climate, and I really hope you enjoy Eurovision!

Yes, it's definitely a very polarizing and personal question with no clear right or wrong. And I am also aware that there can be side effects to laws that unintentionally strike too broadly. It's vital to protect the constitutional laws that protect our democracies, and limit restrictions to those laws.

I personally think you as a gay person absolutely should be protected from harassment from groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. My opinion is that they have the right to think that "God hates fags", they have the right to say it, they have the right to proclaim it publicly (possibly; it depends), individuals might even have the right to say it to your face. What they shouldn't have, is the right to picket in front of your home, place of work or LGBTQ meeting spaces, or follow you around. Then it becomes harassment and persecution. And in Sweden, possibly illegal, if done in a manner and context that violates you as a member of a protected group.

I think that's a valid and reasonable limitation to free speech, but yes, it's murky waters. There's a lot of debate now (and no consensus) in Swedish media about the current limits to free speech and where the line should be drawn.

Ironically many of the people who are absolutist right now (we should always be allowed to burn Qurans everywhere every time, it's free speech, the Muslims have such thin skin) are often the same people who want to ban "trans story hour" for children in libraries 🤷‍♂️

I agree. You shouldn't be persecuted or harassed regardless of your religious beliefs, you should be equally protected regardless of if you are a Satanist, Wiccan, or whatever.

The actual wording of the law when translated from Swedish is closest to the English word "creed" I think, not "religious belief" as I wrote in my original comment, but I thought religious belief was a smidge clearer. I'm obviously not a native English speaker so I do my best.

And to further adress the "but what if I believe in My Little Pony would that count", I mean... the spirit of the law does matter to the judges, you'd have to make a very strong case as to why you and your three friends should count as a protected "group" and why dismembering My Little Pony figurines is necessarily incitement against your group. I'm 99% sure no prosecutor would take you seriously. But I don't know, I am not a legal practitioner. It's up to the prosecutors to decide if a case seems to have merit, and then it's up to the court to try what should and shouldn't count as incitement under the law.

Well spoken, I agree with almost everything you wrote.

As to your question regarding what other groups are protected under the same law:

[...] ethnic group or other such group of persons with reference to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation or transgender identity or expression [...]

While I understand your hesitation, I fully feel that there are some groups that should be especially protected from deliberate persecution and harassment. Sweden has had a huge influx of Muslim immigrants in recent years, and prejudice is rampant. I would argue that you are much more exposed and discriminated against as an Arab or Muslim in Sweden today, than as a Jew, LGBTQ person, or black person.

That said, Islamism has absolutely no place in a democracy and the undercurrents of conservatism in the world (Islamism, the Republican party in the US, pro life movement, anti-trans sentiments etc) scare me. We should never sustain rules or practices in society based on religious commandments, especially when those infringe on the rights of other groups. Sweden is deeply secular, and I firmly hope we remain so.

Let's separate a hate crime (incitement against ethnic group) from blasphemy laws- we definitely do not want blasphemy laws in Sweden. Critique against religions is protected free speech, as it should be.

What isn't protected, is your right to protest in EVERY way at EVERY place and EVERY time. Just like defamation laws are a specific reduction to the right to free speech, one can morally argue that if the intention of certain speech is to defame, grossly disrespect, provoke and incite certain protected groups of people, a reduction to the right to free speech is justified in certain contexts. I know lots of people disagree, all I'm saying is that there's an argument for limiting free speech in some contexts (which we already do).

Feel free to have a Quran barbecue in your own back yard, but don't throw a bacon-and-Quran barbecue in front of a mosque during Eid. You are also, certainly, allowed to criticize Islam wherever and whenever you want, that is protected speech. It's just no longer protected when the context, manner and purpose of an action or message tips the scales from critique to incitement or hate speech.

An example of someone who actually was convicted of incitement against ethnic groups in Sweden in 2020, was a junior high school student who carved a swastika into a desk. If that is covered under the incitement law, burning the Quran in the recent contexts should be too imo (in front of embassies to Muslim countries, or mosques during the biggest Muslim holiday).

America is extreme in it's own right with regards to free speech laws compared to the rest of the Western world. I respect that position, but don't agree with it.

No, it doesn't? Laws are interpreted by legal practitioners and judges, and the intentionality of the law is taken into account. One of the main intentions of this particular law is protecting Jews from persecution, and protecting Muslims from the same isn't a huge stretch. Sure, you could argue that invisible pink unicorn followers are a protected group, but no one would take you seriously in Sweden. You are arguing an extreme interpretation in bad faith.

Two reasons:

The law regulating what the police are allowed to forbid is very limited. They can deny permission for a demonstration due to traffic disruption, but not threats of terrorism or international relations. It's currently being debated in the Riksdag (the supreme legislative body).

Secondly, the police are in their rights to deny permission for protests/demonstrations that are clearly illegal for some reason. The legislation regulating incitement against ethnic groups (which Muslims are covered under) is fuzzy however, and this is mostly uncharted territory. Context matters for the letter of that law, in legalese the law forbids certain "verbal statements or messages" with a purpose to incite ethnic groups. But is burning the Quran a "message"? Arguably yes (imo) in this context, but it hasn't been tried.

There was a dismissed case tried in court with a Quran burning, but the context there was different. There have also been some police reports regarding other Quran burnings that were never prosecuted, because the prosecutors only put forth cases to trial that they are convinced that they can win (this is how the system is designed).

What we are waiting for is a case that fulfills, or seems to fulfill, the letter of the incitement law with regards to context, that will be prosecuted and tried in courts all the way up to the supreme court.

The previous Quran burning might fulfill those criteria (burned Quran outside a mosque during Eid). It has been reported to the police and we are waiting to see if the case will be brought to trial.