| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Political correctness and dhimmitude in Sweden. From Jared Taylor at VDare, with thanks to Mea:
Sweden’s anti-hate speech laws have run amok, leading to a very worrying series of convictions—and non-convictions. More categories of people are entering the ranks of the “protected classes”—and recent cases have made it clear that these laws will not be enforced even-handedly.No prize for guessing who is protected and who is not....
Needless to say, Swedish laws prohibiting "hate speech" against racial minorities have been vigorously enforced. There have, for example, been a number of gang-rapes of Swedish women by Muslim immigrants. But Swedes must be careful what they say about them. On May 25, neo-Nazi Bjorn Bjorkqvist was convicted and sentenced to two months in prison for writing, "I don’t think I am alone in feeling sick when reading about how Swedish girls are raped by immigrant hordes." ["Jag tror inte jag är ensam om att må dåligt när jag läser om hur svenska tjejer har våldtagits av invandrarhorder"]
In another recent case, a man living in the Bunkeflo neighborhood of Malmo sent an e-mail message to public officials saying he believed most Arabs were criminals, and that he opposed subsidies for them to move into his neighborhood. "Bunkeflo," he wrote, "was one of the last few refuges in Malmo where you could go out and not see Arabs loitering all around you."
This man managed to avoid prison—but had to pay a fine of 10 percent of his pre-tax income. Given Sweden’s high taxation rate, this represented a figure of close to 20 percent of his actual income.
But the most spectacular case so far—and one completely ignored by American media—is that of Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel. [Send her mail.]
Earlier this year, she wrote an article called "I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man," for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet. [Jag tänker aldrig föda en vit man, April 11, 2004]
Rytel explained why she hates white men—they are selfish, exploitative, vain, and sex-crazed—and just to make things clear, she added, "no white men, please… I just puke on them, thank you very much."["Dom spyr jag bara på, tack."]
She wrote that other than the women’s restroom, she can find peace only in the segregated women's prayer room in the mosque in central Stockholm: "At least Muslim men don’t mind that women have their own community in peace and quiet." She added that she might let a white man follow her home, but only because "I can have someone to talk with all night long about my hatred towards white men."
Members of the Swedish National Socialist Front—an admittedly neo-Nazi group—called the article to the attention of the Stockholm authorities. But they refused to indict Miss Rytel. In a letter dated April 19, prosecutor Göran Lambertz explained why:
"The purpose behind the law against incitement of ethnic hatred was to ensure legal protection for minority groups of different compositions and followers of different religions. Cases where people express themselves in a critical or derogatory way about men of ethnic Swedish background were not intended to be included in this law. Because of that, the content in this article cannot be considered incitement of ethnic hatred."
Posted by Robert at October 4, 2004 3:26 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Intresting to note that the people who passed the hate speech laws screamed loudly against relatively mild censorship laws back in the 1950's and '60's. I'm of the mind that hate speech laws are in fact no more than a ploy for dismantling the verbal defenses of the West.
Posted by: Kepha1![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 4, 2004 4:03 AM
That's how the religious hate laws in Britain will be like. One word against Islam then you're in jail, but muslims will be able to preach sermons of hatred towards jews and christians.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 4, 2004 5:37 AM
In Norway, "experts on terrorism" are speculating on reasons why Norway is being threatened by Al'Qaeda with coming terror attacks (surprise, surprise, no gratitude shown for warmly welcoming Qazi Hussain Ahmed last summer!).
As one of the reasons Norway has been picked as a target, the experts mention the nationalist Progress Party's Carl I. Hagen's "anti-Muslim" remarks that have "offended Muslims". (Hagen said last summer that Muslims use children as suicide terrorists and that their goal is to Islamize the world - not exactly false claims, even if presented in a provocative manner. Needless to mention, Hagen's statements caused an enormous outrage in Norway, while Qazi Hussain's views seem to upset no one)
If a Norwegian politician's not-so-ungrounded remarks on militant Islam, expressed at a domestic forum, are seen by "experts" as relevant "causes" for Islamic terrorist threats to the country, then how far are we from totally forbidding any criticism of Islam anywhere in the West - "just for our own security"?
Posted by: Scandie at October 4, 2004 6:06 AM
So if they bomb us, it's our fault for criticising them!!!!
Posted by: Voltaire at October 4, 2004 8:14 AM
100 years ago the socialdemocrat was against the christian church because they didn't allow criticism against their faith. Now they fight together with muslims to send everyone to prison that criticize islam. Strange...
Posted by: markus at October 4, 2004 10:36 AM
the larger issue here is thought control & totalitarianism. very sad to see free societies succumbing to diabolical plots. i'm reminded of the words of george washington:
"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent
and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all
Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation
of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of
conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment."
at October 4, 2004 11:24 AM
How clever that these vile and hateful people have been able to twist and use democracy's institutions with the willing participation of the Left (social democrats?) with it's noble, idealistic cause to protect minorities. How stupid can they be????
Posted by: epg at October 4, 2004 5:15 PM
That last paragraph, the one highlighted, is absolutely disgusting. But it's what I've suspected all along. Hate speech laws are designed to protect non-white groups, even if they themselves are hateful. But if you're white, you're fair game. You're supposed to feel ashamed of your heritage, your nationality, your culture, and take on the guilt of all white oppression, and pay for it into eternity. Islam is loving this. It's exactly what it needs to thrive and spread (like cancer). Islam thrives in darkness. Like any evil does.
And that Rytel twit sounds like a total mental case.
Posted by: feralee at October 4, 2004 11:06 PM
How long before even the reporting of Hate Speeches by Mullahs verbatim becomes a racist offence in itself.
will the internet become the last bastion of resistance ?
THere was a time when the left and its hordes of unions and "media" were funded by the communists in the USSR. Are they now funded by Islamic paymasters from saudi ?
at October 4, 2004 11:46 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)