Swedes; emaculating themselves.

I just saw this:

https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/05/swedi ... to-hatred/

Sweden is so far gone down the PC suicide trail that it is a lost cause. Any Swedes who still care about their cultural, religious and genetic heritage should get the Hell out while they still can.

Funny how the only people making this sound like a big deal (it isn't, it's literally just an inquiry into the possibility of maybe banning some symbology in certain contexts, no legislation has been enacted and nothing has happened so far) are far-right/neonazi idiots.

Also, it's not all runes. It's two. Used as part of the imagery of the NRM (Nordic Resistance Movement), a neo-nazi group active across all nordic countries that has been banned in Finland.

(See explainer here: https://twitter.com/swedenfactcheck/sta ... 8542086149 )

In conclusion: TFLY ventures out into the wild west of far-right screaming, comes back stupider.

The E wrote:Also, it's not all runes. It's two. Used as part of the imagery of the NRM (Nordic Resistance Movement), a neo-nazi group active across all nordic countries that has been banned in Finland.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just ban this group in Sweden too?

Dilandu wrote:

The E wrote:Also, it's not all runes. It's two. Used as part of the imagery of the NRM (Nordic Resistance Movement), a neo-nazi group active across all nordic countries that has been banned in Finland.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just ban this group in Sweden too?

Finnish law leaves a bit more leeway to ban certain types of groups.

Also, consider that most politicians that come up with these kind of ideas never really think of the ramifications plus it's a way to be seen as "doing something" while in reality it doesn't really do anything.

The best option would be to ban them as you say, but I'm uncertain how to go about it in a manner that's consistent with the law.

This is the problem with Europe's liberal totalitarian mind set.
From Wikipedia it appears that these groups are moderately violent violent terrorists (but Wikipedia is not always crdible and the mainstream journalists that Wikipedia relies upon are even less credible.)

Rather than ban the symbols or even ban the groups, why not just prosecute acts of violence?

Answer: because the real goal of the political elites is to silence any dissenting voices that object to mass Islamic immigration. Exploiting the pretext to ban the icons of Norse cultural heritage that these groups have utilized is an added bonus.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:This is the problem with Europe's liberal totalitarian mind set.
From Wikipedia it appears that these groups are moderately violent violent terrorists (but Wikipedia is not always crdible and the mainstream journalists that Wikipedia relies upon are even less credible.)

Rather than ban the symbols or even ban the groups, why not just prosecute acts of violence?

Answer: because the real goal of the political elites is to silence any dissenting voices that object to mass Islamic immigration. Exploiting the pretext to ban the icons of Norse cultural heritage that these groups have utilized is an added bonus.

What are you rambling about? They are prosecuted if they perpetrate a crime - are you so deluded that you think that they have a free run committing crimes with no consequences?!?

Somehow I get the impression you get most of your "news" and "information" from right-wing sites that publishes stuff for a gullible readership who can't think for themselves.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Rather than ban the symbols or even ban the groups, why not just prosecute acts of violence?

Yes, why ban groups that are formed explicitly to undermine democratic norms with an end goal to establishing fascist dictatorships, it really makes no sense to do that.

(The above was sarcasm, in case you're unaware)
TFLY, Look up the Paradox of tolerance and take a moment to ask yourself why european states consider movements that promote racial or societal purity to be dangerous.

How do you ‘ban a group’? Do you kick the members of that group out of the country? Throw them in jail? On what charges? Being ‘members of a banned group’? What makes them a ‘group’ anyway? Meeting and talking to each other? Saying certain Bad Words? I’m sure you’d say “It’s obvious!” but can you define it in legal terms, sufficiently specific to include ‘those groups’ but not frag the innocent along with them?

How do you decide which groups to ban? Is it because their beliefs and politics ‘offend’ some people? How many people must a group ‘offend’ to be banned? Which people must they ‘offend’? I’m sure you do things that ‘offend’ somebody. Should they have the right to ban you?

A lot of people are offended by communism and socialism; can we ban the communists and socialists? Can we? Please? (Actually, we did try that. Didn't work out so well)

Unfortunately, that is the unthinking reflex of the leftist. Ban The Bad Thing! Then, Ban it some more! If that doesn’t make everything all better, Ban something else! Life would be perfect if you just Banned enough Bad Things, right? Get the government to interfere in everybody’s lives to make them better!

That is the leftists’ solution to everything they perceive as a problem — have the government control everyone’s lives, in ever more intrusive ways. If they resist that control, crank it down tighter until no one can resist. A few idiots and assholes do irresponsible things with their freedom, so eliminate everybody’s freedom. Treat everybody like idiots and assholes.

If you give government the power to ‘ban’ one group of bigoted assholes because you find them offensive, you grant it the power to ban any group, for any reason. Declare their beliefs and politics ‘offensive’ and suddenly they are criminals, un-persons, without rights. Seems to me I’ve heard of such things, somewhere…the word ‘gulag’ comes to mind…a certain Un-American Activities committee…also Birkenau, and Auschwitz…

You call those groups ‘fascist’ — but fascism means subordinating people to government control. Who is it that’s continually calling for more government control over people, again? Demanding that we oppose those dirty ‘fascists’ by implementing real fascism? Are you misusing yet another word?

If freedom of speech is to mean anything, it must apply to everyone. Some people are idiots, some are assholes. That’s just the way the world is. It is not possible to prevent them from being idiots and assholes, and when the government tries to do so it bludgeons everyone’s rights with the same club.
———————————
You can't have the government take away the rights of only the people you hate.

Imaginos1892 wrote:How do you ‘ban a group’?

It's pretty damn simple. You ban them... and you're done.

Do you kick the members of that group out of the country? Throw them in jail?

Yes?

On what charges? Being ‘members of a banned group’?

Yes?

What makes them a ‘group’ anyway? Meeting and talking to each other? Saying certain Bad Words? I’m sure you’d say “It’s obvious!” but can you define it in legal terms, sufficiently specific to include ‘those groups’ but not frag the innocent along with them?

What makes you "part of a terrorist cell" anyway?

Same question, dealt with in the same way in a court.

How do you decide which groups to ban?

However the country wants. It's their country. But banning Nazis goes a little beyond "oh they offend people" and you damn well know it.

Most decent countries don't want "Nazi Party 2.0" allowed to take hold just because of appeals to "free expression".

Many people seem to drag free speech into the discussion about undesirable groups, but they miss the important thing: You may say whatever you want but words have meaning and saying them can have consequences.