sarjalim

Yes, agreed, some of it is probably just bluster to seem like they’re doing something.

However, even if we agree that more police resources are necessary, I don’t know how we should get more of competent, educated police in the short term unless we involve military (who do have some education at least). The last thing I want is for us to rapidly employ new “police” (ordningsvakter) with only weeks or a few months of training - that’s how we get additional problems with US-style police violence on top of the gang violence problems…

I agree that the current government is implementing exactly 0 long-term strategies to help deal with the root cause of the problems, like strengthening and financing social services and welfare, healthcare and mental healthcare, schools and social programs, decriminalizing some drugs etc, to curb influx of underage criminals into the gangs and remove some of the economical incentives. The opposition is coming out with good suggestion after good suggestion, and the right-wing (by Swedish standards) government has basically just slashed welfare across the board in practice. They are going for only the hard-on-crime approach, which as far as I know has no real scientific proof of long-term efficacy unless paired with social/community interventions.

However, I think many swedes agree that the police need more resources - particularly people watching possible targets of future bombings and just more eyes on the gangs. We have one of the lowest number of police per capita in Europe, slightly higher than the rest of the Nordic countries tbf, but with much bigger problems with organized crime and violence.

I’m also horrified at this general societal development, but I can see the merit of involving some of the military in more eyes-on-the-ground kinds of operations for a few years until we have more of a grip on the gang situation. I prefer that to visitation zones, harsher punishments and more generalized surveillance of non-suspects being allowed.

But maybe I’m just naïve to the implications.

And try to force them to attend a mediation session with the murderer, actively discourage them from going to the police… Fail to report the baby deaths appropriately to the NHS, fail to do the initial investigation about the first three deaths the executive team had decided on. Fail to present to the board of trustees that the conclusion of two external reviews were that some of the baby deaths should be forensically investigated. Fail to do any investigation. Refuse to reassign the murderer for months while more murders and attempted murders happen, then reassign them into a position where they have access to manipulate the narrative. And additionally order the whistleblowers to cease email communications about the issue…

I think I missed a few things as well, there’s just too many things wrong in this picture.

Yes, it’s impossible that they didn’t at least entertain the idea that she was guilty with so many incidents and so many people speaking out. And the execs immediate response to that is to… silence the whistleblowers, to maintain the reputation of the hospital. Absolutely repulsive. They come very close to being accessories to the murders, in my opinion.

This whole story is the most insane, fucked up thing I have read in years.

Especially the companion story, Hospital bosses ignored months of doctors’ warnings about Lucy Letby. The hospital execs seem almost as callous as the murderer. Holy shit. You have to have some sort of psychological or empathetic disorder as manager or director to fail to act when babies are dying like flies, there is one common factor, and your response isn’t to immediately investigate and take that common factor out of the equation as a safety measure.

They just refused to act for 3 years (where 17 babies died mysteriously or had near-fatal unexplained events in one year) - except silence, threaten and bully the doctor and seven (!) pediatric consultants who repeatedly raised the alarm and called for outside investigation. Since the murderer was removed from the neonatal ward in 2016, there has apparently been 1 baby death. In total, in 7 years.

I don’t know how you would live with yourself knowing that you actively aided a serial killer by refusing to listen to multiple people warning you about them and pleading with you to act.

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.

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 🤷‍♂️

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.

Someone new got approved to burn another one outside the Iraqi embassy in Stockholm, that’s why there’s a new reaction.

Tbh I personally don’t think it should be allowed to actively provoke and incite hatred against an ethnic group. Sweden already has a law specifically against this (incitement against ethnic group), which lists religious belief as a group covered by the law. However, there has only been one case that went to the courts trying specifically a Quran burning, and the context was a bit different so it was dismissed. The Quran burning previous to the one in the article has been reported to the police, and imo it should go to trial so we can test the limits of the incitement law. That Quran was burned directly as a statement outside a mosque, during Eid, which is a context that could be illegal under that law.

To clarify, people should be able to burn whatever books and symbols they want and express whatever vile or justified opinions they have under freedom of speech in Sweden- but not in every context and forum everywhere, as direct provocation and incitement. This is actually the majority opinion of Swedes (source in Swedish).

But we’ll see what happens. I discussed this with a lawyer I know, who agreed that it should be prosecuted and go to trial so we can see how it fares in court.