Warp wrote:
> Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
>> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
>> just don't like immigrants.":
>> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
> 
>   That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
> and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
> someone to not to be racist and criticize immigration at the same time.
> Anyone who is not racist must have a completely positive attitude towards
> immigration.
> 
>   It's a strong weapon at shutting up people, really. They have successfully
> implanted the notion that criticizing immigration and/or immigration policies
> is racism. Nobody wants to be racist. Thus nobody dares to criticize anything
> related to immigration, not even in their minds.
> 
>   Why is it so hard to accept the notion that racism and immigration
> critique don't necessarily have to go hand in hand? Why is it so hard to
> accept the notion that someone can be completely non-racist, and still
> criticize immigration policies? Is it really so hard to even consider the
> possibility that automatically equalling immigration critique with racism
> is just false propaganda?
> 
>   I am not a racist. I don't even oppose immigration. I welcome immigration.
> The kind of immigration which makes the society better for all, the people
> of the country and the immigrants themselves.
> 
>   I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
> between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
> thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
> The worst thing is that people refuse to see it. They just close their
> eyes and ears and repeat the mantra that everything is well. They repeat
> all the mantras taught to them by the multiculturalist fanatics: There is
> no problem. The only problem is that western white males are racist.
> 
>   But hey. Don't listen to me. After all, I oppose immigration and ergo
> I'm automatically a racist, and nobody wants to listen to racist people.
> 
I am afraid that if anyone says he is against immigration without any 
nuances, the valid conclusion is that he is a racist* simply because he 
is treating people not as individuals but as members of a group. The 
problem is of course that the situation is much too complicated to talk 
about 'immigration' as if that is a single problem. You do understand 
that but you still keep repeating one-liners that suggest otherwise. 
Thereby you put yourself in a vulnerable position as people tend to read 
and remember only the one-liners.

My advice would be to not bluntly say that you are against immigration, 
but always acknowledge that there are also genuine asylum seekers who 
have to fear for their lives in their homeland. And that there is a 
difference in integration problems in Finland for Russians versus Swedes 
versus various western european countries versus for instance the Iraqi 
and Afghani. Not to mention the Christian Iraqi versus the Muslim Iraqi 
versus the Kurdish Iraqi.

That leaves open the question on how to put that in a few lines to make 
your position clear. To which my honest answer is: I don't know.

* racism being used as a shorthand for discrimination based on race, 
colour, faith, gender, sexual preference etc.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> * racism being used as a shorthand for discrimination based on race, 
> colour, faith, gender, sexual preference etc.

  I have never understood why the word "racism" needs to be expanded
beyond its original meaning to mean basically any form of discrimination
or even aversion.

  It's a weasel word similar to "terrorism" and "pedophilia". Accurate
definition be damned, let's generalize it, blur its meaning and use it
as a loaded word for political or other reasons.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
>> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
>> just don't like immigrants.":
>> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
> 
>   That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
> and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for

	Mike was not referring to those who criticize immigration or its
policies. You're addressing something Mike did not imply.

-- 
Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Community service may be good. Are the training courses what's worrying
> you?

Both worry me.  The community service may differ from the training 
courses in name only.  "Your community service will consist of meeting 
with group X and hearing about the xenophobia they've suffered."

In any event, legitimate governments do not punish opinions or the 
expression of opinions.

Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced.  The history of 
restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was 
uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the 
government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no 
matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances 
of the other.

The groups with friends in Europe's government will use this law to 
suppress any statement with which they disagree.  They will claim that 
their racial, ethnic, or religious group was slandered by the statement. 
  If the government wants to curry their favor or avoid their disfavor, 
it will not bother to check if the claim has any real basis in fact, nor 
will it relent if the statement is objectively true.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced.  The history of 
> restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was 
> uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the 
> government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no 
> matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances 
> of the other.

  There was a clear case of this rather recently in Sweden (surprise).

  Sweden's law has this section which criminalizes slander against groups
of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, etc.

  Well, not long ago an extreme feminist wrote a heated article in a
newspaper using almost all possible forms of slander against Swedish men
(basically she wrote that Swedish men are in all ways inferior to immigrant
men, and used all kinds of insulting words against Swedish men).

  The question was raised whether this broke the law regarding slander
against a group, in this case based on nationality, ethnicity and gender.
An official statement was made that this was *not* a case criminalized
by the law (even though the law has absolutely no mention of such an
exception).

  The fact that the law is not the same for all people regardless of gender,
nationality and ethnicity got de jure status.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced.  The history of 
>> restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was 
>> uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the 
>> government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no 
>> matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances 
>> of the other.
> 
>   There was a clear case of this rather recently in Sweden (surprise).
> 
>   Sweden's law has this section which criminalizes slander against groups
> of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, etc.
> 
>   Well, not long ago an extreme feminist wrote a heated article in a
> newspaper using almost all possible forms of slander against Swedish men
> (basically she wrote that Swedish men are in all ways inferior to immigrant
> men, and used all kinds of insulting words against Swedish men).
> 
>   The question was raised whether this broke the law regarding slander
> against a group, in this case based on nationality, ethnicity and gender.
> An official statement was made that this was *not* a case criminalized
> by the law (even though the law has absolutely no mention of such an
> exception).
> 
>   The fact that the law is not the same for all people regardless of gender,
> nationality and ethnicity got de jure status.
> 
In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not 
considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You might 
not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not 
> considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You might 
> not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)

  The law should say that. It never does.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not 
> considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You might 
> not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)

The men of Sweden do not constitute a ruling class, and the lady in 
question most certainly did not insult the class to which she belonged.

And I daresay that if you insult the ruling class in other countries, it 
most certainly is punished as slander.

The Swedish government has decided that only some forms of racism, 
sexism, and other forms of tribalism will be punished.  Everyone else 
gets carte blanche.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not 
>> considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You 
>> might not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)
> 
> The men of Sweden do not constitute a ruling class, 
Why not?
> and the lady in 
> question most certainly did not insult the class to which she belonged.
> 
> And I daresay that if you insult the ruling class in other countries, it 
> most certainly is punished as slander.
I don't think that if I would write an article where I would point out 
how inferior the white male is I would be prosecuted or even frowned 
upon no matter how good the arguments. Yet if I did the same for black 
persons or for women, many people would object and if I managed to give 
the impression that I was serious I might well face prosecution.
I have seen some examples of racism by black people (or whatever the 
current PC term is) at Oprah that scared the hell out of me (as a white 
European male who is not accustomed to open racism), yet were treated 
mildly in the program. I think that a member of the KKK would have 
received a slightly different reception.

> 
> The Swedish government has decided that only some forms of racism, 
> sexism, and other forms of tribalism will be punished.  Everyone else 
> gets carte blanche.
> 
Not everyone and not in all circumstances. A black women in the 
Netherlands would get away with insulting whites, black men, protestants 
etc. but not african muslims.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> - public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
> material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia"

So, a text book on this history of slavery in the USA, or the WW2 
"holocaust", would be illegal?  That would explain some european 
politician's panties being in a twist over showing nazi symbolism on 
wikipedia, in the article about nazi symbolism.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message