That isn’t how effective hate speech works. It plays on the irrational, not the rational, so the people moved by Duke couldn’t care less about what Sowell has to say.
1 Like
In which country is forbidden to publicly state these facts?
You don’t know that. They could just as easily be calling for violence against foreigners.
You could, however people typically don’t. You seem like a smart, well educated guy who’s capable of having those kind of debates. Many, many people are not. And this is where problems arise.
The problem is not taking the time to read the actual law and relying on second hand accounts.
And Sweden, btw, has always had a higher number of reported rapes vs other European nations.
1 Like
If you read only US conservative media outlets you’d get the impression that in Sweden the thought police would barge in and arrest you just for insinuating a correlation between immigrants and crime.
That is not the case - these facts are openly discussed in the Swedish parliament.
If they looked at the actual stats, it wouldn’t support the narrative.
I wouldn’t know, I haven’t seen them.
The UK for example. Just one law:
"Public Order Act 1986 (POA), which makes it an offence for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress”
Insulting words that cause distress. That is a damn low bar. Anyone remember the nazi pug salute the guy did time over?
1 Like
As always, your dripping arrogance is adorable. But this isn’t about immigration in Europe. The thread is about speech.
Just Sweden for instance, despite deliberately trying to avoid the issue:
“The impact of immigration is however not limited to the migration section in the budget. [First generation immigrants, for example, constituted 60% of economic welfare recipients in 2016, 73% of all unemployed and 53% of those serving long prison sentences.”
Exactly, and your argument is that these facts you’ve listed cannot be discussed in Sweden and other countries that do not have free speech enshrined in their constitutions / basic laws, but the links you’ve posted prove otherwise - these issues are discussed openly.
1 Like
Just not by the people who are charged with crimes for posting “hate speech” on social media. Right in my reply to you.
This is the first time I’ve seen either side use actual statistics in these arguments.
It is incredibly uncomfortable to state in the UK. You might get a knock on the door from the plod. You may not be arrested, but there is all kinds of things that those paramilitary social workers can do to make your life uncomfortable.
2 Likes
Does Sweden have a version of parliamentary privilege though? MP’s over here can get away with scandalous stuff on the floor that if they uttered outside the the house of parliament could land them in serious legal peril (Tom Watson for example)
1 Like
And those numbers make perfect sense and do not prove that this is, just like similar stats in the US with regard to African Americans, anything more than a socioeconomic issue, not a racial, ethnic or religious one.
Except the migrants wouldn’t be there without the open border policy. They wouldn’t be committing those crimes and drawing off public benefits if they weren’t there, and it’s government policy putting them there (not the slave trade that kidnapped African Americans to the US).
Again this is about the restriction of speech. It was you who went down this rabbit hole.
1 Like
You missed the point. Blaming the issue on socioeconomic realities is one thing, blaming it on race, ethnicity and religion is what makes it potentially cross the line into hate speech. There is a reason why Sweden has these limits.
The US has limits on free speech. Sweden has limits, and these particular limits are over fifty years old.
I didn’t see anything racial in the links I posted. Merely whether they were foreign-born or domestic-born. Nothing split out by melanin content or color of the eyes.
If border and immigration policy is important to voters it makes sense to measure the impact of the current immigrants and have an honest discussion. You can say “group x has y outcome” and give exactly zero shits about causality. You don’t need a value judgement on why those outcomes are what they are to make a decision.
If you tell me that a certain neighborhood in Chicago has a high crime rate, I’m going to be less likely to buy property there. I don’t care about the causes of the crime and I don’t hate the people there.