Swedish Politician Fined for ‘Hate Speech’ Against Islam

[mr friendly guy]

I subscribe to Pat Condell who over the years as well as talking atheist and anti theistic stuff has gradually morphed into some right wing anti Muslim commentator. Granted I find his comments interesting and I don't necessarily unsubscribe just because I don't agree 100% with what someone says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_znVnOizU8

I followed Condell's first link (I am not going to read every one of them) which leads to here

Sweden Democrat Party politician Michael Hess of Karlskrona was sentenced today (May 8, 2014) to a fine for hate speech after having connected the religion of Islam with rape.

According to the judgment, the statement is not part of a “factual and authoritative discussion” and it thus it does not matter whether or not the statement is true.

The indictment concerned a comment on Facebook that Hess wrote next to an article in Aftonbladet, which was about women who were raped in Tahrir Square in Cairo.

“When are you journalists going to realize that it is deeply ingrained in Islamic culture to rape and mistreat those women who do not abide by the teachings of Islam? [Data] is widely available showing the connection between the rapes in Sweden and number of migrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries,” wrote the SD politician.

Hess, who has lived in the Middle East for eleven years, argued that the comment did in fact initiate a debate and persuade journalists to examine the phenomenon more deeply.

As proof of his innocence, Michael Hess including a summary of studies showing that men with ancestry from Muslim countries are very much overrepresented in Swedish rape statistics. This includes official figures from the National Council, which show that men from North Africa and Iraq are involved in rapes 23 and 20 times more often than Swedes.

Fined 32,000 krona

Alderman Lise-Lotte Backstrom and the three Social Democratic jurors at Blekinge District Court, however, took no account of the politician’s objections, and fined him 32,000 krona ($4,900 US) for “hate speech”.

“It is [...] apparent to the court that Michael Hess has meant for readers of his commentary to read the entire statement in the same context and thus readers will get the impression that it is Islamic beliefs that lie behind the rapes when the perpetrators are of Middle Eastern or North African origin. The statement expresses a blatant disrespect towards Islamic immigrants,” reads the judgment.

Hess’s statement is not to be regarded as “part of an objective criticism” and the research that Hess had referred to during the trial is irrelevant.

It does not matter if the statement is true

The court notes that “the question of whether Michael Hess’s statement is true, or at least for Michael Hess appeared to be true, is irrelevant to the proceedings.” The reason is that the SD politician submitted research support after [making the statement on Facebook].

In order for the statement to be classified as “objective criticism” Hess would have had to refer to any relevant research directly in the Facebook post.

“At the time [of the initial statement] , Michael Hess made no reference either to established research or Islamic sources. It is only in connection with his prosecution that he has sought to demonstrate support from research and religious writings. The District Court therefore finds that it is clear that Michael Hess’s statement has not been a part in an objective and authoritative discussion.”

So I need feedback from Swedish members, basically how valid are these anti Islam fears?

[cosmicalstorm]

Tldr

People who are for Sd: Not guilty
People who are against Sd: Guilty racist hate monger!

Sd = Sweden Democrats

[Grumman]

The court notes that “the question of whether Michael Hess’s statement is true, or at least for Michael Hess appeared to be true, is irrelevant to the proceedings.” The reason is that the SD politician submitted research support after [making the statement on Facebook].

In order for the statement to be classified as “objective criticism” Hess would have had to refer to any relevant research directly in the Facebook post.

That's fucked up. Their orthodoxy is apparently at odds with reality, and rather than show any willingness to fix the problem or to even admit there is a problem, they jumped on the slightest excuse (an excuse which is itself bullshit) to pretend it's Hess who is at fault.

[Edi]

The court notes that “the question of whether Michael Hess’s statement is true, or at least for Michael Hess appeared to be true, is irrelevant to the proceedings.” The reason is that the SD politician submitted research support after [making the statement on Facebook].

In order for the statement to be classified as “objective criticism” Hess would have had to refer to any relevant research directly in the Facebook post.

That's fucked up. Their orthodoxy is apparently at odds with reality, and rather than show any willingness to fix the problem or to even admit there is a problem, they jumped on the slightest excuse (an excuse which is itself bullshit) to pretend it's Hess who is at fault.

I think Sweden has a law similar to ours that says statements that are seen as incitement to hatred against a particular religious or ethnic group are prosecutable offenses, so this one probably falls under that heading.

Given the Sweden Democrats' past history of blatant incitement to hatred against all immigrants and Muslim immigrants in particular, as well as acts of violence by their members against people on the opposite end of the political spectrum, it would be moronic to view Hess's statements in isolation rather than as the continuation of an established pattern.

Fuck him and the hobby horse he rode in on.

There are problems with Muslim immigrants in Sweden, but Hess is not doing anything to promote a really serious discussion in a responsible manner and he knows it. The Sweden Democrats are very much like the anti-immigrant faction in the True Finns party, they try to (and sometimes even don't) dress all the bullshit up in different ways so they can then claim to be persecuted for their political opinions and how their free speech is curtailed and how they are oppressed and so forth.

[mr friendly guy]

Ah that makes more sense now. Thanks Edi.

Reading back on the article

“When are you journalists going to realize that it is deeply ingrained in Islamic culture to rape and mistreat those women who do not abide by the teachings of Islam? [Data] is widely available showing the connection between the rapes in Sweden and number of migrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries,” wrote the SD politician.

It seems a variation of the blacks commit more crime. However a more comprehensive way of looking at it, is to look at the percentage of the target group (migrants from ME and North African countries) which commit rape. Heck, lets just do the male population. If the percentage is small, then its no doubt its manipulation of statistics.

[Edi]

There may be an actual problem in there, but if so, it should rely on actual statistics and be presented in a manner that is consistent with due process instead of first making provocative and overly generalizing statements and then trying to weasel out "but statistics that still don't justify wholesale smearing of entire groups" in court like Hess did.

I checked out the source blog for the quoted article and it's another bog-standard anti-Muslim net publication, with a good dose of "woe is poor Israel which is oppressed by everyone in the world" bullshit tacked on for good measure. Unless the story gets reported from an actual respectable source, it's just more of the anti-Muslim hate industry's scaremongering.

[madd0ct0r]

I think we had a thread on the statistics itself a few years back.

[Spoonist]

They are about as valid as the anti-finnish immigrant views in the 60s (over represented in crime and alcohol abuse), as the anti-yugo immigrant views of the 70s (over represented etc), the anti-kurds of the 80s (guess what), during the 90s it spread to include all of the middle east with lots of Iraqi christians coming, then in the 2000s onwards its anti-islam.
The Sweden Democrats are the local brownshirts, usually less extreme , less funded and less making sense than their brownshirt counterparts in europe.

[Eleas]

More or less what Edi and Spoonist said. Note that Michael Hess isn't unique in inciting against muslims; it's common fare amongst SD members. They describe Islam as a trait rather than faith, and subscribe to the notion of Muslims deliberately seeking to "outbreed" Europe, i.e. textbook racism. They also cannot help but continually express their disgust against HBTQ people, beggars, the Left, feminists and intellectuals, even when this makes for poor publicity. Basically, they're a fascist party sprung from homegrown Nazi roots, now trying to present a more socially acceptable version of the typical far-right-wing message.

[Elfdart]

Pat Condell is just Anders Breivik, only without the suave sophistication or the guns. His video about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is a classic of seething, paranoid hatred against Muslims, not entirely different from the kind of seething, paranoid hatred Elliot Rodger showed toward women in his videos and web postings. He's not even useful as a source of unintentional low comedy like Daniel Carver, the KKK loser who pops up on the Howard Stern Show from time to time when people want to laugh at his shocking stupidity.

In other words, fuck Pat Condell.

[Grumman]

Pat Condell is just Anders Breivik, only without the suave sophistication or the guns.

Sure, and he's just like Hitler, except for the part where he didn't murder six million people and try to take over the world. Don't you think it rather undermines your attempt to tar Condell with the same brush as Breivik when even you have to admit that Breivik murdered seventy children and Condell hasn't done anything worse than say disapproving things about the culture that gave us FGM and Sharia law?

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm not sure a fine is appropriate for calling statistics that so far I don't see being disputed. But, if Islam is what worries you, go after Islam itself. I'm sure there's plenty of shit in the Quran you can bring attention to, same as Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Claiming an entire race of people are inherently rapist just makes you an asshole.

[Spoonist]

I'm not sure a fine is appropriate for calling statistics that so far I don't see being disputed. But, if Islam is what worries you, go after Islam itself. I'm sure there's plenty of shit in the Quran you can bring attention to, same as Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Claiming an entire race of people are inherently rapist just makes you an asshole.

Didn't you read the article? Didn't you read the posts above?

the comment was two parts, this is what he got fined for:
"When are you journalists going to realize that it is deeply ingrained in Islamic culture to rape and mistreat those women who do not abide by the teachings of Islam?"
That is clearly hate speech. No use trying to label it as something else. This is the part that you refered to
"[Data] is widely available showing the connection between the rapes in Sweden and number of migrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries"
which the judge dismissed as per the article for two reasons
A) Hess’s statement is not to be regarded as “part of an objective criticism”
(meaning the stats are pulled out of their collective ass)
B) “the question of whether Michael Hess’s statement is true, or at least for Michael Hess appeared to be true, is irrelevant to the proceedings.”
(meaning that it doesn't matter if you can point out that you can statistically prove that irish immigrants have a higher alcoholism rate than average, you still can't say that it is deeply rooted in Irish culture to be an alcoholist, if you don't understand why then there is no hope for you...)

[Elfdart]

Pat Condell is just Anders Breivik, only without the suave sophistication or the guns.

Sure, and he's just like Hitler, except for the part where he didn't murder six million people and try to take over the world. Don't you think it rather undermines your attempt to tar Condell with the same brush as Breivik when even you have to admit that Breivik murdered seventy children and Condell hasn't done anything worse than say disapproving things about the culture that gave us FGM and Sharia law?

He doesn't just say nasty things about Teh Moozlums, he advocates collective punishment for all of them based on the actions of a tiny few. In the world according to Pat Condell, the fact that some damn dirty Moozlums carried out the Sept. 11 bombings means that all of them should be barred from buying/leasing/building any property near the site of the attacks -up to and including the use of force by the state to stop them. If that sounds familiar, it should: After a German diplomat was shot by a Jewish man in Paris, Hitler and his stooges decided that all Jews were responsible and therefore their rights to own homes and shops among "decent" folk were forfeit.

Luckily, most of the bigoted lunatics like Pat Condell and the fucktards in this mob are too cowardly and too fucking stupid to carry out Kristallnacht II -preferring instead to accost black men, whether they're Moozlums or not:



Thank allah for small favors, I guess.

[Magis]

I'm not sure a fine is appropriate for calling statistics that so far I don't see being disputed. But, if Islam is what worries you, go after Islam itself. I'm sure there's plenty of shit in the Quran you can bring attention to, same as Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Claiming an entire race of people are inherently rapist just makes you an asshole.

Didn't you read the article? Didn't you read the posts above?

the comment was two parts, this is what he got fined for:
"When are you journalists going to realize that it is deeply ingrained in Islamic culture to rape and mistreat those women who do not abide by the teachings of Islam?"
That is clearly hate speech. No use trying to label it as something else.

Let's for a moment suppose hypothetically that there is a culture in which rape and mistreatment of women is deeply ingrained. How exactly could one describe that aspect of that culture without one's words constituting hate speech in your opinion?

(meaning that it doesn't matter if you can point out that you can statistically prove that irish immigrants have a higher alcoholism rate than average, you still can't say that it is deeply rooted in Irish culture to be an alcoholist, if you don't understand why then there is no hope for you...)

Would it also be hate speech to say that slavery was deeply ingrained in southern American culture before the civil war? Would it be hate speech to say that antisemitism was deeply ingrained in the culture of Nazi Germany?

I'm not sure a fine is appropriate for calling statistics that so far I don't see being disputed. But, if Islam is what worries you, go after Islam itself. I'm sure there's plenty of shit in the Quran you can bring attention to, same as Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Claiming an entire race of people are inherently rapist just makes you an asshole.

Not-so-minor nitpick: race and religious affiliation are not the same thing.

In general I think hate speech laws are inappropriate and undesirable. Christopher Hitchens gave a speech on this several years ago, and I think it's worth watching. Link here.

[Spoonist]

Let's for a moment suppose hypothetically that there is a culture in which rape and mistreatment of women is deeply ingrained. How exactly could one describe that aspect of that culture without one's words constituting hate speech in your opinion?

I don't have to have an 'opinion' to cover that, it's a law which obviuosly does that itself. Its based on the human rights statements from the UN, then EU, and finally the Swedish constitution/law. Specifically here:
https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K16P8S1
In this one there are a few specific clauses, a) it has to be "spread" so there must be an intended audience ie propaganda b) it does not apply to "a debate of factual nature". Then the court takes the context and sender into account. If the statement lives up to one of the commmon fallacies while targeting a specific group, then it is more than likely hate speech. A brown-shirt spreading false propaganda is quite obviuos.
So in the specific case the court thought this was a lesser crime which gives a fine, Hate speech can give up to 2 years in prison.

So if you'd want to discuss such a hypothetical culture then you are quite safe in doing so either by limiting the potential audience or if you simply use more caveats and a more scientific language. Like including things to limit scope, like region, time or elsewhere.
So something like "American dating culture in combination with it's fraternity culture, has for the last 60 years resulted in a deeply ingrained rape-prone and vicitm-shaming culture, leading to a situation where bystanders most often will not interfere and sometimes assist even when they know a rape is going to occur. Giving the US the highest on-campus rape and lowest report-rate statistics of any western country. Lately campains addressing the complacency of bystanders has proven more effective than campains targeting potential perpetrators." wouldn't be hate speech.
While "When are you going to realize that it is deeply ingrained in american culture to rape and mistreat women? I have the statistics to prove it." would be. Even though both would link to the same document.
One is a factual based teatrise the other a fallacy with intent to create a hurtful opinion. Its not hard to understand the difference.

(meaning that it doesn't matter if you can point out that you can statistically prove that irish immigrants have a higher alcoholism rate than average, you still can't say that it is deeply rooted in Irish culture to be an alcoholist, if you don't understand why then there is no hope for you...)

Would it also be hate speech to say that slavery was deeply ingrained in southern American culture before the civil war? Would it be hate speech to say that antisemitism was deeply ingrained in the culture of Nazi Germany?

So you are saying that while there is hope for Wicked, there is none for you?
Both of your examples are more limited in time and space and can thus more accurately describe a cultural expression and the potential for change in such a culture. Neither is a gross oversimplification with intent to hurt the group in question so you'd be safe for hate speech in Sweden. But I'd disagree with the slavery bit since there were more grayscale.

In general I think hate speech laws are inappropriate and undesirable. Christopher Hitchens gave a speech on this several years ago, and I think it's worth watching. Link here.

Almost completely irrelevant. The constitution and courts of Sweden are not the same as the US. I don't think I would be in favor of hate speech laws in the US due to how the legal system works. However that is not the case for Sweden.

[Irbis]

In general I think hate speech laws are inappropriate and undesirable. Christopher Hitchens gave a speech on this several years ago, and I think it's worth watching. Link here.

He argues the hate speech laws are undesirable because you lose the right to hear a position. It's like saying crime laws are undesirable because you lose the right to be robbed or stabbed.

Can hate speech laws be abused? Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that freedoms of one are limited by freedoms of the others. You can't steal, because it's someone else's property. Why should there be a problem with law you can't say something harming others without consequences? Yes, what harms others should be thoroughly considered, but if something is, and has no redeeming value, what purpose adding it to discourse serves? Literally none.

His examples of questioning consensus make no sense, because intelligent design or flat earth pseudosciences will never be classified as hate speech as they don't harm anyone. On the other hand, real hate speech does. Should we establish if rape victim was really harmed by rape by repeating it, as it's what he suggests?