Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

I was looking for some info about it after hearing from the wifes family recently. They are under the impression there is a growing problem there. BTW that link was a quick google. Not sure who it is...

Do you personally feel that muslim immigration is causing racial tension in Sweden? Do many Swedes?

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

South African Apartheid: Racial segregation laws were in place.

Israel: Interfaith marriages are not recognised under Israeli law. Jews may only marry Jews. Muslims may only marry Muslims. Christians mmay only marry Christians. Non-religious people are not allowed to marry at all. Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens are not allowed to move to Israel.

What does interfaith have to do with race???

Sigh... OK, seems we have to look at some definitions here:

*Per then gives the NEW definition of apartheid*

To whit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation in South Africa enforced through legislation

... the term is nowadays currently used for forms of systematic segregation, established by the state authority in a country, against the social and civil rights of a certain group of citizens, due to ethnic prejudices

But we weren't talking about "apartheid" under the new definition used these days were we.

Nope, we were clearly talking about "South African Apartheid".

So then, let's return to the debate at hand shall we...

South African Apartheid: Racial segregation laws were in place.

Israel: NOT

BOOM

(the kind of new definitions that Per invoked are designed to invoke confusion and emotion)

(some of you may recall yours truly going on in length about how certain people keep redefining "Fascism")

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote: (Btw, I do not think the apartheid comparisson holds water for Israel proper, but more so when referring to the situation in the occupied territories.)

By definition "apartheid" = racial legislation in a nation.

The term does not apply to a nation's actions in "occupied territories".

No response by Per =

BOOM!

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

South African Apartheid: Folks of certain races were deprived of citizenship.

Israel: Under the law of right to return, anyone who can prove they're of Jewish origin has a right to citizenship, whereas a Palestinian refugee, even if they were born in present day Israel and/or have the legal deeds to show they are the rightful owner of land in Israel, has no chance of receiving Israeli citizenship, even if they marry an Israeli citizen.

You're going to have to explain further.

There are hundreds of thousands of palestinian land-owning citizens in Israel.

Sort of.

Right so in conclusion then...

South African Apartheid: Folks of certain races were deprived of citizenship.

Israel: NOT

BOOM!!

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

South African Apartheid: No criticism of the government was allowed.

Israel: If you criticise the government you will be labelled an anti-semite, unless you are Jewish, in which case you will be labelled a self-hating Jew.

Labelled by whom?

Mainly people connected to Likud, the Orthodox fringe and/or the settler movement.

So you're saying that 2% of the population would “label” folks for criticizing the government.

Yeah I don't think you understand the word "allowed" bro.

So in conclusion then...

South African Apartheid: No criticism of the government was allowed.

Israel: NOT

BOOM!!!

What started this debate:

Per wrote: The present solution (in Israel) is similar to the apartheid era in South Africa.

... I called Per's statement "asinine".

viewtopic.php?p=216572#p216572

Uncle dans leg wrote:I was looking for some info about it after hearing from the wifes family recently. They are under the impression there is a growing problem there. BTW that link was a quick google. Not sure who it is...

Do you personally feel that muslim immigration is causing racial tension in Sweden? Do many Swedes?

Is there increasing racial tension? Yeah, probably.
Is it caused by the immigrants? No, not really.

As you may have noticed there is an ongoing international financial crisis. Sweden hasn't been hit hard, our GDP growth last quarter was at 2.6%, which is among the best in Europe, but still. Seasonally adjusted unemployment is at 7.8%. Inflation is non-existant.

So what happens when times are dire? People start looking for scape goats.
Preferrably people of Semitic origin, darkish features and practing odd religions we know little about.
In the 1930's it was the Jews. This time it is the Muslims.

As in many other countries in Europe we now have a fascistoid populist right wing party which blames everything on immigration and who attracted close to 13% in the parliamentary elections this past september. Our lot are called the Sweden Democrats and is an offshoot of the white supremacy movement of the 1990's. They have let their hair grow back (well, some of them) and have switched from bomber jackets to suits, but they're basically the same people who did nazi salutes and beat up black and/or gay people back then.

I really cannot see how anyone in his/her right mind could vote for them, but sadly some 13% of Swedish voters did. None of the other parties want to have anything to do with them, so they are isolated in parliament, but they hold the balance of the vote, as neither the Red-Green block (Social Democrats, Left Party and Greens) nor the Alliance (Conservatives, Liberals, Centre Party and Christian Democrats) have a majority. It's rather annoying. I keep crossing my fingers that either the Greens or the Liberals will switch sides, so we get a government with a solid majority behind them, but it probably will have to take some time before they dare reach across the aisle.

The really stupid part is that if you look at our demographics, anyone with half a brain and some basic understanding of economics would see that we really need to increase immigration in order to save our pensions, as the baby boomers from the 1940's outnumber those graduating from college over the next several years, which means a smaller number of tax payers will have to support an ever increasing number of retired people... But just because of the fear of people who look different, of course combined with the recession, the pitchfork mob want to do the opposite, which will hurt us in the long run. Sadly, people are stupid.

Logically, the Sweden democrats do worst in the big cities, where people actually meet immigrants on a regular basis, and best in the rural areas where there's hardly any immigrants at all.

The typical Sweden democrat voter is a man with less than high school education who is a blue collar worker or unemployed. Of course not everyone fits the mold, but there is a strong negative correlation between education and SD sympathies.

Meanwhile, polls on racism and immigration show that the average Swede is growing less prejudiced. When polled about whether you'd mind having an immigrant living next door or if you'd be OK with your children marrying a foreigner, the number of people who would not mind has been increasing ever since they started polling in the 1960's. A poll last summer also revealed that more people are concerned about racism than about immigration, so I guess the majority is still sane.

And, lol, the new Social Democrat /Green government that took office in September includes three ministers that are Muslim and a black woman (the latter adopted though, so culturally 100% Swedish). Guess they're trying to send the SD crowd a message...

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote: Speaking of “completely asinine” and you playing “Devil’s Advocate” Per…

Remember when you took the side of Hamas in a debate on a fucking Canucks message board??!!

OMG THAT WAS SOOOO FUNNY!!!

You must have misinterpreted something I posted. I have never taken the side of Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation. I do however often take the side of the Palestinian civilians, who are being brutally mistreated by both Israel, Hamas and most of the rest of the world.

Oh yes that was it.

I was blaming "Palestinian civilians" for giving Hamas... a "terrorist organisation" as you say...

... the popular vote in 2006.

I believe Hamas' slogans were: "Change We Can Believe In"...

AND: "Yes We Can Destroy Israel".

Or something like that.

Yeah... I was saying the "Palestinian civilians" made their bed and must now lie in it

... you were defending them.

As the “Devil’s Advocate” of course you were displaying "sympathy for the devil"!

OMG THAT WAS SOOOO FUNNY!!!

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote: Sigh... OK, seems we have to look at some definitions here:

*Per then gives the NEW definition of apartheid*

To whit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation in South Africa enforced through legislation
... the term is nowadays currently used for forms of systematic segregation, established by the state authority in a country, against the social and civil rights of a certain group of citizens, due to ethnic prejudices

But we weren't talking about "apartheid" under the new definition used these days were we.
Nope, we were clearly talking about "South African Apartheid".

Right. Of course your personal definitions of "apartheid" and "racial discrimination" trumps the definitions in the 1973 international convention on the crime of apartheid and the 1965 international convention against racial discrimination adopted by the United Nations.

I mean, of course, definitions agreed upon in 1973 and 1965 respectively are far to recent and modern for you to accept. How old are you again? I assume you also insist that gay is just a synonym for happy.

BOOM

Maybe I should have started by defining "similar to" as opposed to "identical to"?
No one has ever suggested the problem in Israel is how they treat the black population.

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote: (Btw, I do not think the apartheid comparisson holds water for Israel proper, but more so when referring to the situation in the occupied territories.)

By definition "apartheid" = racial legislation in a nation.

The term does not apply to a nation's actions in "occupied territories".

What you say does make sense, but then, the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Liberman, refuses to accept the term occupied for the West Bank and East Jerusalem, he prefers to label them disputed territories and claims they are really part of Israel. If that is the case, the use of military law when it comes to Palestinians and civil law when it comes to Israeli settlers in those areas is highly discriminatory. On the other hand, if the territories are occupied, the settlements would be a gross violation of the Geneva convention and constitute a war crime.

BOOM!

http://www.timesofisrael.com/liberman-s ... ear-fruit/

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

South African Apartheid: No criticism of the government was allowed.

Israel: If you criticise the government you will be labelled an anti-semite, unless you are Jewish, in which case you will be labelled a self-hating Jew.

Labelled by whom?

Mainly people connected to Likud, the Orthodox fringe and/or the settler movement.

So you're saying that 2% of the population would “label” folks for criticizing the government.

Last time I checked Likud, the Orthodox fringe and the settler movement were the government in Israel.
Are you suggesting they won the election by fraud?!

Watching this Rise of ISIS, pretty fucked up, see a lot of similarities in the rise of the Nazis. They better nip these fuckers in the bud, their growth is concerning.

Per wrote: No one has ever suggested the problem in Israel is how they treat the black population.

Yeah, that's great.

Now if only "no one" in this thread had ever been so asinine as to state...

"The present solution (in Israel) is similar to the apartheid era in South Africa."

Yeah, if only "no one" had suggested Israel has criminally immoral laws in place....

Yeah, if only "no one" had confused "apartheid" with "South African Apartheid"...

Per wrote: BOOM

Oh grow up....

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote: (Btw, I do not think the apartheid comparisson holds water for Israel proper, but more so when referring to the situation in the occupied territories.)

By definition "apartheid" = racial legislation in a nation.

The term does not apply to a nation's actions in "occupied territories".

What you say does make sense...

On the other hand, if the territories are occupied, the settlements would be a gross violation of the Geneva convention and constitute a war crime.

You start off by comparing the government in Israel to the South African Apartheid government.

Then, after losing that argument, you try to subtly change the conversation.

Yeahno, I'll get back to you if I ever decide to destroy your "Israel guilty of war crimes" argument bro!

Again.

Then you can lash out in nonsensical fashion at Israel defending herself.

Again.

Then you can defend your suicide-vest-wearing school-bus-bombing terrorist-organization-supporters.

Again.

OMG LAST TIME YOU DID THAT IT WAS SOOOO FUNNY!!!

Per wrote: BOOM!

SUCH a child!

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote: South African Apartheid: No criticism of the government was allowed.

Israel: If you criticise the government you will be labelled an anti-semite, unless you are Jewish, in which case you will be labelled a self-hating Jew.

Labelled by whom?

Mainly people connected to Likud, the Orthodox fringe and/or the settler movement.

So you're saying that 2% of the population would “label” folks for criticizing the government.

Last time I checked Likud, the Orthodox fringe and the settler movement were the government in Israel.
Are you suggesting they won the election by fraud?!

Gotta admit, your obfuscation techniques are beyond compare!

(if I didn't know you better I might have called it a simple failure to communicate)

(although if this debate were a war, you might be labelled a "war criminal"!)

I'm afraid I must simply retreat to my original position...

South African Apartheid: No criticism of the government was allowed.

Israel: NOT



Is it against the law in Israel to criticize the government?

ANSWER: No it is NOT... but it was against the law in South African Apartheid.

Truth is much better than deception Per, help me help you!

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote: BOOM

Oh grow up....

Per wrote: BOOM!

SUCH a child!

Learning from the master.

Oh, and yeah, no, not going to address the strawman thingy.

Cheers!

Oh, and btw:
http://www.dn.se/debatt/sweden-today-de ... palestine/

Per wrote:Oh, and btw:
http://www.dn.se/debatt/sweden-today-de ... palestine/

*Snicker*