Thursday, December 5, 2019
Swedish Man Who Insulted Muslim For Threat to “Take Over Your Fucking Country” Charged With Hate Crime
Interrogated by police about his views on immigration.
A 53-year-old Swede who insulted a Muslim man for posting a video threat to “take over your fucking country” was hit with hate crime charges.
This is Sweden. Of course he was.
“We Arabs are here to take over your fucking country so go down on your fucking knees and suck my cock your Swedish little whore,” said the Arab man in an angry rant posted to Facebook.
The 53-year-old Swedish man responded on a Facebook group called ‘Political Facts’ with some strong words of his own.
“Disgusting arab crabs disappear from here,” he wrote.
The man was reported to police and called in for an interrogation at Kristianstad where he was asked about his views on immigration.
He was subsequently sentenced by Kristianstad’s district court for hate speech against a protected group and forced to pay SEK 22,200 (roughly $2,300 US dollars).
The court argued that the man’s comments were aimed at Arabs and not just at the individual.
The man appealed the decision to the High Court, but it was upheld, although his fine was reduced to SEK 16,200 in addition to another SEK 800 he was asked to pay to the Crime Victims Fund.
As we have previously highlighted, despite worsening problems with sexual assaults, grenade attacks and violent crime in migrant areas, Swedes who complain about the situation have found themselves dragged before the courts.
Last year, a 70-year-old woman was interrogated by police and later convicted for an anti-Muslim Facebook post in which she expressed fear that Islam was taking over the country.
Earlier that year, a 65-year-old woman who was previously the victim of a brutal beating by migrants was sentenced to prison for posting that “the IQ level in Sweden will fall as a result of...
Dem Impeachment Witness Noah Feldman Penned Fawning Defense of Brutal Shariah Law
He also juxtaposed Sharia with English common law, and claimed the West “needs Shariah and Islam”.
Some of the key paragraphs of Noah Feldman’s op-ed are as follows:
…the outrage about according a degree of official status to Shariah in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more? How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.
In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.
In the Muslim world, on the other hand, the reputation of Shariah has undergone an extraordinary revival in recent years. A century ago, forward-looking Muslims thought of Shariah as outdated, in need of reform or maybe abandonment. Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their...
America’s Best Governor? New Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
New polls from St. Leo’s University reveal that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has overwhelming support from Floridians.
Ryan Girdusky of One America News Network tweeted the results of this poll on December 3, 2019.
New St. Leo's poll for Florida has @GovRonDeSantis with absolutely mind-blowing approval numbers:
Approve: 68%
Disapprove: 20%
612 people are talking about this
Girdusky tweeted, “New St. Leo’s poll for Florida has @GovRonDeSantis with absolutely mind-blowing approval numbers: Approve: 68% Disapprove: 20%.”
Then, Girdusky highlighted his conversation with St. Leo’s which revealed even more interesting approval information:
New St. Leo's poll for Florida has @GovRonDeSantis with absolutely mind-blowing approval numbers:
Approve: 68%
Disapprove: 20%
Just spoke w/ St. Leo's poll, they gave me the breakdown for the approval rating:
GOP: 87%
Dem: 57%
Indies: 65%
Hispanics: 67%
White: 71%
Black: 63% (!!!)
Male: 71%
Female: 66%
18-35: 66%
36-55: 65%
56+: 83%
182 people are talking about this
Just spoke w/ St. Leo's poll, they gave me the breakdown for the approval rating:
GOP: 87%
Dem: 57%
Indies: 65%
Hispanics: 67%
White: 71%
Black: 63% (!!!)
Male: 71%
Female: 66%
18-35: 66%
36-55: 65%
56+: 83%
DeSantis has become one of America’s top conservative Governors.
The previous administration of Rick Scott witnessed a massive betrayal of gun rights following the 2018 Parkland shooting when he decided to pass red flag gun confiscation orders.
Although DeSantis was not able to reverse this anti-gun policy, he did sign Teacher Carry into law.
He was responsible for signing a sanctuary city ban and...
6 Big Moments From Day 1 of the Second Round of Impeachment Hearings
The House Judiciary Committee, holding its first day of impeachment hearings Wednesday, heard from four legal scholars on the case for and against removing President Donald Trump from office less than a year before a presidential election.
After five days of public hearings over two weeks, the House Intelligence Committee submitted its report—contested by the panel’s Republicans—to the Judiciary Committee, which will make the final determination on drafting and adopting articles of impeachment.
“We are all aware that the next election is looming. But we cannot wait for the next election to address the present crisis,” Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said in his opening remarks. “The integrity of that election is one of the very things at stake. The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to keep him in check now, President Trump will almost certainly try again.”
The Intelligence Committee report, and its key witnesses, promotes a case of bribery, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice against Trump based on his July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
During the call, the two leaders talked about Trump’s interest in investigating Ukraine’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election as well as the Ukraine-related actions of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who had a lucrative position on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
Democrats called three law professors as witnesses Wednesday, and generally only asked questions of them about their conclusion that Trump committed impeachable offenses. Republicans had a single witness, a fourth law professor who warned lawmakers that they hadn’t made the case for impeachment.
Here are six takeaways from the Judiciary Committee hearing, which lasted more than seven hours.
1. ‘Tears in Brooklyn’
The Trump impeachment effort ultimately dates back to Democrats’ sour grapes about losing an election, Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., the committee’s ranking member, said in opening remarks.
“This is not an impeachment. This is just a simple railroad job, and today’s is a waste of time,” Collins said.
Collins responded to Nadler’s mention earlier of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign. The report determined that neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with the Russian government or Russian operatives. However, it didn’t determine that Trump obstructed justice.
Collins said the previous investigations, or the current one, hardly matter to those motivated to remove Trump without an election.
“This didn’t start with Mueller,” Collins said. “This didn’t start with a phone call. This started with tears in Brooklyn in November of 2016 when an election was lost.”
The reference was to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn.
2. ‘Safeguards Against Establishing a Monarchy’
Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, testified that he was fearful that not impeaching Trump would raise the bar too high for future impeachments.
“I just want to stress—if what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” Gerhardt told the committee.
“The record compiled thus far shows the president has committed several impeachable offenses, including bribery, abuse of power, and soliciting of personal favor from a foreign leader to benefit himself personally, obstructing justice, and obstructing Congress,” Gerhardt said.
At the time of the July phone call, Trump had placed a hold on nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, although Zelenskyy did not know this. Nor did the men refer specifically to the status of that aid in their conversation.
Zelenskyy has said repeatedly that he did not feel pressured by Trump to open investigations.
Gerhardt went on to talk about a monarchy.
“I cannot help but conclude that this president has attacked each of the Constitution’s safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country,” Gerhardt said, adding: “If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil.”
Another witness, Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan, later joked about Trump’s seeking to be royal and invoked the name of his 13-year-old son.
“The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So, while the president can name his son Barron, he cannot make him a baron,” Karlan said, to some laughter.
First lady Melania Trump took exception to this crack in a tweet.
A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.
165K people are talking about this
Sometime later, Karlan said during the hearing: “I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he’s done that are wrong. But I do regret having said that.”
3. ‘We Are All Mad’
A bigger concern is lowering the standard of impeachment to meet the anger of the moment, testified Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.
Turley stressed that he didn’t vote for Trump and is frequently critical of his policies and behavior. He said the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call was anything but “perfect”—the president’s repeated word for it—and warranted congressional oversight.
After that, however, the sole Republican-called witness disappointed Democrats on the committee.
“One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,” Turley told the committee.
“If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president,” he said. “That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.”
Turley compared the current impeachment process to the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, which was based largely on the fact that Republicans in Congress didn’t like the president who took office after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination.
“I get it. You are mad. The president is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog is mad, and Luna is a goldendoodle and they are never mad,” Turley said, in a rare moment of levity that drew laughter.
“We are all mad and where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad, or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?” he asked.
Turley added that a provable case that Trump deployed a “quid pro quo” to push Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden could be an impeachable offense. But he described the investigative process as incomplete.
“You can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics, not law,” Turley said. “However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my testimony are the very things dividing rage from reason.”
4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)