I’ll get back to you on that. If you like you can contact me via email [email protected].
This is, as a matter of fact, incorrect. There is only one law regarding what in english might be called “hate speech”. It refers to “agitation against a population group”, and is the only exception to freedom of expression relevant in this context, mentioned in “brottsbalken”, our criminal law.
Brottsbalken, Kap. 16, 8 § Den som i ett uttalande eller i ett annat meddelande som sprids uppmanar till våld mot, hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för en folkgrupp, en annan sådan grupp av personer eller en enskild i någon av dessa grupper med anspelning på ras, hudfärg, nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse, sexuell läggning eller könsöverskridande identitet eller uttryck, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två år.
Criticism of religion however is raised in other, more important parts of law, namely the Swedish form of Government (our constitution). It is there, specifically and repeatedly, mentioned as a kind of speech and expression that is protected. As such, in the case of Salwan Momika it’d have been necessary to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended to target muslims by burning quran books, rather than (as he himself claimed) to openly criticize islam. Nobody has as of the posting of this comment been deemed guilty of agitation for burning any religious texts in Sweden under the current law.
This is part of why the trial of him and his companion ended up taking so long. It was one of the first high-profile cases of its kind and likely to set precedent on the topic. As such, I consider his assassination on the night before the verdict of his trial to be not only a barbaric act of violence, but also an explicit attack on the Swedish legal system, our constitution and our freedom of expression.
Not surprising in the slightest. Greenland has to varying extents been affiliated with the Scandinavias for more than a thousand years now, whilst the connection to the US is… nonexistent.
Personally I don’t like it either, but at the same time the situation is devolving completely. Apartment buildings being subjected to bomb attacks on a daily basis, and in such a sparsely populated country as Sweden.
This isn’t new. Violent crime has been getting worse year by year here in Sweden during the past decade, and right now I’m quite thankful to be living in a rather rural town.
Nuclear isn’t dispatchable.
This statement is false.
“A dispatchable source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as a power plant, that can be turned on or off; in other words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on demand. Most conventional power sources such as coal or nuclear power plants are dispatchable in order to meet the always changing electricity demands of the population. In contrast, many renewable energy sources are intermittent and non-dispatchable, such as wind power or solar power which can only generate electricity while their primary energy flow is input on them.”
Source: EnergyEducation.ca (Provided by the University of Calgary)
Either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or are actively deceptive. I sincerely hope it is the prior. As such, I suggest that you educate yourself on the topic before commenting further to avoid spreading disinformation.
The main argument for nuclear is not its individual cost, neither for remewables. The main argument is that we need to rid ourselves of fossil fuels.
When planning for a future global energy system w/o fossil fuels, nuclear power has a key role to play as the most reliable source of clean, dispatchable electricity. This allows it to punch far above its equivalent capacity by massively reduce the need for expensive grid scale storage solutions.
Source 1: IEA (2019), Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system, Licence: CC BY 4.0
Source 2: NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, OECD Publishing, Paris https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15000
I would be positively shocked if this gained traction. Many islamic countries seem to be limiting rather than extending womens and girls rights at the moment.
the other judges all judged Israel was plausibly committing genocide
This statement is incorrect.
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-05-en.pdf
Indeed, the basis on which she dismissed the provisions is quite important. She highlights that one of the fundamental parts that according to the ICJ are necessary to constitute a genocide (intent) is not present. For all of you interested, her full opinion is available to read here. In short, she stated that because of the lack of intent there is no genocide in Gaza (as defined by the ICJ).
I will note that she hadn’t before this ruling been considered “pro-Israel”. Though it has historically been the opinion of some moderators in this community that statements like hers constitute “Pro-Israel propaganda”.
The relevant part from the genocide convention:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical…
Here are some excerpts from the opinion of judge Sebutinde:
… Some of the preconditions for the indication of provisional measures have not been met — South Africa has not demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the acts allegedly committed by Israel and of which the Applicant complains, were committed with the necessary genocidal intent, and that as a result, they are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention — Similarly, since the acts allegedly committed by Israel were not accompanied by a genocidal intent, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the rights it asserts and for which it seeks protection through the indication of provisional measures are plausible under the Genocide Convention — The provisional measures indicated by the Court in this Order are not warranted.
Later in the document there are more detailed explanations, but I will spoiler them to avoid a huge wall of text:
A. There are no indicators of a genocidal intent on the part of Israel
…
What distinguishes the crime of genocide from other grave violations of international human rights law (including those enumerated in Article II, paragraphs (a) to (d), of the Genocide Convention) is the existence of the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. Accordingly, the acts complained of by South Africa, as well as the rights correlated to those acts, can only be capable of “falling within the scope of the said Convention” if a genocidal intent is present, otherwise such acts simply constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law and not genocide as such.
…
… Having examined the evidence put forward by each of the Parties, I am not convinced that a prima facie showing of a genocidal intent, by way of indicators, has been made out against Israel. The war was not started by Israel but rather by Hamas who attacked Israel on 7 October 2023 thereby sparking off the military operation in Israel’s defence and in a bid to rescue its hostages. I also must agree that any “genocidal intent” alleged by the Applicant is negated by (1) Israel’s restricted and targeted attacks of legitimate military targets in Gaza; (2) its mitigation of civilian harm by warning them through leaflets, radio messages and telephone calls of impending attacks; and (3) its facilitation of humanitarian assistance. A careful examination of Israel’s war policy and of the full statements of the responsible government officials further demonstrates the absence of a genocidal intent. Here I must hasten to add that Israel is expected to conduct its military operation in accordance with international humanitarian law but violations of IHL cannot be the subject of these proceedings which are purely pursuant to the Genocide Convention. Unfortunately, the scale of suffering and death experienced in Gaza is exacerbated not by genocidal intent, but rather by several factors, including the tactics of the Hamas organization itself which often entails its forces embedding amongst the civilian population and installations, rendering them vulnerable to legitimate military attack.
Regarding the statements of Israeli top officials and politicians that South Africa cited as containing genocidal rhetoric, a careful examination of those statements, read in their proper and full context, shows that South Africa has either placed the quotations out of context or simply misunderstood the statements of those officials. The vast majority of the statements referred to the destruction of Hamas and not the Palestinian people as such. Certain renegade statements by officials who are not charged with prosecuting Israel’s military operations were subsequently highly criticized by the Israeli Government itself. More importantly, the official war policy of the Israeli Government, as presented to the Court, contains no indicators of a genocidal intent. In my assessment, there are also no indicators of incitement to commit genocide.
In sum, I am not convinced that the acts complained of by the Applicant are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention, in particular because it has not been shown, even on a prima facie basis, that Israel’s conduct in Gaza is accompanied by the necessary genocidal intent…
Previous moderation has indicated that discussion of this topic is ban-worthy in this community. As such I will not be responding to any comments unless a moderator in this community actively says otherwise. Those interested in a civil discussion can however send me a DM instead, as I find the topic important and worthy of discussion.
Yes, I assume the headline is based on what he was actually convicted of, highlighting that he’s a controversial figure, and the article itself provides the context. Seems unlikely he’d be convicted for the insults without the added context.
Found the article interesting since it’s at least an indication that the previous cadre of corrupt goons are getting sorted out. Not sure about how clean the current Sri-Lankan government is though.
Yeah I don’t expect Kim’d let anybody leave NK that isn’t either fanatically loyal or under their thumb somehow even whilst abroad.
I always dread having to replace old appliances, specifically because of the added non-features that inevitably break.
I’m going to leave it at that. There is piles and piles of evidence that’ll convince anybody but the willfully or literally blind. I don’t want to have to go through it all again.
Even if the claims are true, which from what I’ve read there isn’t much evidence at all
There is plenty of evidence, but maybe you need a refresher.
Archival link (haaretz): https://archive.is/sRK4M
Warning, graphical content: https://www.7thofoctober.com/
Denying the events of October 7th is comparable to denying the events of 9/11. Both terrible events, which traumatized an entire people and caused wars where a much greater number of people got hurt and died. Yet, attempting to deny or trivialize the origin event is a surefire way to make those affected by it not listen to another word of what you’re trying to get across.
It has been presented, innumerous times, but maybe you need a refresher.
Archival link (haaretz): https://archive.is/sRK4M
Warning, graphical content: https://www.7thofoctober.com/
Maybe they’re hamas too?
There have been Al-Jazeera journalists who are Hamas members.
Also, no word about assassinating literally hundreds of journalists?
Nope. It’s rather clear you aren’t interested in a good faith discussion on the topic. Don’t have the time or energy to put up with that right now.
Were they also all terrorists?
There are almost certainly some journalists who have been wrongly killed, as in any war.
The proposal, put forward by communications minister Shlomo Kar’i, will end government advertising in the newspaper and cancel all subscriptions for state employees and employees of state-owned companies.
Not exactly something that’ll prevent them from continuing their work, nor does it limit press freedom. On the whole that entire situation actually reinforced my confidence in Israeli media since it clearly shows that it isn’t under government control.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism
Al Jazeera has a long history of islamist propagandism and affiliating with terrorists.
So… you’re essentially carrying around a power bank on the back of your phone all the time? Seems like a gimmick at best.
Honestly, fast charging has turned this into such a non-issue that you’ll be hard pressed to find a more convenient solution.
The reuters article is rather sparse, CNN has a more in depth one.
This is the worst mass shooting in Swedish history to date.
Minister of State Ulf Kristersson held a press conference a few hours ago, and the King has issued a statement also.
It’s honestly quite draining with the constantly escalating violence. Many here didn’t initially react or realize the magnitude when the initial news hit after lunch citing five people shot.
Right now though one of our most prolific Swedish online forums (flashback) is down due to excessive traffic, and last I saw the news have blown up on mainstream platforms too.