Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

MoD: You said that the West has no responsibility to the rest of the world because it "rejected" colonialism. Are you implying that colonialism was somehow beneficial for the rest of the world?

Free movement of EU citizens is an essential part of how the EU operates. Putting restrictions on that will damage the entire EU project. The numbers of Non EU immigrants are fairly insigificant compared to movement within the EU.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Large swathes of Europe also share a fairly extensive history steeped in Christianity, there are pretty clear cultural similarities.

So, you want to keep out non-European and non-Christian influences?

 Medium of Death wrote:

By all means feel free to bring in American examples.

I'm not going to try to convince you, because I think you're immune to that. I will just explain that there is a neighborhood in Chicago called Chinatown, and another called Little Italy; and the city gets on just fine. At least after some conflict.

 jorny wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
This is what happens when you call the public racist for not accepting that immigration in high numbers is OK just because the government said it was ok. It drives people to violence as there is no means of dialogue. By all means keep calling them Nazis if you want this to continue.
Funnily enough Sweden has seen its immigration levels increase rapidly and also its incidents of rape.
Couldn't possibly be connected.

I have never said that SD are nazis only that racists and neo-nazis feel encouraged in a climate of more open anti immigrant sentiment. The fact is that %87 if Swedes have voted for parties that aren't against immigration and immigrants, so I don't know what you mean with "the public". And your reasoning that this has happened for any other reason that a racist scumbag who hates muslims decided to commit an act of terror is frankly insulting. Oh, and I call bullgak on your claim that there are more incidents of rape, there are however according to for instance BRÅ more people who report that they have been raped. I haven't seen any serious sources saying that we have more incidents of rape per capita now than we had let say 50 years ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 jorny wrote:
Most probably some neo-nazi types or some other racists who have bought in to the stupid Breivik-style bullgak about islamisation. Hope the police catch the perpatrators soon.


We have had a worrying development here the last couple of years with the right wing populists having a bit of a break through in the last two elections, getting 12% in the last. The last time we had a surge of right wing populism (in the 90's) we also got more racist attacks and neo-nazi activity. If we are to believe the Swedish Security Service and EXPO (anti-racist magazine founded by the guy who wrote The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo, similar to Searchlight in the UK) we are seeing a somewhat similar development this time.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The attack has been indentified by the police as a hate crime. I just also read that the Swedish Security Service probably will be involved in the investigation, which might mean that the Security Service might consider this as an act of terrorism or a politically motivated crime.

I find the comparison betwen neo-nazis and the swedish democrats a litlte strange, considerign that their main goal is to reduce the immigration by 50%, which considering the massive immigration rates that sweden has now is only sensible. This is because at the current rates sweden simply cannot integrate all these people, which causes damage both to the immigrants and to sweden. This can be seen for example in the fact, that sweden is facing a severe lack of appartements at the moment.

However, it of course is very horrible that a building was burned, and I also hope that the people that this will be jailed, as there seems to be no justification for this.

The Swedish housing shortage is a huge issue that has almost nothing to do with immigration and a lot more to do with things like too little competition in the building sector, regulations around interest rates, a slow planning process with too many appeals and that the law about public housing companies was changed so that they have to operate like for profit companies.

Sweden doesn't have a massive immigration rate. We had about 116 000 people moving to Sweden in 2013. 50 000 (many of those former immigrants to Sweden) moved from Sweden. 19 000 of those moving to Sweden had work permits meaning that they were researchers to the universities and skilled labor and specialists hired by companies. 8000 were students. 20 000 were EU citizens with the largest group probably coming from the nordic countries. That leaves around 19 000 refugees and such to a country of 9 million, meaning that if spread out evenly, each of the 290 municipalities would get 65 immigrants each.

Actualy, I could for that that it is not open anti immigration climate that encourages neo nazis, but failed immigrtion instead. When imigration fails for example by failing to integrate properly, parties against immigration will gain support, this will in itself help create the anti immigration climate, however, the failed immigration will also cause that some people will feel threatened, which will be shown often as support for more extrimist groups. Effects like this can be seen often, for example if the working class is poorly treated then of course those workers will feel threatened and support socialism. Although the feel of being threatened is not always shown as support to extrimist movements, but often for example the people will simply change their party of choise.

Also, considering that immigrants are the biggest growing group in sweden, it makes sence that when thier numbers grow, so does the need for new appartements. Of course this might have also other factors in it, but massive immigration on its own helps to increase the problem further.

Can you show me some statistics that prove that most peole leaving sweden are former refugees? I often hear this statement, but I have never seen this to be proven. Also, we can easily see that there is massive immigration by loking at some examples. We can for example clearly see, that Malmö, which is one of the larger cities in sweden now more immigrants than it has original swedes. This is a clear example of massive immigration, as it shows how the immigration is often hevily concentrated, and considering that malmö has hundrets of thousands of citizens, then it also shows that the rate is cumulative, so while the rate might not appear massive in one year, then in several years the number of immigrants will be massive.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bullockist wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Seeing as Sweden is in Europe and the UK is in Europe I felt it easier to frame it that way. Seeing as the EU encourages free movement it also makes sense to frame it this way. Large swathes of Europe also share a fairly extensive history steeped in Christianity, there are pretty clear cultural similarities.

By all means feel free to bring in American examples.

I am not the sole representative that the EU and British migration policy has largely failed.

I'm sure Orlanth will be able to debate this much better than I can.

I'm not sure why this says UKIP as Douglas Murray isn't a member. This will give you the insight into the UK situation.

I had enough of idiot politicians in 1996.

Pauline Hansons one nation filled the role of the UK IP.
Any kind of success by these people is culturally embarrassing.

immigrants don't steal jobs, lazy brits do.

What do you mean by stealing jobs. It is practicly impossible to do so, so it cannot happen. However, what heavy immigration causes is more supply in the work force. This can be both a good thing, and a bad thing. For example when the country has a lack of workers meaning that the demand for workers is high, then work based immigration will be helpful. Sweden was in this situation in the 70's, which explains why they have many positive ideas about immigration. However, when you have small demand for workers, then increasing the supply of workers will not help. What it does is, that because there is large supply but small demand then the wages of workers will decrease, but unemployment will increase. This works as a explanation to why many working class people will consider immigration bad when there is already too much work force, as it makes finding work harder for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
MoD: You said that the West has no responsibility to the rest of the world because it "rejected" colonialism. Are you implying that colonialism was somehow beneficial for the rest of the world?

Free movement of EU citizens is an essential part of how the EU operates. Putting restrictions on that will damage the entire EU project. The numbers of Non EU immigrants are fairly insigificant compared to movement within the EU.

May I ask what is the Eu project?

 Da Boss wrote:
MoD: You said that the West has no responsibility to the rest of the world because it "rejected" colonialism. Are you implying that colonialism was somehow beneficial for the rest of the world?

Free movement of EU citizens is an essential part of how the EU operates. Putting restrictions on that will damage the entire EU project. The numbers of Non EU immigrants are fairly insignificant compared to movement within the EU.

My point being is that there is no benefit or obligation to be tied to these countries any more.

Free movement in the EU is great if you're a skilled and educated person like yourself. It doesn't work for the unskilled worker as employers can get cheaper labour from Europe. Unlike Bullockist's easy mode excuse of confining the unskilled population to lazy, when in fact a great number of unskilled jobs are often over subscribed for applications and a great many aren't even advertised in this country. Also even if the indigenous population is unwilling to work it is the duty of government to facilitate these people into the workplace because otherwise they become an unshiftable burden on the state and society. It is precisely this attitude that angers me, why are we not addressing this problem? The ones that gain citizenship become an extra burden. In the report he sites they've cost the country 95 Billion more than they've put in through taxes. I do recommend watching the video for some figure breakdown.Is it not unreasonable to expect some kind of proper immigration controls across nations? Skilled workers could easily get permits. It might be great for you just to be able to flit wherever you choose but this is having a real impact on our working class that nobody is addressing. When the working class complain they are called racists and idiots.

 Bullockist wrote:
[

I had enough of idiot politicians in 1996.

Pauline Hansons one nation filled the role of the UK IP.
Any kind of success by these people is culturally embarrassing.

immigrants don't steal jobs, lazy brits do.

You didn't watch the video or even read what I wrote.

 dogma wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Large swathes of Europe also share a fairly extensive history steeped in Christianity, there are pretty clear cultural similarities.

So, you want to keep out non-European and non-Christian influences?

I want immigration to be managed in a sensible manner, I think the culture of Europe should be respected and the indigenous populations should not have to placate mass immigration. Immigrants have been useful but we've been drowned in them, certainly in Britain, in a period from the late 90's. Britain's immigration problem has greatly increased since then. Ask the people of Calais if they're enjoying the multicultural experiment of people attempting to get to Britain. America and Australia have far tighter immigration controls. It's about preserving the stability of the nation. Segregated communities sounds great! That's never caused problems ever. Why should an indigenous people put up with problems they aren't obliged to? Especially when we have so many of our own to sort out.

 Medium of Death wrote:

I think the culture of Europe should be respected and the indigenous populations should not have to placate mass immigration.

Europe has a culture now?

 Medium of Death wrote:

Segregated communities sounds great! That's never caused problems ever. Why should an indigenous people put up with problems they aren't obliged to? Especially when we have so many of our own to sort out.

Delicious food, of course. It sounds stupid, but "Wow, this is really good!" has bridged many a gap.

 dogma wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

I think the culture of Europe should be respected and the indigenous populations should not have to placate mass immigration.

Europe has a culture now?

I meant Cultures* that's why I went on to say indigenous populations.

 Medium of Death wrote:

I meant Cultures* that's why I went on to say indigenous populations.

That isn't any better.

 dogma wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

I meant Cultures* that's why I went on to say indigenous populations.

That isn't any better.

Please explain to me how the differing countries that comprise Europe do not have different cultures?

Culture - the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Funnily enough Sweden has seen its immigration levels increase rapidly and also its incidents of rape.
Couldn't possibly be connected.

Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that we've got some of the strictest sexual assault laws in the world probably contributes to higher report rates, unless you want to argue that Sweden has more rapes per capita than the Democratic Republic of Congo.

 Hordini wrote:
Luckily for you, all you have to do to prevent that is...do nothing. Just don't move to an Islamic country.

The problem is that Islam is quite happy to move to your country and assert that their spirutual beliefs and laws are more important than your local ones.

Non believers are infidels, Christians and Jews are lower than dogs, and they don't like dogs, or bacon.

How can you trust anyone who doesn't like bacon ?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Funnily enough Sweden has seen its immigration levels increase rapidly and also its incidents of rape.
Couldn't possibly be connected.

Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that we've got some of the strictest sexual assault laws in the world probably contributes to higher report rates, unless you want to argue that Sweden has more rapes per capita than the Democratic Republic of Congo.

How long have those laws been in place? That could maybe serve to give some data points. More importantly, what ethnic groups do convicted offenders belong to in what percentages?

 dogma wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

I meant Cultures* that's why I went on to say indigenous populations.

That isn't any better.

Yes, various countries of Europe have their own cultures. This shouldn't be news.

Unless you're saying the French and British are identical...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
MoD: You said that the West has no responsibility to the rest of the world because it "rejected" colonialism. Are you implying that colonialism was somehow beneficial for the rest of the world?

Free movement of EU citizens is an essential part of how the EU operates. Putting restrictions on that will damage the entire EU project. The numbers of Non EU immigrants are fairly insigificant compared to movement within the EU.

Well... I think that could be a debate worth having. The Middle East was hardly the cluster feth that it is today when the Brits ran the show.

 dogma wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Large swathes of Europe also share a fairly extensive history steeped in Christianity, there are pretty clear cultural similarities.

So, you want to keep out non-European and non-Christian influences?

Personally, it's less about keeping "them" out, and "us" in, as it is... "you're welcome here, just don't expect us to bend over backward to your old ways"

Case in point... page 1 of the thread, the town in Austria that lost a 60 year old "land mark" because some immigrant took serious issue to it? Or here in the US, various (admittedly tiny) groups calling for political reform in the form of us adopting Sharia law, or Sharia-like policies?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

Well... I think that could be a debate worth having. The Middle East was hardly the cluster feth that it is today when the Brits ran the show.

True... but it became a serious clusterfeth when Britain said "Draw a line on the 112nd degree of longitude, and another couple there, and one on that river there, AAAaaaaaand we have a country now!! Who wants some tea?"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Large swathes of Europe also share a fairly extensive history steeped in Christianity, there are pretty clear cultural similarities.

So, you want to keep out non-European and non-Christian influences?

Personally, it's less about keeping "them" out, and "us" in, as it is... "you're welcome here, just don't expect us to bend over backward to your old ways"

Case in point... page 1 of the thread, the town in Austria that lost a 60 year old "land mark" because some immigrant took serious issue to it? Or here in the US, various (admittedly tiny) groups calling for political reform in the form of us adopting Sharia law, or Sharia-like policies?

Democracy grants them the right to express their opinion and petition for change, just as it gives people the right to vote no to those proposals. To suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to ask for and campaign for what they believe in is, at its very core, against the democratic process.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Democracy grants them the right to express their opinion and petition for change, just as it gives people the right to vote no to those proposals. To suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to ask for and campaign for what they believe in is, at its very core, against the democratic process.

I think we can all agree though, that there's a HUGE difference between petitioning for social justice (ie, I'm gay, and I feel I have rights) vs, "Your country isn't enough like my old country, change it!"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Democracy grants them the right to express their opinion and petition for change, just as it gives people the right to vote no to those proposals. To suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to ask for and campaign for what they believe in is, at its very core, against the democratic process.

I think we can all agree though, that there's a HUGE difference between petitioning for social justice (ie, I'm gay, and I feel I have rights) vs, "Your country isn't enough like my old country, change it!"

Doesn't matter. I mean, the Tories and UKIP petition for the latter here all the time, where their "old country" is some rose-tinted imaginings of what England used to be like in the 50s and even earlier.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Democracy grants them the right to express their opinion and petition for change, just as it gives people the right to vote no to those proposals. To suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to ask for and campaign for what they believe in is, at its very core, against the democratic process.

I think we can all agree though, that there's a HUGE difference between petitioning for social justice (ie, I'm gay, and I feel I have rights) vs, "Your country isn't enough like my old country, change it!"

Doesn't matter. I mean, the Tories and UKIP petition for the latter here all the time, where their "old country" is some rose-tinted imaginings of what England used to be like in the 50s and even earlier.

I get that, and I think it's just as stupid when various groups in the US do similar... the whole "America was founded on Christian principles, and is a Christian nation, you NEED to make gay marriage illegal because God said so!" type thing is EXACTLY what I'm talking about....


If Sweden, the UK or anyone were making laws stating that people MUST consume pork on Friday, various religious groups would have legitimate beef with the government and shoudl petition for the change. Wanting a thief's hand cut off because that's how it was done in the "old country" isn't. IMO.

Not relevant to the story, but I keep reading the title of this thread as "Sweden set on fire by arsonist."

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Not relevant to the story, but I keep reading the title of this thread as "Sweden set on fire by arsonist."

Wouldn't all that snow... and all the buxom blondes keep it from spreading too far?

If Sweden, the UK or anyone were making laws stating that people MUST consume pork on Friday, various religious groups would have legitimate beef with the government and shoudl petition for the change.

Heh, pun...

 DarkLink wrote:

If Sweden, the UK or anyone were making laws stating that people MUST consume pork on Friday, various religious groups would have legitimate beef with the government and shoudl petition for the change.

Heh, pun...

Way to not address the meat of his post.

He should flesh it out more first.

Since arsonists are people who set fires, any fire that it not accidental is set by an arsonist, making the thread title seem redundant.

 adamsouza wrote:
Since arsonists are people who set fires, any fire that it not accidental is set by an arsonist, making the thread title seem redundant.

Your definition is a little broad. Arsonists are people who commit arson. People can set fires legally and not be arsonists.

 Breotan wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Since arsonists are people who set fires, any fire that it not accidental is set by an arsonist, making the thread title seem redundant.

Your definition is a little broad. Arsonists are people who commit arson. People can set fires legally and not be arsonists.

Jebus...Roy Mustang took on a whole new perspective for me now

 adamsouza wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Luckily for you, all you have to do to prevent that is...do nothing. Just don't move to an Islamic country.

The problem is that Islam is quite happy to move to your country and assert that their spirutual beliefs and laws are more important than your local ones.

Non believers are infidels, Christians and Jews are lower than dogs, and they don't like dogs, or bacon.

How can you trust anyone who doesn't like bacon ?

Yeah, and best of luck to them with that. They can assert their beliefs and laws as much as they want, that isn't going to ever give them any legal standing, especially not in the US. All the crap about Muslims trying to bring Sharia law to the US is conspiracy theory fear tactics. I'm not saying there isn't a handful of extremists who want that (obviously there are extremists like ISIS who want Sharia law everywhere) but in the US Sharia has absolutely zero legal legitimacy and the tiny, tiny minority who would want it are never going to have the power or ability to put it in place against a non-Muslim majority. In addition to the fact that the majority of Arabs who live in the US aren't Muslims, and came to the US to escape that kind of thing pretty much ensures that unless a group like ISIS takes over the entire country by force (something that will never happen), we don't have to worry about someone trying to enforce Sharia law on US citizens at home.

Also, most Jews don't eat pork either, brah, so I'd be careful about the "how can you trust anyone who doesn't like bacon" jokes.

 Hordini wrote:
In addition to the fact that the majority of Arabs who live in the US aren't Muslims

Really?

 Hordini wrote:
Also, most Jews don't eat pork either, brah, so I'd be careful about the "how can you trust anyone who doesn't like bacon" jokes.

And neither do vegetarians. But you should trust us anyway. Trust us! Those are not the animals you are looking for!

 adamsouza wrote:
Since arsonists are people who set fires, any fire that it not accidental is set by an arsonist, making the thread title seem redundant.

If someone dropped a candle and thus set a house on fire, he isn't an arsonist by its very definition. A toddler that'd do the same isn't either.

Relapse wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Funnily enough Sweden has seen its immigration levels increase rapidly and also its incidents of rape.
Couldn't possibly be connected.

Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that we've got some of the strictest sexual assault laws in the world probably contributes to higher report rates, unless you want to argue that Sweden has more rapes per capita than the Democratic Republic of Congo.

How long have those laws been in place? That could maybe serve to give some data points. More importantly, what ethnic groups do convicted offenders belong to in what percentages?

Following a change in the law in 2004, the reported number of rapes increased by 33% in one year (source is in Swedish). I don't think it's reasonable to explain that as immigrants being evil.

One thing to note is that while it would be rare that a sharia law would be established country wide, some groups can and have established ones similar to that locally. Here is an example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html