OccamsTeapot
- 0 Posts
- 13 Comments
0·5 days agoNext up for your morning drive is Lil’ Adolf, with his smash hit “You say problem, I say solution”
0·17 days agoIt’s too on-the-nose to be satire
The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions
I’m a bit confused about this. Is the US going to be Iran’s bitch at the Security Council now?
Yeah they should link to it anyway!
And yes, this is a bad law. Rushed in a few months before an election by a right-wing coalition including the fascist SD. Things went badly so now they’re throwing scraps to the frothing racists in their base in a desperate attempt to maintain power. They don’t care if it’s a good law, it’s chum for dumbasses.
The law does not specify what types of behaviours are deemed unacceptable but the government has mentioned unpaid debts, not paying taxes, criminality and links to extremist organisations.
No doubt! And just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s unethical.
The problem is practical. If rules are not written down then you can have punishment without justification, and as an individual you can’t depend on fair treatment by the state.
Clearly respect for democracy and protection of minorities should be respected by immigrants, and immigrants coming from different cultures that do not have this respect as part of their culture is a democratic problem for more developed cultures.
Then make it a requirement of entry. Or - and I can’t stress this enough - shut the fuck up about it.
“Oh we let you in and you haven’t done anything wrong legally but we just realised we don’t like you so please leave.”
Grow the fuck up. Change the rules fairly or deal with the consequences of your actions.
Not you personally, obviously. This argument is just pathetic.
Like if you don’t want asylum seekers or immigrants, just say so. Pull out of the conventions. Change the laws. Do whatever. But don’t accept people in and then act like they’re the problem rather than your own short sightedness (and, often, straight out racism).
How is it fair when someone shitty is allowed entry who ends up hurting civilians but civilians are expected to suck it up
Civilians are expected to suck it up? Why? This would only be true if it’s not illegal. If it truly hurts civilians, why not make it illegal instead?
It is fair because if a Swedish citizen did something that “hurts civilians” but is not illegal, the victims would also be “expected to suck it up.”
Making some things only punishable if you aren’t Swedish is exactly what you would expect from the fascists in SD. Not really something to aspire to if you’re a sane, caring individual. It is the definition of unfair.
So because the legal system has failed, they have to punish people outside the system?
How exactly is one supposed to stay on the right side of the rules when they aren’t even written down?
Obviously the solution, if the legal system fails, is to improve the legal system, not bring in an official “sorry we know this isn’t illegal but you’re brown so… unlucky” system
The law has been criticised by the opposition and human rights advocacy groups as arbitrary because decisions would be taken on behaviour that has not been deemed criminal.
Doesn’t seem very fair
“Breaking” news just means the story is still unfolding aka breaking
Good heavens! I’m starting to think there’s something rotten in this “steal people’s work, regurgitate it back at them at great environmental cost and if they don’t like it, force it down their throats at every opportunity” industry