claiming that the ruling violated the foundations of Sweden’s legal system.
Good thing we don’t just do like the Swedes do.
We have it. That word is “immigration”.
No, it’s not immigration per se.
In theory, no.
But immigration is how left-wing governments ‘elect a new people’ when the natives won’t vote for them. As I understand it, Democrats would have won few elections over the last fifty years if not for the 1965 immigration act importing a hundred million new voters over that time.
Its all spelled out in the documentary, Gangs of New York.
That’s the movie about the Union government grabbing immigrants off the boat and conscripting them to kill Confederates, isn’t it?
“Progressivism”.
Have you noticed what has happened politically to California over the last 40 years?
I like that the bar association president used this one case as an excuse to replace all the lay judges with members of his union. Jimmy Hoffa would be proud.
Sounds like a criminal case? Hard to believe any country would allow a local religious court to try it. Maybe it was really some kind of arbitration?
Anyhow, “he’s from a nice family and she’s from trailer trash” doesn’t come across too well.
The story is that a Swedish prosecutor successfully convicted a migrant (hailing from the Third World) for raping a Swedish twelve year old. A sentence of confinement was imposed by the court. The judge asked the prosecutor to make a recommendation in regard to whether the defendant should be deported after the period of confinement ends.
The prosecutor made a recommendation against deportation.
The prosecutor reasoned that the defendant was unlikely to be rehabilitated by confinement, and therefore, the defendant was likely to commit the same crime again. The prosecutor’s position was that whether the defendant goes on to rape a Swede (or a non-Swede in Sweden) or someone in the defendant’s own home country should not be considered because the health, safety, and lives of all potential future victims should be valued equally.
Also, if deported the families of the defendants future victims might decide to take matters into their own hands, and we absolutely cannot have anything like that happening. (shudder)
claiming that the ruling violated the foundations of Sweden’s legal system.
Good thing we don’t just do like the Swedes do.
We have it. That word is “immigration”.
No, it’s not immigration per se.
In theory, no.
But immigration is how left-wing governments ‘elect a new people’ when the natives won’t vote for them. As I understand it, Democrats would have won few elections over the last fifty years if not for the 1965 immigration act importing a hundred million new voters over that time.
Its all spelled out in the documentary, Gangs of New York.
That’s the movie about the Union government grabbing immigrants off the boat and conscripting them to kill Confederates, isn’t it?
“Progressivism”.
Have you noticed what has happened politically to California over the last 40 years?
I like that the bar association president used this one case as an excuse to replace all the lay judges with members of his union. Jimmy Hoffa would be proud.
Sounds like a criminal case? Hard to believe any country would allow a local religious court to try it. Maybe it was really some kind of arbitration?
Anyhow, “he’s from a nice family and she’s from trailer trash” doesn’t come across too well.
Related.
The story is that a Swedish prosecutor successfully convicted a migrant (hailing from the Third World) for raping a Swedish twelve year old. A sentence of confinement was imposed by the court. The judge asked the prosecutor to make a recommendation in regard to whether the defendant should be deported after the period of confinement ends.
The prosecutor made a recommendation against deportation.
The prosecutor reasoned that the defendant was unlikely to be rehabilitated by confinement, and therefore, the defendant was likely to commit the same crime again. The prosecutor’s position was that whether the defendant goes on to rape a Swede (or a non-Swede in Sweden) or someone in the defendant’s own home country should not be considered because the health, safety, and lives of all potential future victims should be valued equally.
Also, if deported the families of the defendants future victims might decide to take matters into their own hands, and we absolutely cannot have anything like that happening. (shudder)