As I have said before, these discrimination lawsuits are part of a systematic and continuous process of low-grade jihad that is going on across the entire West. In the aggregate, they are much more serious than bombings and other violent jihad attacks.
They are not only lucrative for the plaintiffs, they provide a way for Islamic radicals to demoralize the businesses and governments of the West, and to further weaken societies that are already reeling from the combined effects over several decades of socialism, postmodernism, multiculturalism, and political correctness.
Here’s what LN had to say:
I realize that I perhaps was not detailed enough in my description of the specific Swedish situation - which, according to the DO [Discrimination Ombudsman], is that “discrimination shall cost”. From the “customer’s” side, that discrimination is a very good business concept.- - - - - - - - - -
Any infringement that can be linked to (1) ethnic or (2) religious discrimination is worth money. In common legal cases, a person who is suing somebody for damages must be able to prove that an infringement or something similar has occurred. This, however, is not the case with the “law of discrimination”, since the plaintiffs enjoy evidence relief — and free legal assistance. The infringed person needs thereby only to point out “circumstances” that give reason to assume that discrimination has occurred.
For example, a recent case that the DO is examining is about a Muslim women of Somalian origin who was taking part in a “self-defense” course at a training center in Gothenburg. At the fourth training occasion she was urged to take off her veil otherwise she would not be allowed to go on with the course. The women refused and reported the incident to the DO; in the end, it will probably lead to the training center having to pay the Somalian lady damages of some SEK 20,000 to 50,000 ($2,900 to $7,200). Tax-free income.
A good business concept would be, at least for a woman, to convert to Islam and start getting discriminated against.
5 comments:
"Evidence relief"! That's an interesting and Stalinesque concept. Why bother with the judiciary for anything other than show trials?
We, the west, use to pride ourselves, that we didn't have political prisoners. When I was a child I sometimes heard the term; Political prisoners, and it was always in relation to vary bad and primitive countries, and everyone around me was in total agreement, that using the law against political statements was wrong.
But its not like that anymore. Using the law against political opponents, has entered the west and its growing fast. And its not just the left who promotes this. Large parts of what we would call, right wingers are just fine with this tendency.
Many people seem to think that you shouldn't defend people against these law-attacks, unless you agree with the statements they are being attacked for.
It can be:
A professor in IQ claims that; Men are more intelligent then woman.
A child Psychologist claims that; acts of pedophilia is not always damaging to the child
A Historian who says that; A place, claimed to be used to kill Jews during the Holocaust, was in fact used for something else.
A politician who states that; A certain religion promotes violence and should therefore be banded.
These are all statements that can get people in trouble, from getting fired to having to spend time in jail. The sad thing about many conservatives is that they are beginning to feel that some of these people who are punished, are only getting whats coming to them. If we disagree strongly with something, we cant be bothered to defend them. And the idea that the law can be used as a weapon against people we disagree with, keeps growing.
In Sweden, schoolteachers have been fired for being members of a legal democratic party. Just a few days ago in Denmark, some postal workers refused to deliver material that was critical towards Islam, they ended up doing it under protest to avoid being fired, but added their own note; saying that they didn't agree with the antiislamic folder.
The idea that "wrong" opinions should be suppressed seems to be growing out of control. And its followed closely be the idea that if you do not suppress something, then you must agree with it and you are therefore partly guilty do to your unsuppressing ways.
If this goes on, we will see more and more store owners, who will only sell the newspapers or other materials they agree with or are willing to be associated with. People who will only sell Cigarettes if they "believe" in smoking. and so on and so forth.
If we fail to turn this around, the west will become an awful place to live.
It is strange that such "crimes" is being seen as very serious, while Laila Freivalds, Lars Danielsson and all the other social-democratic tyrants breaking our constitution, erasing Mohammed-publishing homepages from the Web, lying to the Parliament and promising dictatorships in the Middle-East an abolition of our freedom of speech, are not being seen as serious crimes. The latter 4 things barely got any attention in our MSM.
But when someone gets discriminated ("kränkt"), it is of course very serious...
Pharanth, the government should not be party to, nor instigate harassment of, private individuals or enterprises who choose to not hire, sell, or traffic in content or persons they disagree with.
This leaves people the freedom of speech and association, in the US, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
This is what makes the US, and in part the west, unique and free.
Cindi
I don't disagree with what your constitution says. In fact I agree with it very much.
What I am worried about is when these choices goes from being individual to being collective. In Egypt during the Motoon crisis, a man was arrested for eating Danish Cheese, and this tendency is growing also in the west.
In England a Muslim woman would not sell Cigarettes even though she was working in a store that did. The store owner would get in trouble if he fired her.
Is it an individual choice if a taxi driver will not pick up a blind man and his Haram dog ?
I suppose you could say it is. But at the same time its not an acceptable choice to call an ask for a non-muslim Taxidriver.
A Constitution cannot guarantee anything by it self. There has to be people who understand and believes in it, otherwise its just a piece of irrelevant paper. And if this tendency to collectively punish people who have the "wrong" ideas keep growing our individual choices will disappear.
How can a doctor heal if he cannot diagnose?. The child Psychologist who claimed that, acts of pedophilia wasn't always damaging to the child. Is hit by a collective outrage that assumes that he is promoting pedophilia. But its an important part of his job to determine when a child is damaged and when it isn't.
At the same time parents are not allowed the individual choice to keep their children away from real pedophiles offenders, not doctors with theories, but the real deal, people who have already spent time in jail for the act itself. These information's are kept away from public, to give the criminals a 2. chance.
When a politician is jailed for having wrong opinions the individual choice to vote for him or her is gone. At least I think it is in most western countries. You cant read a historian if he is not allowed to publish. A scientist work become meaningless, when the answers he is looking for are already decided by popular opinion, that he better not disagree with.
There are differences from country to country, in how these things are playing out. But its happening all over the west.
We better not put to much trust in a piece of paper.
Post a Comment