Deferring to Fear of Reprisal
Reader comment on: Sweden: Hate Speech Just for Imams
Submitted by John Davis, Feb 22, 2017 13:17
What can be done when the discriminatory words deemed illegal by the courts are spoken by a radical imam in Sweden and are ignored if not sanctioned by the Swedish police? What can be done when a native Swedish citizen writes his opinion about what he sees as illegal behavior harmful to Swedish citizens that is occurring in his country, and is convicted of a crime for speaking his perception of truth?
For whatever reason (or lack thereof), Swedish authorities appear to be permitting one form of abuse while condemning what they have chosen to interpret as another form of abuse. What happened to equal justice under the law? How can the abusive language of one religious authority be allowed while another man's opinion is judged to be unacceptable, especially when the opinion of a radical religious authority figure holds more power over the minds of his followers than an opinion written on Facebook? In a word, such a biased inversion of the law is allowed because of the fear of reprisal.
Swedish legal authorities could be afraid of what might happen if the imam is prosecuted, perhaps believing that he has greater power (legal and illegal power) to defend the case against him than a citizen representing another minority group whose resources are likely more limited than those unknown supporters backing the imam.
Note: Reader comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. Gatestone Institute reserves the right to reject anything found to be objectionable. Reader comments, including the one above, represent solely the opinion or viewpoint of the readers that submitted them and do not represent the opinion or viewpoint of Gatestone Institute. Gatestone Institute takes no responsibility for the content of reader comments.
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item
Get Free Exclusive Gatestone Content: