Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arx]

Preeeetty sure I've seen it mentioned. I can't think of an explicit case of a warning or a mute, though.

[scriver]

I've seen it before too. Don't use the word.

In other news from Sweden, yesterday the Employment Court handled the case of whether nurses had a right to refuse certain tasks on grounds of "freedom of conscience" and came to the conclusion that no, all nurses must expect to perform all the tasks expected of them. Specifically, the case in question was that of a nurse who felt that she should have the right to refuse performing abortions, granting day-after prevention pills, and installing pregnancy prevention spirals, and that the
Region of Jönköping has discriminated against her when they didn't hire her after she had told them she wouldn't perform said tasks if she was hired.

As the Employment Court is the highest instance relevant her only choice now is to either accept the outcome or take it to the EU Court (or Court of Europe, whichever is right). It is suspected she will do the latter, as her case and herself has been supported financially by the American Christian lobby organisation Alliance Defending Freedom as part of a campaign to influence European states abortion rights. Personally I hope the EU will uphold the Swedish decision if it comes to that, but I am not particularly optimistic about that being the outcome.

Bonus funfact: The city of Jönköping is sometimes nicknamed Sweden's Jerusalem because the high proportion of free-religious Christians.

[LethalShade]

I wasn't aware that a Christian lobby supported the case. It's disgusting.

Sweden made the right decision.


EDIT : As for the xfag slang, I always thought it was okay when applied to myself. Go figure. Thanks for the warning though.

[scriver]

Oh, I doubt anyone would report it used about yourself anywaanyways.

[Sheb]

Eh, it'd be interesting, but I don't think the ECJ (European Court of Justice) would rule that way. After all, they're the one that ruled that it's ok under EU law to fire an employee for wearing an headscarf as long as all religious symbols are equally banned. Or you mean the European Court of Human Right? (That one isn't an instiution of the EU, but of the Council of Europe).

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Yet another case involving a gang of Asian men in the UK grooming and sexually abusing young girls has come to trial, with 29 defendants, facing more than 170 charges of abuse of girls between the ages of 11 and 17 around Huddersfield.

It is, at this point, a national crisis, and yet this latest case isn't even a BBC headline, having been passed over in favour of important stuff like a speeding squaddie, Harper Beckham becoming a trademark, predictions of Easter traffic jams and the latest update in the United Airlines melodrama.

We are failing a generation of young girls in these communities, and it is absolutely disgusting.

It's just became expected and something "you have to deal with now".

[Silverthrone]

I cannot say I am terribly pleased with the court decision. It has certainly fallen in the right direction (abortion is a dreadful business, but it needs to be available, and clauses and agreements to nibble away at the abortion right is never welcome), but I would have prefered to have seen a compromise. Namely, a midwife is free to refuse to carry out an abortion in person, but ultimately answers for ensuring that there is someone who will. I believe that those professionals who are not prepared to carry out an abortion is in a significant minority in the Swedish healthcare staff, and as long as the procedure is carried out timely and properly, who is doing it cannot be much of a concern. A blanket 'no' seems rather heavy-handed, when an alternative is present.

Still. Better this than the other, if an entirely binary option is what we are stuck with.

Yet another case involving a gang of Asian men in the UK grooming and sexually abusing young girls has come to trial, with 29 defendants, facing more than 170 charges of abuse of girls between the ages of 11 and 17 around Huddersfield.

It is, at this point, a national crisis, and yet this latest case isn't even a BBC headline, having been passed over in favour of important stuff like a speeding squaddie, Harper Beckham becoming a trademark, predictions of Easter traffic jams and the latest update in the United Airlines melodrama.

We are failing a generation of young girls in these communities, and it is absolutely disgusting.

But - but - but, Sir! We cannot give an inch to the horrible, terrible spectre of IslamophobiaⓇ! Imagine giving this tiny, local incident (in which the perpetrators could be anyone, absolutely anyone, I might add!) greater attention than necessary. Why, someone, somewhere, might be persuaded to dislike such fellows! They might even think, oh, horror of horrors!, that such abuse might be more common in certain demographics, and we cannot possibly allow it, not for worlds! Why, some people have not even heard of cultural relativity (can you believe it? It is 2017, for pity's sake!), and cannot possibly put it into its proper context, but immediately apply their own, regressive, outdated, imperialist values upon it! And that would be ever so horrible!

---

^{No, on second thought, I do not think satire is something for me... I will need a bath, now.}

Agreed. There is something terribly disconcerting in how carefully this is being flown under the radar. I suppose a certain tactful discretion and calmness is important when reporting on sex crime trials, but this is ridiculously discrete. It might be a fault of my own, but I cannot believe that such a vast case would be passed so quietly along under 'ordinary' circumstances.

At least they wrote something on the matter, albeit no more than what was strictly necessary.

EDIT : As for the xfag slang, I always thought it was okay when applied to myself. Go figure. Thanks for the warning though.

I usually replace X with 'friend'; newfriend, drawfriend, furfriend. I think it is rather lovely that way. It creates a pleasant atmosphere.

[Criptfeind]

What would you prefer? Papers with headlines like "Time to string up the chinks" or something? If there's a failure of policing to deal with it, or even issues with the system that is leading to this that you want to address, that seems all well and good. But taking umbrage that papers aren't reporting on it more? Maybe it's just because in general I don't think crimes should be highly publicized anyway but I don't see you guys pointing out something that really seems to be an issue. Like, yeah, you're outraged at this crime, that makes sense, since it's an outrageous crime. But what do you want changed, and why? The fact that you consider this a national crisis is a big hint that something needs to change, but I'm not sure how increased reporting helps with that.

[Silverthrone]

In brief and plain: I disapprove when crimes, trials and incidents are under-reported because of the ethnicity of the perpetrators. It is part of a bigger problem, when the issue of ethnicity short-cirquits any meaningful discussion and action. That the BBC tries to be much more quiet in reporting this case than they would have been if it had been perpetrated in, say, Bath, is not a terrible crisis in and off itself. It is a part of a greater phenomenon, however, and decreasing that tendency in reporting and publishing would help in diminishing it.

I do not ask for great, passionate head-lines, I do not demand that they shout it from the roof-tops. But I do not approve of the type of reporting where unflattering or inconvenient reports are diminished and hidden away. It is one thing when it is merely (well, 'merely') about journalism, but it is a different case entirely when laws are overlooked and poor behaviours are ignored because of ethnicity.

(As a note: 'Asian' in the British context tend to mean Central Asian; in this case, Pakistanis.)

[scriver]

Eh, it'd be interesting, but I don't think the ECJ (European Court of Justice) would rule that way. After all, they're the one that ruled that it's ok under EU law to fire an employee for wearing an headscarf as long as all religious symbols are equally banned. Or you mean the European Court of Human Right? (That one isn't an instiution of the EU, but of the Council of Europe).

I was directly translating Europadomstolen (more or less, super directly it would've been "the European Chair of Doom"), which is what it is called here, which seems to be the ciurt of Human Rights. So yeah, technically not EU.

I cannot say I am terribly pleased with the court decision. It has certainly fallen in the right direction (abortion is a dreadful business, but it needs to be available, and clauses and agreements to nibble away at the abortion right is never welcome), but I would have prefered to have seen a compromise. Namely, a midwife is free to refuse to carry out an abortion in person, but ultimately answers for ensuring that there is someone who will. I believe that those professionals who are not prepared to carry out an abortion is in a significant minority in the Swedish healthcare staff, and as long as the procedure is carried out timely and properly, who is doing it cannot be much of a concern. A blanket 'no' seems rather heavy-handed, when an alternative is present

The alternative to work in a private practice still exist. I think it's reasonable to expect all people who work for the state hospitals to be able to perform the tasks the state is legally bound to have available.

[Criptfeind]

There's a pretty large gap between "the state is failing to take appropriate action" and "the media isn't reporting crimes to the population enough."

Edit: To elaborate further on that response:

Silverthrone: If laws are being overlooked being of ethnicity that's quite a bit different, and I agree with you that's something that people should probably be made aware of so that they can start to work on it. Also yeah, thanks for the Asian=Pakistanis thing, I feel like I probably should have known that.

[Silverthrone]

Eh, it'd be interesting, but I don't think the ECJ (European Court of Justice) would rule that way. After all, they're the one that ruled that it's ok under EU law to fire an employee for wearing an headscarf as long as all religious symbols are equally banned. Or you mean the European Court of Human Right? (That one isn't an instiution of the EU, but of the Council of Europe).

I was directly translating Europadomstolen (more or less, super directly it would've been "the European Chair of Doom"), which is what it is called here, which seems to be the ciurt of Human Rights. So yeah, technically not EU.

I cannot say I am terribly pleased with the court decision. It has certainly fallen in the right direction (abortion is a dreadful business, but it needs to be available, and clauses and agreements to nibble away at the abortion right is never welcome), but I would have prefered to have seen a compromise. Namely, a midwife is free to refuse to carry out an abortion in person, but ultimately answers for ensuring that there is someone who will. I believe that those professionals who are not prepared to carry out an abortion is in a significant minority in the Swedish healthcare staff, and as long as the procedure is carried out timely and properly, who is doing it cannot be much of a concern. A blanket 'no' seems rather heavy-handed, when an alternative is present

The alternative to work in a private practice still exist. I think it's reasonable to expect all people who work for the state hospitals to be able to perform the tasks the state is legally bound to have available.

I do like that word. Domstol. Domstol. The seat from which judgment is passed. It carries more gravitas than merely a 'court'.

I believe you are right, now that you say it. With the current state of the state healthcare, it is all hands on deck, and it is probably better that the staff can carry out all the tasks they are designated for. I must confess that I entirely forgot the private practices option. That does sound like the best solution, after all.

There's a pretty large gap between "the state is failing to take appropriate action" and "the media isn't reporting crimes to the population enough."

Edit: To elaborate further on that response:

Silverthrone: If laws are being overlooked being of ethnicity that's quite a bit different, and I agree with you that's something that people should probably be made aware of so that they can start to work on it. Also yeah, thanks for the Asian=Pakistanis thing, I feel like I probably should have known that.

The media (on the whole) do tend to do rather good work in reporting crime to the public, which is why the sudden slump in standards when the ethnic dilemma appears is a bit of a shame, and with the importance of the media in the modern world, it is also quite disconcerting. If nothing, nothing else, it is about standards of journalism, and I believe BBC ought to do their damndest to keep theirs from slumping, in this day and age.

Yes, the British definition of 'Asian' rather confused me a few times, as well, before I learned. I also tend to connect the term to Far East Asians, myself, but it is rather easy to work out which is being talked about through the context.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

'The chinks', really Criptfeind?

Rather than getting aggravated at you appearing to minimise the organised sexual exploitation of thousands - possibly tens of thousands - of British children by gangs of sexual predators ('don't see you guys pointing out something that really seems to be an issue' indeed) and the accompanying failure of the state to take appropriate action for fear of being seen as racist, I'd just like to find out first how informed about it you really are, what articles and sources you've read, etc.

Because the fact that you're talking about 'the chinks' doesn't fill me with confidence that you actually have a clue what you're talking about.

It's not just white girls, it's also Sikh girls who then won't be able to get married because of these rape gangs.

But brush it all under the rug and claim it's not a problem, everything will be fine.

[smjjames]

A lightly serious comparison between the French elections and the one that the US has gone through. Just an interesting look at it. Also, the French seem to be suffering from the same problems with the polling as we did, and some media (CNN is mentioned) aren't accepting the validity of it. So, it looks like the US media at the very least, has figured out the basics of what went wrong with the polling and that until we figure out what exactly happened (though likely for different reasons from France), best to take those with a grain of margin of error.

[Sheb]

Is there any breakdown of crime by ethnicity? I remember when we had that discussion about Sweden some months (might have been a year) ago, and it turned out that new immigrants had lower than average sex crimes apart from stuff related to public bath (and lower average). I mean, we can cherry pick exemples all days (and they're cherry picked for us by FB's algorithm and our respectives bubbles), so overall stats are always interesting.