nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sweden Riots

Assetbacked

[font=arial, sans-serif]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45181321[/font]
What appears to be gaining notoriety slowly but surely across the MSM, there were horrific riots across the city of Gothenberg last night resulting in over 80 cars burned. Indications are that the riots were well organised and carried out be youths. No injuries have been reported which is lucky.

In addition, it is unclear what exactly was the cause of this large scale act of vandalism. The immigration problems in Sweden are well documents (https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/08/immigration-is-changing-the-swedish-welfare-state) and, while immigration will undoubtedly be thrown up in discussion about these riots, I feel it is a distraction, as usual, from the real issue; the real issue being rich versus poor.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bfa1509

If I was interviewing someone (man/woman, black/white, muslim/catholic/athiest, straight/LGBT) even if they were the perfect fit for the role and they didn't shake my hand for whatever reason; They would not get the job.

The point of interviews is not just to find someone to fill a position, it's also to make sure you like the person and can see yourself happily working with them in the future. If you do anything to jeopardise the impression you leave on your interviewer, then tough s**t if you don't get the job.

Das Reich

rossie1977 wrote: »

Even on a mainstream level the Swedes are very socially conservative in a number of areas compared to many in Western mainland Europe.

I can't believe I read that. If Swedes are conservative, what Italians are?

Also I not understand how people not defend their property with guns from rioters. I wish these muslims try to do this in Brazil just to see what would happen.

warsaw2018

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, that's were we differ. It's not reasonable and the verdict of the court would support my opinion on the matter.
I would prefer if a company hired on skill and knowledge and not handshaking ability. Just seems a very silly criteria to hire people on.
Would have to be an incredibly incompetent HR person.

OK, addressing the religion angle. This case annoys me because someone made an idiotic decision based on a handshake.
Had religion not been an angle, would that make it any better? Don't think so, because now we're moving into psycho territory on the HR person's part.
Now, with religion in the picture, as I keep saying, what's the big deal? Personally I don't care if she has a phobia or if she does it for religious reasons. She might politely explain why and offer her own greeting.
Why is this an insult to some people? I guess the reason is that they have preconceptions about her religion and want to get offended and were looking for reasons to get offended.
Quite frankly, if a moslem coworker wanted to greet me via the medium of the chicken dance I wouldn't care.

Overcompensate much gunther

dr.fuzzenstein

warsaw2018 wrote: »

Overcompensate much gunther

Quit Guntering around.

edit, but thanks for quoting my post.

blinding

jmreire wrote: »

If you pat ANY woman on the bum nowadays...( without her expressed and to be on be on the safe side, written and witnessed signature ) be prepared for a reaction ( and thats here in the "Civilised West) But that reaction will pale into significance if while in a Muslim Country, you pat ANY womans /mans / girls bum. And if you do it, and their menfolk ( and maybe not even related to them )are present, be prepared for swift justice. The will be very insulted. There was a case recently, where a holiday maker was in a public restaurant, and while carrying a tray (with both hands) he nudged a local with his elbow, while saying Excuse me. The offended local man went into a rage, accusing the tourist of "improper actions " the police were called, and the tourist arrested. He spent an anxious few weeks in prison, before he was released, and only then after an intervention by his government. Had he been sentenced, he could have spent a few years in jail. :cool:

Swerving Islam is the way to go .

Its just too much hassle all round .

I’ll stick with the atheists and a bit of cultural catholicism (non believing ) and any body else that ain’t too high maintenance . Life’s too short for Islam and Islam often shortens life .

RandomName2

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, that's were we differ. It's not reasonable and the verdict of the court would support my opinion on the matter.
I would prefer if a company hired on skill and knowledge and not handshaking ability. Just seems a very silly criteria to hire people on.
Would have to be an incredibly incompetent HR person.

You are clearly being disingenuous. If someone came to an interview in their underwear, late, or unwashed they wouldn't get the job. They'd be at a grave disadvantage if they were incredibly nervous and awkward, arrogant, or confrontational.

You know this. Everyone knows this. This is life. But if you stick a religious sign on behavior that would otherwise be unacceptable, then it's okay? Wait, no that's not right, because we wouldn't be having this conversation if it was a Christian religous nut who, during the interview, refused to allow a photograph of themselves to be taken, because it's forbidden in their Anabaptist church. You wouldn't be saying that the HR person had a screw loose in this situation.

I find this obtuseness tiresome. We all know where you're coming from.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Quite frankly, if a moslem coworker wanted to greet me via the medium of the chicken dance

If a chicken dance were done in dead earnestness, with the expectation that I mimic a chicken in response, I would question their mental stability.

blinding

I always meet a chicken with a chicken dance . It makes me feel superior . I don’t know why !

RandomName2

blinding wrote: »

I always meet a chicken with a chicken dance . It makes me feel superior . I don’t know why !

Bok bok MOFO

jmreire

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, that's were we differ. It's not reasonable and the verdict of the court would support my opinion on the matter.
I would prefer if a company hired on skill and knowledge and not handshaking ability. Just seems a very silly criteria to hire people on.
Would have to be an incredibly incompetent HR person.

OK, addressing the religion angle. This case annoys me because someone made an idiotic decision based on a handshake.
Had religion not been an angle, would that make it any better? Don't think so, because now we're moving into psycho territory on the HR person's part.
Now, with religion in the picture, as I keep saying, what's the big deal? Personally I don't care if she has a phobia or if she does it for religious reasons. She might politely explain why and offer her own greeting.
Why is this an insult to some people? I guess the reason is that they have preconceptions about her religion and want to get offended and were looking for reasons to get offended.
It would suggest to me that they feel threatened.
Anger is mostly borne out of fear.
Quite frankly, if a moslem coworker wanted to greet me via the medium of the chicken dance I wouldn't care.

It would all depend on what was the job description...if meeting and greeting, was part of the job, then it would not be suitable for this particular candidate. But there are other exception too. There are lots of things we take for granted in this part of the world, but which are unacceptable to Muslims, and depending on how devout they are, they will NOT act or say or do anything which is forbidden in Islam. A quick case in point, some time ago in England,a man approaches the checkout at the local supermarket, and unloads his trolley on the conveyer belt. All goes well and his turn at the till comes. The assistant scans some items, then see's the alcohol he's placed for checkout. No can do she says, please remove these items, and go to the next checkout. I can't handle any item which contains alcohol, as I am a Muslim. Simply, Muslims have a completely different culture to what we have in the west, and to them, Islam is everything.

Greentopia

RandomName2 wrote: »

If someone if physically incapable of shaking hands due to a psychological or neurological disorder then that's a totally different story. You could theoretically say that being religious is a psychological disorder, but I don't think that would fly.

Well being brainwashed to believe in sky daddies whatever the religion isn't far off being a disorder IMO but that's another story...

It's been decided that it's not in fact different under Swedish law now by a three to two majority ruling of judges, so no it isn't.

It's not as if she was expecting the interviewer to reciprocate her way of greeting or preaching to him in any way, she just chose her own way of greeting. I'd just nod my head and commence the interview with her. But no, the guy had A Point To Make! and chose to be an asshole and lead her out of the office crying. Well done, I'm sure that's the way to get people of different cultures and beliefs to be more accepting of and to integrate and assimilate more into European culture. :rolleyes:

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is a correct way to behave. The correct way to behave is to shake someone's hand. Not doing so is deeply offensive. She felt that her personal beliefs trumped causing offense - and that's her perogative. Just don't expect people not to get offended when you do it!

Correct according to who? you don't get to decide the reasons why someone might not be able to shake hands. It's rather authoritarian to expect everyone to comply just because it's what you decide is right. Cultural practices like greetings can and do evolve. They're not set in stone. When I was much younger friends didn't kiss each other on the cheeks on greeting, now it's common place.

Deeply offensive? when any thinking individual could see what she did was not meant as such but simply an expression of her beliefs? dear oh dear. The term snowflake comes to mind. How sensitive would you have to be to be "deeply offended" by a differing form of greeting? :pac:

RandomName2 wrote: »

She was being an arsehole because she didn't care about their feelings. She probably didn't care if she caused offense because she felt that if she did offend them that she could take them to court. And she did.

Yes I'm sure taking them to court was uppermost on her mind as she was marched out the office in front of everyone crying. :rolleyes:

RandomName2 wrote: »

Her gripe was that they were men.

Her actions were informed by her beliefs. They are not mine but she's entitled to them in a country where freedom of religious beliefs is guaranteed. It impinges no way on any of my rights or anyone else's so I don't have a problem with it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Edit: I wonder if she had a male escort. If she didn't she's just picking and choosing what dogma she wants to follow.

Like people of pretty much all religions do. A la carte Catholicism?
Having a male escort is again nothing to do with this case, but actually it seems it is not necessary according to their teachings in today's world: http://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-about-islam/women-allowed-travel-alone/

Greentopia

enricoh wrote: »

No big hangups about religion in general, but I fail to see what Islam is going to positively contribute to Ireland with it's values on women and attitudes to gays.
If other countries want to take in migrants that go around torching 90 cars, have no go areas n make up 93% of the child grooming gangs let them at it. Ill just take that country off the must see list , no biggie.
I don't want in my country though

I just wanted to address that issue. In the case of Sweden at least that is a myth created by certain parts of the media. There are no "no-go" areas in Sweden that police cannot go. That's my opinion from 8 years living there, but anecdotal evidence is weak so here's bias free fact checking that proves they don't exist:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/

warsaw2018

Greentopia wrote: »

I just wanted to address that issue. In the case of Sweden at least that is a myth created by certain parts of the media. There are no "no-go" areas in Sweden that police cannot go. That's my opinion from 8 years living there, but anecdotal evidence is weak so here's bias free fact checking that proves they don't exist:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/

Sweden always had grenades in the inner city

The_Kew_Tour

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Throwing a strop over that is immature and childish.
.

Didn't she throw the Strop though

tuxy

Greentopia wrote: »

I just wanted to address that issue. In the case of Sweden at least that is a myth created by certain parts of the media. There are no "no-go" areas in Sweden that police cannot go. That's my opinion from 8 years living there, but anecdotal evidence is weak so here's bias free fact checking that proves they don't exist:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/

What happened here?(starting 4:11 where they had called the police after their camera man was run over by a migrant)

The police were worried about going into an area because their presence would be provocative.
All members of the crew filming ended up getting assaulted.

Do you know anything about that area? Was the story somehow fabricated by the film crew?

Kivaro

So here's the deal with Sweden.
Since 2015, 18% of the current population was born outside the country. They have accepted 600,000 "refugees" in the last 5 years. This is unsustainable and there is now push back. Many in the country now believe that such immigration numbers is a danger to their welfare state e.g. Swedes have to wait longer to get access to welfare staples like hospital care.

The Social Democrats caused this to happen, and as a result, their 100 year dominance of the political establishment will end in September if Swedes vote for the Nationalist party. It makes complete sense e.g. why would you surrender your access to the services that you were use to; irrespective of your good nature of welcoming all who want to come to the country. I will not mention the drastic increase in assaults against the female population of the country and crime in general since the recent change of the demographic.

There is a tiny vocal minority in Ireland who want to replicate the Swedish experiment of open borders. It will not work.
If the Swedish Democrats succeed in September then this will be a major blow to Sinn Fein's open border policy, but it is also verifies the natural order of things ..... sense eventually prevails.

4068ac1elhodqr

Meanwhile over the 'not bending over backwards proud nation of Switzerland':

The Swiss city of Lausanne has blocked a Muslim couple's bid to become Swiss nationals over their refusal to shake hands with members of the opposite sex.
The municipality refused to grant the couple's citizenship application due to 'their lack of respect for gender equality' Lausanne mayor Gregoire Junod said.

Greentopia

tuxy wrote: »

What happened here?(starting 4:11 where they had called the police after their camera man was run over by a migrant)

The police were worried about going into an area because their presence would be provocative.
All members of the crew filming ended up getting assaulted.

Do you know anything about that area? Was the story somehow fabricated by the film crew?

I'll have a look at it tomorrow and reply then. Second sleep awaits now.

el diablo

Greentopia wrote: »

I just wanted to address that issue. In the case of Sweden at least that is a myth created by certain parts of the media. There are no "no-go" areas in Sweden that police cannot go. That's my opinion from 8 years living there, but anecdotal evidence is weak so here's bias free fact checking that proves they don't exist:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/

Snopes is completely biased and an extreme leftist/liberal website. It's probably the last place you should visit if you're looking for factual information.

dr.fuzzenstein

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are clearly being disingenuous. If someone came to an interview in their underwear, late, or unwashed they wouldn't get the job. They'd be at a grave disadvantage if they were incredibly nervous and awkward, arrogant, or confrontational.

You know this. Everyone knows this. This is life. But if you stick a religious sign on behavior that would otherwise be unacceptable, then it's okay? Wait, no that's not right, because we wouldn't be having this conversation if it was a Christian religous nut who, during the interview, refused to allow a photograph of themselves to be taken, because it's forbidden in their Anabaptist church. You wouldn't be saying that the HR person had a screw loose in this situation.

I find this obtuseness tiresome. We all know where you're coming from.

If a chicken dance were done in dead earnestness, with the expectation that I mimic a chicken in response, I would question their mental stability.

You are now inventing fictitious details and applying them to her situation.
Other posters have said "but what about riots, what about no go areas", how does that apply to her?
What about an Irish person being interviewed and people said " But! But! IRA!"
Same thing.

YOU are the one being disingenuous here. My standpoint is, and always will be, it's a fcuking handshake, untwist your knickers everyone.
You had earlier said what if religion wasn't involved.
Well, then YOU wouldn't be posting here, because clearly to you this is just an excuse to bash members of a certain religion.
And you certainly wouldn't come out and say that. You have an agenda, I don't.
I have been nothing but straightforward. And you can't handle that.
Unlike you, I write what I believe in.

If we in Europe now want to persecute people over a bloody fcuking handshake, we are no better than some of the countries some of us like to sneer at.
AH has certainly become an anti Muslim **** fest sometimes. Some people should put stop waving their dick about and start thinking critically.

Corb_lund

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You are now inventing fictitious details and applying them to her situation.
Other posters have said "but what about riots, what about no go areas", how does that apply to her?
What about an Irish person being interviewed and people said " But! But! IRA!"
Same thing.

YOU are the one being disingenuous here. My standpoint is, and always will be, it's a fcuking handshake, untwist your knickers everyone.
You had earlier said what if religion wasn't involved.
Well, then YOU wouldn't be posting here, because clearly to you this is just an excuse to bash members of a certain religion.
And you certainly wouldn't come out and say that. You have an agenda, I don't.
I have been nothing but straightforward. And you can't handle that.
Unlike you, I write what I believe in.

If we in Europe now want to persecute people over a bloody fcuking handshake, we are no better than some of the countries some of us like to sneer at.
AH has certainly become an anti Muslim **** fest sometimes. Some people should put stop waving their dick about and start thinking critically.

How is it persecuting someone to expect them to confirm to a certain way or life? I wouldn't go to Germany and demand that they change a quirk of their culture, and I really really don't think its unreasonable to shake someone's hand.

If we're going to pussy foot over something so small, then there's A LOT more things coming down the path our way.

At some point there has to be a red line as resentment and confusion will rein.

(P.s why not look at it from her side, is it reasonable not to shake the hand of someone offering me a job??)

malinheader

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You are now inventing fictitious details and applying them to her situation.
Other posters have said "but what about riots, what about no go areas", how does that apply to her?
What about an Irish person being interviewed and people said " But! But! IRA!"
Same thing.

YOU are the one being disingenuous here. My standpoint is, and always will be, it's a fcuking handshake, untwist your knickers everyone.
You had earlier said what if religion wasn't involved.
Well, then YOU wouldn't be posting here, because clearly to you this is just an excuse to bash members of a certain religion.
And you certainly wouldn't come out and say that. You have an agenda, I don't.
I have been nothing but straightforward. And you can't handle that.
Unlike you, I write what I believe in.

If we in Europe now want to persecute people over a bloody fcuking handshake, we are no better than some of the countries some of us like to sneer at.
AH has certainly become an anti Muslim **** fest sometimes. Some people should put stop waving their dick about and start thinking critically.

Totally agree with you. It's only a fcuking hand shake so she should of just obliged and shook his hand. Nice wee bonus she got though.

dr.fuzzenstein

Corb_lund wrote: »

How is it persecuting someone to expect them to confirm to a certain way or life? I wouldn't go to Germany and demand that they change a quirk of their culture, and I really really don't think its unreasonable to shake someone's hand.

If we're going to pussy foot over something so small, then there's A LOT more things coming down the path our way.

At some point there has to be a red line as resentment and confusion will rein.

(P.s why not look at it from her side, is it reasonable not to shake the hand of someone offering me a job??)

Well, we're back to "it's only a fcuking handshake".
Would you refuse to hire someone because they would refuse to wear a hat?
In the UK you would have to as Sikhs have the right to wear a turban.

malinheader

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, we're back to "it's only a fcuking handshake".
Would you refuse to hire someone because they would refuse to wear a hat?
In the UK you would have to as Sikhs have the right to wear a turban.

We don't want to end up like the UK.thats my point.
Anyhow if she had of got the job what was next. Any crucifixs or religious objects removed. At Christmas everything must read happy holidays.All work parties must be hal al. Etc er.when in Rome.

SnakePlissken

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

it's a fcuking handshake, untwist your knickers.

You'd obviously convey this same sentiment to a lady who dare not shake your hand when offered as a friendly greeting, then subsequently bring you to court for discrimination, or are you oblivious to your hypocrisy.

It's only a fcuking handshake, when in Sweden, as a handshake is customary, just shake the man's hand, if in your head, or the heads of your male relatives, this now somehow makes you unclean and less of a Muslim, I got news for you; you're the problem, not the poor bastard who extended his hand.

RandomName2

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You are now inventing fictitious details and applying them to her situation.

These things don't happen in interviews?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

YOU are the one being disingenuous here. My standpoint is, and always will be, it's a fcuking handshake, untwist your knickers everyone.
You had earlier said what if religion wasn't involved.
Well, then YOU wouldn't be posting here, because clearly to you this is just an excuse to bash members of a certain religion.

I am willing to bash members of any religion. I have no truck with organised religion. People should be perfectly free to believe whatever they like, but they should keep that belief to themselves, and to similarly disposed people.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Unlike you, I write what I believe in.

But you don't seem to know what a job interview is.

Tip number 4 will shock you.
https://theundercoverrecruiter.com/5-essential-interview-techniques-you-should-know/

Also your faux outrage amuses me.

RandomName2

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, we're back to "it's only a fcuking handshake".
Would you refuse to hire someone because they would refuse to wear a hat?
In the UK you would have to as Sikhs have the right to wear a turban.

You are now inventing fictitious details and applying them to her situation. :pac:

Sorry, but you make it so easy.

RandomName2

end of the road wrote: »

the interviewer shouldn't be entitled to not offer her the job for this reason, as it could potentially be a way to not offer her the job because of her religion if it was allowed.

He probably was in no doubt about her religion already, due to her name, and almost certainly she was wearing a headscarf. If he didn't want to hire her because of her religion her needn't have offered her an interview at all.

His reaction was one of affront. Employers in future will know to keep their indignation to themselves, kindly accept her belief of sexual segregation outside marriage, and then offer the job to someone else, with no indication that it had anything to do with her valuing her beliefs over those of her host country and potential employer.

Also, I mean if a handshake is beyond her I would imagine that there would be issues with other things. She may refuse to use gender-neutral bathrooms, to work with a transgender woman, or engage in social activities if alcohol is involved.

batgoat

RandomName2 wrote: »

He probably was in no doubt about her religion already, due to her name, and almost certainly she was wearing a headscarf. If he didn't want to hire her because of her religion her needn't have offered her an interview at all.

His reaction was one of affront. Employers in future will know to keep their indignation to themselves, kindly accept her belief of sexual segregation outside marriage, and then offer the job to someone else, with no indication that it had anything to do with her valuing her beliefs over those of her host country and potential employer.

Also, I mean if a handshake is beyond her I would imagine that there would be issues with other things. She may refuse to use gender-neutral bathrooms, to work with a transgender woman, or engage in social activities if alcohol is involved.

Since unisex toilets have existed for decades Eg standard in likes of France, you should be able to show cases of this. Tonnes of people might choose not to go to events if there is alcohol involved, particularly if that's the sole focus... So not unique to a Muslim.

dr.fuzzenstein

RandomName2 wrote: »

These things don't happen in interviews?

I don't know, you brought up something about unwashed and underwear?

I am willing to bash members of any religion. I have no truck with organised religion. People should be perfectly free to believe whatever they like, but they should keep that belief to themselves, and to similarly disposed people.

Do you also make fun of them in person, or just spouting off on internet forums?

But you don't seem to know what a job interview is.

Tip number 4 will shock you.
https://theundercoverrecruiter.com/5-essential-interview-techniques-you-should-know/

Also your faux outrage amuses me.

I even know what a tracker mortgage is.
As for fake outrage, well, you seem to enjoy our little back and forths, would hate to disappoint you.
#itsonlyafcukinghandshake

RandomName2

batgoat wrote: »

Since unisex toilets have existed for decades Eg standard in likes of France, you should be able to show cases of this. Tonnes of people might choose not to go to events if there is alcohol involved, particularly if that's the sole focus... So not unique to a Muslim.

This is true (though handshakes have been around a bit longer than unisex toilets), but essentially all bets are off when such a minor thing (a handshake) couldn't be engaged in in so important a situation (an interview). Not only will that person's religion, but that person's particular adherence to that religion, will take precedence over the job, at any given point.

The fact that I wouldn't hire an Amish person for a job doesn't mean I'm anti-Christian.