Last night in Sweden Part 2

Author Arne Weinz convicted of opinion crimehttps://samnytt.se/forfattaren-arne-weinz-doms-for-asiktsbrott/https://samnytt.se/forfattaren-arne-weinz-doms-for-asiktsbrott/
Author, social debater and entrepreneur Arne Weinz has been convicted by Attunda District Court of the offence of incitement to hatred. This after he commented on Facebook on a number of articles in the media about crime and problematic values among immigrant groups, mainly from the Muslim part of the world. The penalty is a suspended sentence and a daily fine of SEK 21 000. He must also pay his own legal costs.
Weinz was brought to court on charges of making derogatory remarks about Muslims following a police report by the criticised activist organisation The Net Hate Reviewer, led by Tomas Åberg. Weinz himself has argued that he spoke in the context of a social debate and that Islam is more a political ideology than a religion and should therefore not be affected by the HMF law.
The court disagreed. It held that Weinz had expressed himself beyond the limit allowed by freedom of expression and opinion in political debate and should therefore be convicted of a crime.
Sentenced for several comments on newspaper articles
Specifically, Weinz has objected to the fact that Aftonbladet, after the terrorist attack on Drottninggatan in 2017, described Muslim terrorists as "madmen" who "cannot be defended against". Weinz argues that the motive for the attacks is not madness in the clinical sense, but the "perverse ideology of violence" that he claims is part of Islam.
Weinz has also criticised child and incestuous marriage, genital mutilation, honour killings, Sharia courts, halal slaughter and a range of other phenomena that he believes can be linked to Islam.
In a third context, Weinz expressed sympathy for his understanding of a statement by SD MP Richard Jomshof that immigrant Muslims in Sweden should be faced with the choice of either renouncing values that are not compatible with Swedish society or returning to their countries of origin.
The case also includes a point where Weinz has commented on a programme produced by SVT Uppdrag Granskning, which highlights the high over-representation of certain immigrant groups as perpetrators of rape. He attributes the phenomenon to the problematic values he believes exist within Islam and the immigrant groups in question.
In his commentary, Weinz criticises the fact that this crime problem has not been highlighted by the mainstream media until now, even though it has been known for a long time. He speculates that there was a left-wing political agenda behind the failure to report.
Sentenced also for criticising feminists and gender scientists
In connection with an article in which a criminologist questioned a gang-raped woman's level of intoxication as a mitigating factor for the perpetrators, Weinz writes in an ironic tone that it is "wonderful" to have "ultra-feminists and gender scientists" defending Muslim gang rapes. The target of the criticism here is not the Muslims, but the comment has been included in the indictment and is part of the conviction.
Must pay court costs
For gang criminals, murderers, rapists and terrorists, the state normally pays the lawyers' fees. In contrast, Arne Weinz has to bear the costs of his legal defence himself. This is a cost of more than SEK 10 000 on top of the fine of SEK 21 000.
Will appeal
Samnytt has spoken to Weinz, who thinks the verdict is badly written and says it will be appealed. He does not believe that he used any offensive language but admits that he "used a harsh tone" in his criticism of Islam, something he believes must be allowed.
What do you think of the verdict?
- The verdict is very weakly written. It's very vague and I was reported for nine Facebook posts that I wrote in 2017. They repeated a couple of those posts as relatively long and then the verdict fell at that time but I have spoken to lawyer Sargon de Basso and we have decided to appeal the verdict to the Court of Appeal. They have to specify which words are prohibited to use. Which sentences are forbidden to use because I have not used a single offensive word. I have used a harsh tone because I disapprove of Islam, but not any abusive words.
Critical of the HMF law
Weinz has strong views on the HMF law more generally, which he says limits public debate in an unacceptable way and with a clear political bias that favours the left and disadvantages conservatives. "This is about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I'm a writer, a debater and a columnist," Weinz says.
How do you feel about the HMF law?
- It's crazy. It is Morgan Johansson who has led the reworking of this and it says that you are not allowed to criticise Islam. We have had perhaps 1.4 million new Muslims since the turn of the millennium in addition to the 500 000 that existed. Islam is not compatible with a Western society and they have twisted the law so that criticism of Islam is not allowed because criticism of Islam is indirect criticism of mass immigration and the Swedish nation state. You are not allowed to do that then it is thought crime. The law is only designed to stifle criticism of globalism and the Swedish nation state.
https://samnytt.se/forfattaren-arne-weinz-doms-for-asiktsbrott/