10 ms·

In Switzerland it is used as a political instrument by the right wing parties. They call it 'Kuscheljustiz' ('cuddle justice') and the tabloids are happily usin

In Switzerland it is used as a political instrument by the right wing parties. They call it 'Kuscheljustiz' ('cuddle justice') and the tabloids are happily using the term too. It got a new height with the 'Durchsetzungsinitiative', a popular initiative we get to vote on in a month. It wants to enforce the result of the popular initiative on the (automatic) deportation of foreign criminals which got accepted by 52.3 of voters (and 17.5 of cantons) in 2010. The party behind both says that the governement and parlamental chambers are stalling the implementation of the initiative and do not adhere to its meaning hence the second one (which says they have to do the original one word by word). The stuff happily ignores some principles of the law like proportionality, higher up international law and such. Yeah, the combination of the so called cuddle justice and foreigners has been proven to work very good to get votes here (works even better now with more refugees).

gohrt 11y ago
> They call it 'Kuscheljustiz' ('cuddle justice') That's funny! The 1996 immigration reform commission was the "Hug Commission", and "hug" in English means "cuddle"
yogiparish 11y ago
Also living in Switzerland, I've noticed a scary involuntary alliance of journalism with what you might call the US-style conservatives (which is right-wing to far right-wing here): Critical journalists who tend - by a variety of factors like age and education - to be on the more 'left' side of the political spectrum write a large amount of critical articles about those various conservative initiatives, like the one mentioned above. The attacked parties gain an incredible amount of publicity and they've taken the tabloids as their "publicity hostage". Combine this with the diffuse resentment of those readers/people not feeling represented by government, those conservatives easily win at elections and votes - even when some of those initiatives are in clear disarray of everything the country stood and stands for. I always think of Woody Allen's "Bananas": By tomorrow the official language will be Swedish (same as Switzerland ;) ) and people have to wear their underwear on their heads. But at least its against the establishment. The death of those sometimes outrageously stupid political ideas could be easily achieved by simply ignoring them and their pundits. This might force the political players to get back to actual problem-solving concepts and lead to healthier debates in the media. But then again, maybe that's the wrong approach.
- hackbinary 11y ago
  >> I've noticed a scary involuntary alliance of journalism with what you might call the US-style conservatives I thought that this 'alliance' was called ownership. Rupert Murdoch et al whose political agenda is less government control and more control for the private sector which translates into private control by fewer (and fewer) people with less accountability. Essentially what we are going through, world wide, is a consolidation of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. This consolidation suites the purposes of the ownership of media companies, and it is the media companies that set the tone and content of their reporting. Over the last 50 years there has been a massive consolidation in the ownership of media companies, with a corresponding massive shift to a very right wing perspective in popular reporting. I can not think of a single time that a strike by a Union has been reported in a favorable light, for example.
- adventured 11y ago
  > with what you might call the US-style conservatives (which is right-wing to far right-wing here) Your comparison doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing you don't understand the right wing in the US very well. That far right in Switzerland and you get into neo-nazi ideology, fascism etc. which is represented in the SVP and New Right types. US conservatives are mostly not like that. US conservatism is a mainstream ideology that represents upwards of a quarter of all Americans. Most are in favor of vastly reducing the size of government (but not reducing the military or spying). Ted Cruz for example is not a nazi sympathizer and rather than in favor of a huge government ala fascism, would prefer to cut it in half. Fascism favors dramatically increasing the power of government, and the power of government over the economy; US conservatives typically are against that (even if it's not very well represented in the politicians). In America, neo-nazi types, the KKK, skinheads etc have practically no power or representation in politics, they are fringe outcasts that are not accepted in any major party. That has been the case for decades. Unlike in countries such as Sweden for example, where neo-nazi parties hold elected power. The Koch brothers are considered far right wing in the US - they're libertarians that believe in high degrees of social liberty, ending mass-incarceration and the war on drugs, and a small government.
  - pstuart 11y ago
yummyfajitas 11y ago
What's happening here is the following phenomenon. Suppose the establishment lies to you about something. But that something keeps growing, and eventually you see through the lie. Now someone comes along and actually tells you you've been lied to, and reveals this truth to you. The general reaction to this situation is to trust this newcomer more than the establishment, since he had the guts to reveal the big lie. (This is a logical fallacy, but emotionally it's awesome.) The establishment left in Europe, from what I can see, is lying about the problems of Muslim immigrants and crime/other social problems. Witness the attempts by various politicians to sweep Cologne under the rug, for example, or removing ethnicity from crime statistics in Sweden. It's hard to keep a problem like this completely under wraps; eventually something like Cologne will hit the internets and eventually the media won't be able to ignore it. If you want a left wing solution to the problem of Muslim immigrants failing to assimilate, robbing and raping people, the left will actually need to acknowledge the problem and propose a solution. If the left continues ignoring the issue, then folks will naturally turn to the racist right wing folks who seem to be proposing solutions rather than lying about the problem. (Note: don't interpret my criticism of the European left as support for the racist right. And if you think I'm factually wrong, I'd love to see crime stats demonstrating this. Obviously not from Sweden...)
- ThomPete 11y ago
  I think both the left wing and the right wing are generally wrong. Left wing for downplaying the effect culture and rightwing for overplaying it. However I agree the biggest problem right now in Europe is the left wing not actually recognizing the problem expect in a few countries (Denmark being one of them) Only then will it be possible to look at the problem and come up with alternatives to what the far right is proposing (which is basically we are just going to send them all home)
- gjm11 11y ago
  > The establishment left in Europe, from what I can see, is lying about the problems of Muslim immigrants and crime/other social problems. Could you quantify how severe you see those problems as being, how they're lied about, and what sort of solution you think might be possible? My impression (as a leftish European, so discount it as you please) is that no one denies that some Muslim immigrants commit crimes, nor indeed that some Muslim immigrants are terrorists, but that the usual lefty view is: 1. This, in itself, no more calls for action against Muslim immigrants (or against Muslim immigration) than the fact that some people with beards commit crimes calls for action against people with beards. 2. Overreaction to fear of Muslim immigrants is a bigger problem than crime committed by Muslim immigrants. (E.g., crimes with Muslim victims are commoner than crimes with Muslim perpetrators, and this sort of fear is one reason why.) 3. Accordingly, asking "what can we do to stop unassimilated Muslim immigrants killing and raping and robbing?" is a bad question in the following senses: (a) if it's the main question you're asking about relations between Muslim immigrants and the rest of the population, that probably means you have an unbalanced view of what's going on, and (b) asking it loudly and publicly is liable to do more harm by encouraging anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry than it does good by promoting measures that reduce crime by Muslim immigrants, and (c) actually taking the measures one might come up with when answering the questions is also liable to do more harm by making Muslims' lives harder than it does good by reducing crime. A few notes. First: I don't know whether the parenthesis in #2 is actually correct. My impression is that it is, but I don't have all the statistics that would be needed to check. Regardless, I would guess that most of the lefty types you have in mind share my impression that it's correct. Second: something can be a bad question as in #3 but still be a question it would be good, in principle and all else being equal, to know a good answer to. Third: appreciating the European-lefty mindset on this may be easier if you try replacing "what can we do about violent crime by Muslim immigrants?" with "what can we do about financial malfeasance by The One Percent?" or "what can we do about computer crime committed by evil hackers?". In all these cases, there are some actual crimes (and not-actually-criminal wrongdoings) that we'd be better without. In all these cases, people unsympathetic to the group being targetted are liable to overestimate the actual magnitude of the threat, and there are unscrupulous journalists and politicians stirring up fear to further their own agendas. In all these cases, trying to prevent those crimes and other wrongdoings runs the risk of messing with people's civil liberties. (But, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that these cases are parallel in every respect.)

gohrt 11y ago

> They call it 'Kuscheljustiz' ('cuddle justice') That's funny! The 1996 immigration reform commission was the "Hug Commission", and "hug" in English means "cuddle"

yogiparish 11y ago

Also living in Switzerland, I've noticed a scary involuntary alliance of journalism with what you might call the US-style conservatives (which is right-wing to far right-wing here): Critical journalists who tend - by a variety of factors like age and education - to be on the more 'left' side of the political spectrum write a large amount of critical articles about those various conservative initiatives, like the one mentioned above. The attacked parties gain an incredible amount of publicity and they've taken the tabloids as their "publicity hostage". Combine this with the diffuse resentment of those readers/people not feeling represented by government, those conservatives easily win at elections and votes - even when some of those initiatives are in clear disarray of everything the country stood and stands for. I always think of Woody Allen's "Bananas": By tomorrow the official language will be Swedish (same as Switzerland ;) ) and people have to wear their underwear on their heads. But at least its against the establishment. The death of those sometimes outrageously stupid political ideas could be easily achieved by simply ignoring them and their pundits. This might force the political players to get back to actual problem-solving concepts and lead to healthier debates in the media. But then again, maybe that's the wrong approach.

hackbinary 11y ago
>> I've noticed a scary involuntary alliance of journalism with what you might call the US-style conservatives I thought that this 'alliance' was called ownership. Rupert Murdoch et al whose political agenda is less government control and more control for the private sector which translates into private control by fewer (and fewer) people with less accountability. Essentially what we are going through, world wide, is a consolidation of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. This consolidation suites the purposes of the ownership of media companies, and it is the media companies that set the tone and content of their reporting. Over the last 50 years there has been a massive consolidation in the ownership of media companies, with a corresponding massive shift to a very right wing perspective in popular reporting. I can not think of a single time that a strike by a Union has been reported in a favorable light, for example.
adventured 11y ago
> with what you might call the US-style conservatives (which is right-wing to far right-wing here) Your comparison doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing you don't understand the right wing in the US very well. That far right in Switzerland and you get into neo-nazi ideology, fascism etc. which is represented in the SVP and New Right types. US conservatives are mostly not like that. US conservatism is a mainstream ideology that represents upwards of a quarter of all Americans. Most are in favor of vastly reducing the size of government (but not reducing the military or spying). Ted Cruz for example is not a nazi sympathizer and rather than in favor of a huge government ala fascism, would prefer to cut it in half. Fascism favors dramatically increasing the power of government, and the power of government over the economy; US conservatives typically are against that (even if it's not very well represented in the politicians). In America, neo-nazi types, the KKK, skinheads etc have practically no power or representation in politics, they are fringe outcasts that are not accepted in any major party. That has been the case for decades. Unlike in countries such as Sweden for example, where neo-nazi parties hold elected power. The Koch brothers are considered far right wing in the US - they're libertarians that believe in high degrees of social liberty, ending mass-incarceration and the war on drugs, and a small government.
- pstuart 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

What's happening here is the following phenomenon. Suppose the establishment lies to you about something. But that something keeps growing, and eventually you see through the lie. Now someone comes along and actually tells you you've been lied to, and reveals this truth to you. The general reaction to this situation is to trust this newcomer more than the establishment, since he had the guts to reveal the big lie. (This is a logical fallacy, but emotionally it's awesome.) The establishment left in Europe, from what I can see, is lying about the problems of Muslim immigrants and crime/other social problems. Witness the attempts by various politicians to sweep Cologne under the rug, for example, or removing ethnicity from crime statistics in Sweden. It's hard to keep a problem like this completely under wraps; eventually something like Cologne will hit the internets and eventually the media won't be able to ignore it. If you want a left wing solution to the problem of Muslim immigrants failing to assimilate, robbing and raping people, the left will actually need to acknowledge the problem and propose a solution. If the left continues ignoring the issue, then folks will naturally turn to the racist right wing folks who seem to be proposing solutions rather than lying about the problem. (Note: don't interpret my criticism of the European left as support for the racist right. And if you think I'm factually wrong, I'd love to see crime stats demonstrating this. Obviously not from Sweden...)

ThomPete 11y ago
I think both the left wing and the right wing are generally wrong. Left wing for downplaying the effect culture and rightwing for overplaying it. However I agree the biggest problem right now in Europe is the left wing not actually recognizing the problem expect in a few countries (Denmark being one of them) Only then will it be possible to look at the problem and come up with alternatives to what the far right is proposing (which is basically we are just going to send them all home)
gjm11 11y ago
> The establishment left in Europe, from what I can see, is lying about the problems of Muslim immigrants and crime/other social problems. Could you quantify how severe you see those problems as being, how they're lied about, and what sort of solution you think might be possible? My impression (as a leftish European, so discount it as you please) is that no one denies that some Muslim immigrants commit crimes, nor indeed that some Muslim immigrants are terrorists, but that the usual lefty view is: 1. This, in itself, no more calls for action against Muslim immigrants (or against Muslim immigration) than the fact that some people with beards commit crimes calls for action against people with beards. 2. Overreaction to fear of Muslim immigrants is a bigger problem than crime committed by Muslim immigrants. (E.g., crimes with Muslim victims are commoner than crimes with Muslim perpetrators, and this sort of fear is one reason why.) 3. Accordingly, asking "what can we do to stop unassimilated Muslim immigrants killing and raping and robbing?" is a bad question in the following senses: (a) if it's the main question you're asking about relations between Muslim immigrants and the rest of the population, that probably means you have an unbalanced view of what's going on, and (b) asking it loudly and publicly is liable to do more harm by encouraging anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry than it does good by promoting measures that reduce crime by Muslim immigrants, and (c) actually taking the measures one might come up with when answering the questions is also liable to do more harm by making Muslims' lives harder than it does good by reducing crime. A few notes. First: I don't know whether the parenthesis in #2 is actually correct. My impression is that it is, but I don't have all the statistics that would be needed to check. Regardless, I would guess that most of the lefty types you have in mind share my impression that it's correct. Second: something can be a bad question as in #3 but still be a question it would be good, in principle and all else being equal, to know a good answer to. Third: appreciating the European-lefty mindset on this may be easier if you try replacing "what can we do about violent crime by Muslim immigrants?" with "what can we do about financial malfeasance by The One Percent?" or "what can we do about computer crime committed by evil hackers?". In all these cases, there are some actual crimes (and not-actually-criminal wrongdoings) that we'd be better without. In all these cases, people unsympathetic to the group being targetted are liable to overestimate the actual magnitude of the threat, and there are unscrupulous journalists and politicians stirring up fear to further their own agendas. In all these cases, trying to prevent those crimes and other wrongdoings runs the risk of messing with people's civil liberties. (But, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that these cases are parallel in every respect.)