I mean it’s hard to find data that doesn’t come from people like the Anti-defamation League (whose claims should obviously be dismissed), so you’ll have to make do with examples, but there are plenty of examples:

In July 1990, the Palestinian Liberation Organization-affiliated Palestinian Red Crescent published an article in its magazine Balsam claiming that Jews concocted, “The lie concerning the gas chambers.” Gradually, throughout the 1990s, Holocaust denial became commonplace in popular media in the Middle East, particularly in the Palestinian Authority.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Sheikh Ekrima Sa’id Sabri appeared on the Saudi satellite channel Al-Majd on February 20, 2005, commenting on the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. “Anyone who studies The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and specifically the Talmud,” he said, “will discover that one of the goals of these Protocols is to cause confusion in the world and to undermine security throughout the world.”

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Palestine#Antisemitism_in_Palestine

Now it’s possible that these statements by political and religious leaders don’t represent the broader populace, but nothing I’ve seen suggests this, nor would it track with the attitude of other peoples who have suffered oppression for a long time. The opposite would also track with the long history of Palestinian terror attacks (not resistance, which is obviously valid and just, but specifically the terror attacks, which BTW aren’t restricted to Hamas); the assumption seems to be that most if not all Jews are Zionists out for their blood. The problem here is that the only Jews the vast majority of Palestinians will interact with or see in the news are murderous Zionists, so the mental model of “Jew = murderous Zionist” works well enough to just be accepted as fact.

Edit: Slight rephrasing, content is the same.

I mean, no, when Palestinians express hatred of Jews it’s categorized as antisemitism, which it should be. It’s essentially inevitable given, well, everything, but still.

The leopards eating good out here.

Tree should campaign for bidets.

Uh… leadership that doesn’t do shit isn’t famous for having a lot of legitimacy. These days milquetoast moderates only have legitimacy among other milquetoast moderates; the days when a moderate one-size-fits-no-one politicians will have people shrug their shoulder and think “oh well” are long gone. People today want politicians who have concrete solutions to the problems of the working class and are willing to work to make them happen; that’s how you build legitimacy in 2026.

First you’re talking about rules and exceptions, now you’re arguing the Swedish government can do whatever it wants and rules don’t matter. I hope you can see the contraction here.

Okay I’m not sure if you’re aware of this (if not you should do some introspection), but your argument is nothing more than window-dressing for your authoritarian values and disregard for human rights. In particular, your assumption that rules have some kind of sanctity that trumps personal liberty is frankly the kind of authoritarian bullshit that props up authoritarian regimes. How you assume rules that just so happen to justify the actions of authority figures is very telling; for context the actual rules here are the Brexit withdrawal agreement, under which British residents of the EU at the time of signing are to get residency in their host countries if they apply for it. I hope you become a better person; this conversation is over.

So keeping him in Sweden requires an individual exception.

I won’t address the value problem of “then why not give that exception.” Instead I’ll say: No it doesn’t; the Brexit withdrawal agreement has provisions specifically for British people living in the EU at the time of implementation. This is factually wrong, as seen by the behavior of literally every other EU member state.

There’s no reason to grant someone who in 20 years never applied for Swedish citizenship an exception.

Setting aside the value problem of “the right to live in one’s home isn’t something to be granted,” see above. Again this isn’t an exception; it’s the rule as set in the withdrawal agreement. Also this is your third time moving the goalposts and I’d really rather you commit to one line of argument or admit that you’re defending the indefensible.

I see you moving the goalposts there, but fine. In that case: Sweden’s “right” to autonomy (countries don’t have rights; people do, in this case the right to self-determination) doesn’t override the rights of people living in Sweden. Your argument can be used to justify literally anything any government does, but I rather doubt you’d justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine via Russia’s “right” (see above) to autonomy.

First, that has nothing to do with anything I said. Second, I somehow doubt applying for citizenship would’ve gone better than applying for residency.

Clearly this is because of the Muslim invasion of the UK.

Obvious /s.

Does Sweden have some entity to overrule that?

I mean the courts, but it seems they’ve exhausted all domestic legal channels and are now forced to rely on the EU.

Carl is trying to mount a further challenge with the European court of human rights in Strasbourg and has launched a GoFundMe page Stötta George to cover his estimated costs of 50,000 kronor (£3,900).

Americans not living in America are still required to file American taxes and pay them if they are owed.

Which is not the case for the vast majority of people (Americans living abroad get a shitton of tax exemptions). For the ones who do owe taxes, well I’d say they should learn how to dodge their taxes.

do you go to the presses and say he’s senile?

If he’s literally senile, yes.

I mean America is a far-right hellhole at the moment, but Americans clearly don’t like that, and don’t like it with quite a bit more principle than Europeans don’t like their far-right clowns if the Fediverse is any indication (quite a big if to be fair, but one that seems to correspond to the facts). In any case, Fediverse Americans tend to be less willing to accept thinly veiled rightwing rhetoric than Fediverse Europeans.

Is it just that Europe is more active at this time than America or has the Fediverse been always been this xenophobic? I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Americans please help. That said, seeing the comment section as it is right now does wonders to explain the rise of the far-right.

Why would we expect Sweden to keep looking after him if we wouldn’t do the same?

For the same reason that, if person A punched person B’s child, we would expect person B not to punch person A’s child (though punching person A themself is fair game). Keeping or deporting this man and others like him doesn’t affect Britain in any significant way; its only “justification” here is spite* and that’s just not enough to uproot people from their home of 25 years. The idea that deporting people like this is somehow “returning the favor” to Britain ignores the human reality of what’s going on here. And it’s not like Sweden is just doing the obvious here; their rejection (and hence deportation) rate is 7 to 9 times the EU average.

*That’s the English-speaking internet’s justification; I’m sure the Swedish government with its far-right sympathies doesn’t need any justification other than xenophobia.

It’s not complicated.

It’s not complicated; it’s just ghoulish and inhumane. Why should the British voting public’s opinions affect the life of this person who hasn’t lived in Britain for decades? This isn’t even that novel of an idea; clearly essentially all EU countries other than Sweden understand this, hence Sweden being the only EU country with a two-digit percentage Brexit deportation rate. I mean hell, if Bulgaria can only deport 5 people out of 16 thousand then it’s clearly not “not complicated.”

I’m so surprised I can’t believe this.

This one is bottom-up pressure most likely. MAGA already hates vaccines so Trump is throwing them a bone since he can’t actually follow up on any of his non-fascist promises.