Just remember that while the woman killed him to take revenge and to clear her mind, capturing her was his revenge for his miserable childhood (well, and to clear his mind).

Both of them did something wrong because of previous experiences. Her experience just happened to be more recent and more visible to the public.

The government allows people to stick close to their cultures, which may result in that they choose not to embrace the Swedish society and norms. In the most severe cases (although this is very rare) it has resulted in open hate towards certain minorities, as opposed to the very open Swedish society.

Revenge is only revenge if it's taken on those who wronged you. She took revenge. He did not.

And she didn't do something wrong because of "previous experiences." The example given was killing him while escaping. She did something wrong in order to ensure her continued life/freedom. Even if the public was to hear his story, it doesn't justify his actions toward her.

He might possibly wanted to state that he and an opinion yet it was a strong one that would of got him banned?

She took revenge on the direct source, he did not. I may blow up Canada as revenge for their poor hockey efforts.

Killing is wrong as long as it is not necessary according to law. Self-defence murder can be justified, but that is not the case in the OP. Thus her action was wrong, but we can easily understand why she did it.

I didn't state anywhere that the man killed someone. As far as we know he may be strictly against killing.

As for number 1, she obviously needs treatment too. In a perfect world he would end up saying sorry toher and she would accept it. In the same world murder would neverbe justified except for when necessary. That was not the case in my OP, and simply hurting him enough to not be able to follow her would be enough.