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.

I am well aware of what is happening in Malmö and I strictly oppose it. The problem over there is that the immigrants have brought their culture and (some of them) refuse to let go of even the most ridiculous customs. Our government is convinced that they will learn to be perfectly open minded eventually, but as long as they keep supporting that they don't even need to learn to speak swedish I don't see this happening in the near future.

I don't support everything that the Swedish government does. But it still does a better job than most.

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

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
This is not murder. If she is being held against her will, and she kills him while escaping, it is still in self-defense, and not against the law. Not all killing is murder. If she escaped, then later he was tried and convicted... then 15 years later when he gets out of prison she went and killed it, it would be murder.

It is not murder if she accidently killed him while trying to escape. But if she knocks him down first and maybe breaks a leg, there is no reason for her to keep hitting him. That would be murder.

There is right and wrong. What he did was very wrong, and what she did was a response to that. If I punch you, I'm wrong. If you defend yourself, your punches aren't equally wrong - you have the right to defend yourself. Only one deserves the sympathy of the public. One can feel bad about his upbringing, but that doesn't mean he didn't deserve what he got.

Self-defence is never wrong in any case. Murdering someone without actually having to is wrong.

Let's be clear - her reasoning makes sense to the masses because the reason makes sense, period. A man who decides to absolutely ruin a woman's life by kidnapping and violating her, a trauma which will negatively impact the rest of her life, has surrendered his right to be given any kind of positive viewpoint. If he is not mentally ill, then victimizing someone else in this way cannot be justified.

That does indeed make sense, but that doesn't make it right according to law. If people knew about his reasoning it would make sense to them as well. That goes for all criminals.

Let's look into this situation a little closer, though. This person has these emotional scars, obviously, but he has escaped his parents. He has an education, a job, a life. Everything he has learned since then, in life, on TV, by the media, makes him know, fully well, that kidnapping someone is wrong. If you were to ask him, academically, if what he was planning to do was right or wrong, he knows the answer. In fact, chances are, at some point in the past it would have been unthinkable for him. But he thinks about it... imagines it... wants it... And eventually he's willing to disregard his victim's feelings to the point where only his own matter.

Yeah? No disagreements here.

No, he didn't save his own life. If the threat to your own life is suicide, then you are your own problem. You must correct this without victimizing others. He could choose to get help, or try a constructive way to deal with his depression. but  instead he CHOOSES a route that damages someone else.

And why did he choose to do it it? Because he wanted to, and nothing stopped him from wanting to. How can we blame someone for wanting something when it is out of their control? People don't choose what to want.

Your moral is false. We can feel sorry for them, but that doesn't negate the need to punish them. And we should NOT be equally sorry. When people bring consequences on themselves for their actions, they are culpable, even if there's a "reason" for it. The fact is, two people can go through the exact same thing, and one becomes a kidnapper, while the other goes to counseling and deals with it without hurting others. You can feel bad for both people, but when the kidnapper gets himself murdered by the girl he's kept trapped in his basement, noone's crying, and noone should. There is not just fortunate and unfortunate. There are good and bad.

I have already responded to a similar statement earlier in this thread.

Certainly it would be best to understand the motivations of criminals, but there are limits. The prisons are full of people who, with a better justice system, could be genuinely reformed instead of merely punished. However, that's not all of them. At some point, it must be acknowledged that people who willfully commit terrible actions need to be dealt with accordingly. He put her in the basement(bad, wrong, never justifiable), she put him in the ground(also wrong, if it was avoidable, but easily justified).

And here we have our differences. In a perfect world I don't see the need of punishments. Treatments would then be the only necessary action. You can't fight fire with fire.

Well, I must admit that "allows" was the wrong word. But it's not too far from reality. The integration process for immigrants takes time, but they keep increasing the amount of new immigrants rapidly which allows ignorance to spread.