What a load of nonsense!

You guessed it Leigh,
It is ME! - I do agree -
Stefan should stay here -

Haiku to you too.

Some times i even annoy myself

A bit rough on the Swedes.
But it is not the first time we have sent our social problems overseas at the expense of the recipient nation.
For example, a grossly unsuitable candidate for ambassadorial rank was sent to Ireland in the mid-1970's.
But, the undoubtedly civilised Irish Republic seem to have forgiven us for the bad joke of sending them ex-senator Vince Gair; so it might be possible for an equally civilised nation like Sweden to extend us forgiveness - eventually.
Yes, it is a pity about current reinforcement of the practice of exporting the cost of our social problems for others to bear.

The law can be tough, and this one is pretty much black and white. You are either a citizen or you aren't. Nystrom, who I assume has Swedish citizenship, as well as others in this predicament like the Serb Robert Jovicic have been deemed a high risk of recidivism.

Where do we draw the line though. These laws assume that a migrant would certainly obtain citizenship ASAP, but in these cases it has been neglected by both parents and individuals.

Any backdown by the government as a humanitarian gesture would certainly have to be accompanied with the threat of "immediate deportation for even so much as a parking fine - no if's or buts or exceptions".

It begs the question, do rapists deserve a humanitarian gesture?

Mr Nystrom might end up on the mean streets of Switzerland without having any language skills. However, when disparate groups – lacking language skills - are sent to countries like Switzerland it’s seen as a noble humanitarian act on the part of Switzerland to take them in. Can’t shop? Can’t speak our language? Trouble handling our money? Having trouble adapting to our culture? Want to know the closest school for your kids? We’ll acquaint you with all that and more say Swiss authorities to new arrivals. Given the expertise of the Swiss authorities in dealing with hundreds of newcomers I can’t see them baulking at Mr Nystrom (one individual) and his shortcomings.

Notwithstanding the oversupply of compassion of Amanda Vanstone is there a law or custom which says she can’t apply that compassion to the citizens of Australia. Is it right to send Mr X off to work knowing that people like Mr Nystrom are lurking about just waiting for the chance to get their grubby hands on Mr X’s stereo, jewellery, cash, mower, and anything that isn’t nailed down? Perhaps the removal of Mr Nystrom might be seen by the long suffering public as a compassionate act. What chance the public might be tiring of being robbed, mugged, preyed upon, unwilling to use public transport once the sun goes down, and other nasties?

Just how can we build confidence in the law if it is to be applied capriciously? For instance, black letter law slams the door shut on some poor slob because of the circumstantiality of his or her case. The law allows no compassion. However, when a case comes along and black letter law is applied the call goes up for compassion and understanding

Sage,

Your argument might carry some weight if it weren't so obvious that you haven't really read the article. If Stefan Nystrom is deported it will be to Sweden, not to Switzerland.

I also made it pretty clear that I'm not calling on Amanda Vanstone to show compassion - for me the question is should Vanstone have this power at all.

Yes Paul I did confuse my S's. Where I have mentioned Switzerland please insert Sweden.

This man is, by birth and by default (or the fault) of his parentage a non-Australian.

He has, by his own actions, placed himself in the same category as the scumbag thieving junkie who was deported to Serbia recently.

He showed his country of residence no respect, in terms of behaving like a responsible and productive individual. Since he is the product of Swedish Genes, it is fair and reasonable that the Swedes sort out the problems associated with their genetic defect.

Good riddance to someone who treated his fellow Australians with heartless contempt.

I think the point of difference here, as with the whole question of illegal immigrants, is that most of those opposing the deportation of this man are internationalists. Unfortunately, we live in a world of nation states, and this situation in unlikely to change in the near future. Those who claim that Australia is exporting its problems apparently have no difficulty with the practice of many other countries exporting their criminal Australians back here. The principle of territoriality has existed since before man became human, and again change is unlikely. International law is largely a joke, there is no international army, there is no international court with binding jurisdiction, and thank heavens say I. Does anyone really think that Australians would let the UN rule over them? Does anyone think the UN would ever come to Australia's aid, if we were, for instance, threatened by a flood of illegals? Please let's stick to reality.

In a parliamentary democracy, the supremacy of parliament is the means by which the people rule. Even a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights ought not to be framed in a way that transfers sovereignty to judges.

The possibility of creating arbitrary powers is a consequence. (Parliament, and ultimately voters, should be careful, for such powers will be misused.)

The deportation of Nystrom will be wrong, but not because it is an arbitrary decision. Vanstone is acting on a clear, though repulsive, principle.

The deportation of a criminal who was brought up in Australia from boyhood is wrong, because he is our criminal. Australia is responsible for his upbringing, and for the failure to turn him from his ways. Sweden is not. We have no business to be deporting our own problems. What justification can their possibly be for saying that Sweden should deal with him? What good does it do?

There is also the issue of whether the Minister is adding to penalties carefully considered by the courts--where there is knowledge of the circumstances and the benefit of argument about them. But Sweden is not a bad place to live.

The arguments are stronger if a criminal is sent to a society in deep trouble. To send a criminal back to Iraq is utterly shameful. The penalty is disproportionate to most crimes. And what are we doing to Iraq?

Col:
"Since he is the product of Swedish Genes, it is fair and reasonable that the Swedes sort out the problems associated with their genetic defect."

While I usually disagree with Col on the basis of the content of his posts and their often egregious tone, in this case he's just being silly. If "Swedish Genes" were the cause of the useless Nystrom's defects, then we would expect Australian residents and citizens of Swedish descent to be disproportionately represented in our crime stats. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that this is the case.

This guy was completely socialised and enculturated in Australia, undoubtedly being immersed along the way in the "Aussie values" with which the dog-whistlers are so enamoured. Sweden had absolutely nothing to do with the way this odious individual has turned out, and his impending exile seems to me to be a bureaucratic travesty of the most insidious kind.

I wonder how the Swedes will respond to being required by legal loophole to accept in their midst an Aussie-raised rapist and petty crim?

Oh - I forgot about that other intrinsic Aussie value that the lying rodent never seems to mention: "I'm alright Jack...".

Plerdsus, a reasoned view

Ozbib “. Australia is responsible for his upbringing, and for the failure to turn him from his ways.”

There is no collective responsibility for the “upbringing” of others because if there were, we would all share a culpable responsibility for his crimes.

We are all sovereign individuals with personal responsibility to either live with in the constraints which the law places upon us or free to digress those laws and thus place ourselves at risk of being extricated (and in this case deported).

That he is a documented “Swede” and that we can deport him is a fact. We are under no obligation to suffer him a moment longer than it takes to send him packing.

CJ Morgan, as you should realize before using the word “stats”, that most populations, be they Swede, Australian or world at large, are bell shaped and at the extremes of each curve, at around 2 to 3 SD from the mean lie the non-normal.

That this is small portion of the population exists, statistically , is unavoidable, unless we were to homogenize the entire population and reprogram everyone to conform, a horror which I would hate and which would be far more detrimental than any need to contain criminals.

We have sent criminals back to UK and no one complains. Because this individual might find himself disadvantaged is just too bad.

The old morality statement “We reap what we sow” comes to mind.

Let him reap the fruits of what he sowed and remember, "rape" is about him forcefully "sowing his seed" without the consent of the "field"

and his harvest is to be ostracized from society and deported.

That you consider my view “silly” is irrelevant. It does not conceal the fact, you have made no compelling argument for keeping him.

Oh and your repeated and irrelevant asides on matters of the governance of this Commonwealth by a political party which lacks your personal endorsement merely confirms that you, as the individual, just do not matter.

Col Rouge,

"We are all sovereign individuals with personal responsibility to either live with in the constraints which the law places upon us or free to digress those laws."

That is true. It is perfectly compatible with the view that we are products of our upbringing, and that it is the responsibility of the citizens of a country that raised a criminal to deal with him.

"That he is a documented “Swede” and that we can deport him is a fact. We are under no obligation to suffer him a moment longer than it takes to send him packing."

The first claim is true. The second begs the question. And it is false. Try and prove it!

First I thought I'd misunderstand the whole thing.

I don't really understand how the Australian authorities function, when even considering sending an aussie out of the country forever, away from his family. This is exactly how the British once did, by sending criminals to Australia!

What would be the next step? Sending all skinny and other non-fitting people out of the country.

Oliverf
A Swede living in Sweden

If he is a Swedish citizen, Sweden should (and have) accept to take Nystrom back. Even though it seems half ludicrous of Australia to deport him.

But, IS he really a Swedish citizen? From what I gather, he was born 7 years after his mum moved to Australia. If she was an Australian citizen when she visited Sweden in 1974 Stefan would not become a Swedish citizen. You don't become Swedish citizen just because you are born here (sadly for many immigrants), and Sweden did at the time not allow dual citizenship. So unless she filed for Swedish citizenship (which I doubt), he's not Swedish. (I don't know if Stefan's dad was Swedish though? I assumed he too lived in Australia)

Anyway, I think Stefan arrived in Stockholm a couple of days ago. As he's technically a free man, the Swedish authorities saw no reason to welcome him with police or anything. At the moment it seems unclear where he is. Most likely he will go to the small city of Sigtuna, where he can apply for social aid just like anyone else

Just read in the online version of a Swedish daily paper that the "Swedish Australian" had arrived in Sweden last Friday accompanied by two Australian police officers. Swedish police had checked with Interpol. He was not wanted for anything in Sweden or elsewhere. His relatives picked him up. He has not contacted social services asking for help.
It seems history repeats itself. Like someone wrote earlier. Deporting people is in the Australian history--in reverse though.
If you down under cannot cope with people raised in your country, maybe you should ask for help earlier. I am sure Sweden can send a bunch of good youth councellors to assist you in planning good upbringing all over Australia.
I for one will never visit Australia. If you treat your own people like this, how do you treat visitors?
And I agree, you do not become a Swedish citizen by being born in Sweden.
His mother has apparently told the Swedish press another story than I have read in Australinan online papers. Which is the story really?
My deepest commiseration to the Australians that have to remain there.
Should anyone in Australia feel persecuted I am quite convinced you can apply for political asylum in EU.
A Swedish citizen.

Interesting to read some responses from Sweden about this travesty of justice. However, according to our learned geneticist and statistician, the responsibility for this reprobate falls upon the Swedes because of his inherent "genetic defect". Clearly, having been socialised, enculturated and educated in Australia had nothing to do with his criminality.

Col Rouge: "Since he is the product of Swedish Genes, it is fair and reasonable that the Swedes sort out the problems associated with their genetic defect."

Mind you, Australia should not be blamed for this kind of idiotic reasoning - which is clearly a product of Col's 'English Genes'.

Stefan Nystrøm is NOT a swedish citizen, and was given access to Sweden only because he was not a citizen of any country, but Britain, Canada or any other english-speaking country would have been a better place to send him.

This man did however break the rules (Australian law) and should expect no mercy whatsoever, when (not if..) he breaks Swedish law, he will find swedish prisons enjoyable, but not a good place to learn swedish, as half of the inmates are non-swedes....