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.