While discussing a recent sentencing of three boys who raped a 23-year-old woman in Stockholm, a face-to-face conversation turned interesting.

One person spoke of "Moroccan boys", as the offenders.

Another felt the need to note that they were "North-African".

They didn't know the possible origins of the boys.

Some who partook in the discussion were angered over the "low sentencing". None mentioned the fact that the court viewed the suspects as boys, and hence, they weren't tried as adults, which would likely have resulted in harsher sentences.

One issue for the court, is that the sentenced persons were young street urchins. Hence, one could not surmise their true age. One is not even sure if they knew their true age. Regardless, it's impossible for the legal system to find out, so they were sentenced with their age in mind.

It's the law. That's how it works.

I said so, and added that it's unnecessary to surmise things, when facts are plainly available. Anything else would be falling into the hands of the same "reasoning" as the Sweden Democrats (sverigedemokraterna), a xenophobic party, currently in Swedish government.

Also, these boys were sentenced according to Swedish law. Don't hate the player, hate the game ((Even if these boys actually did rape the victim, of which they are duly and rightly sentenced.))

The person who cared a lot about the geographic origins of the perpetrators added "they should be thrown out, just thrown out."

I then tried to make the matter slightly more complex by asking said party whether their possible death, as a direct result of the boys being thrown out of Sweden and returned to a country from which they may have fled, could be something to change the matter.

"No! They should have thought about that before doing what they did! They deserve it! Cut their dicks off!"

It would be fair to note that said party was fired-up by feelings. Obvious to all.

Still, such violent passes merely forward thoughts to mortifying gasses.

I asked whether the person thought the same should be applied to people born in Sweden, to which I did not receive a reply.

After a short trial of reason, the person said "You and I don't agree and that's that, so I'm going, I'm just going", to which I asked for a clarification. "No, I'll just go, we won't agree, we can't agree", and stepped away, voice louder by the step. "It's a democracy, and you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine."

I acknowledged this, and spoke with those left to discuss with. I noted that we won't have a democracy for long if the Sweden Democrats would take power, and--

The stepper returned, to say "I don't like that you're saying that I'm with the Sweden Democrats, you can say what you want, but--"

Even if I'd pointed out the marred logic of that line, this person deserved something different. I said that I hadn't, and wasn't trying to tie that person to said party, but was making another point entirely, which would have been heard if understanding was of consequence.

"You're saying I'm with the Sweden Democrats, you have implied that before, and you're saying that now, that's what I'm feeling".

Feeling. The same sentiment that made you presume the nationality of the boys. The same source of inflammatory gas against the unknown.

No, I added. I pointed out what I had said, and asked how the person knew what I'd meant when I wasn't even allowed to finish my sentence.

Well, the person left.

Before anger? Feel it, don't fight it, to paraphrase Primal Scream, would not be entirely right in this case...

Even though I felt quite bad after this dour exchange of words, which broke up most of the remaining group of persons willing to discuss things, it was needed. I won't have xenophobic, untrue words slanted against persons, at the very least not against persons unable to defend themselves - while having prejudice propagated.

To quote Richard Pryor: "Fuck that shit."