The Sweden Democrats are xenophobic, racist. and-immigration

Responses1. ModerationThe Con notes that the Sweden Democrats have become more moderate in recent years. I have not challenged this, and in fact, I also noted this in the background I provided on the Sweden Democrats. However despite this moderation, the Sweden Democrats are still a Xenophobic and anti-immigrant party.2. Multiculturalism The Pro claims that multiculturalism has increased ethnic tensions in Sweden. He cites so called "No go Zones" as evidence of this, however this claim is faulty at best, and outright false at worst. The articles he uses to support this claim at all however. The first article comes from SPEISA, however according to EditIndia, an Indian media watchdog, Speisa publishes fake reports, and a MyWOT review found them to be untrustworthy. Because of this, the article should be disregarded. The second article makes no mention "no go zones", attacks on journalists or even crime. The third article from the Daily Caller cites two other web reports. The first, from Swedish police, states Page not found, and the second, actually addresses the claims of the Con directly. According to the article, from which the Con's source derives its information, "To clarify, the term “no-go zones” is how the Swedish media referred to the report when it was released. It is also what the police officers call it (direct quote in English found here) However, the report itself does not use that wording; it talks about “…the regular justice system being disabled,” “…police being unable to perform it’s duties” and “…local residents considering the criminals to be the ones running the area,” with police being subjected to violence and harassment when entering. The net effect is the same, but in light of the Fox News controversy it seems prudent to point this out. It should also be made clear that this report refers to criminal gangs seizing control; the kind of shariah-ruled, muslim-only enclaves Steve Emerson was talking about in Britain and France do not exist in Sweden"The final article discusses a 60 Minutes film crew which was attacked in a city with a large migrant population, however no where in that article was the attack blamed on immigrants and was never related to immigrants and thus does not support the claim by the pro.The con also cites grenade explosions in Malmo, however he cite the website jihad watch, which publishes anti-Islamic propaganda and should not be considered a reliable source, and the citations that Jihad watch links to never say that the grenade attacks were the fault of migrants.The Con cites crime and sexual assault in Sweden and claims they are on the rise. However both Sexual assault and crime overall are down in Sweden, according to the articles cited by the pro, crime in down 1% and sexual assault is down 5%. The Con also cites attacks on migrants as evidence to support this claim, however the article he cites from the spectator actually lays blame on the Sweden Democrats for the rise in attacks on migrants.The claims by the pro do not hold the weight of scrutiny and does not support his contention. Furthermore it does not in anyway contradict my claim that the Sweden Democrats are a xenophobic and anti-immigrant party3. Immigrant Sweden DemocratsThe pro claims that because there are members of the Sweden Democrats who are immigrants the party cannot be anti-immigrant. This claim is as logical as "I can't be racist, I have black friends". Even if you have black friends, this does not change the fact that you hold racist views. The same applies to the Sweden Democrats. Even if they have members who are immigrants, this does not change their anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies.Furthermore, the 2010 elections that the Con refers to were not the national elections, but rather one single local election in a city with a large migrant population.4. The Sweden Democrats are not "fully opposed to immigration"No where in my argument did I claim that the Sweden Democrats are opposed to all immigration. My argument is that "The Party calls for strict controls on immigration & state funding for repatriation of immigrants." This policy is clearly meant to reduce immigration, and is thus Anti-immigration. The claim by the con does not refute my argument at all.ArgumentsContention 1: XenophobiaSeeing as the Con has not addressed this issue at all, I can only assume he concedes this argument, and thus I shall extend this contention to the next round.Contention 2: Anti-ImmigrationAs I have already addressed the response by the con to this argument, I shall extend all my points from round 1.Sourceshttp://editindia.blogspot.com...http://www.easycounter.com...https://swedenreport.org...http://www.bra.se...http://blogs.spectator.co.uk...https://www.bra.se...