> They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."
replyThat's not an explanation. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say everyone supports "human rights and freedoms," they just disagree on what those are.
> They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."
replyExcept they are clearly taking a stance in opposition to Swedes' freedom to decide how they want their country to be governed.
Why are they opposing the mere rhetoric and not the ideas themselves? You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
reply> You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
replyYou've never heard statements such as "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
That is, you don't draw a real distinction between repeatedly, loudly, and publicly calling someone a cotton-headed slop-spouting pig to whom no one should pay any mind and actively working to ensure that said pig is prohibited from spouting its slop?