In such cases, although we cannot flag nuance, we can overall:
*Note priority within order
*Note sensitivity indicators such as:
a. Refusing to answer a question
b. Answering a question with a question
c. Deflection, tangent
Similar to contaminated statements, there are times where we know the source of contamination, void some sensitivity indicators (considering that some responses are not 'sensitive' in that they are in response to questioning that just took place. We also cannot analyze "new language" as we cannot discern if the wording is that of the subject or from contamination from the Interviewer.
The following is from Gatestone and is translated into English. The setting:
The increasingly known rape and violence at the hands of migrants into Sweden, and the failure of the government to vet, to close the borders, to institute the rule of law that says that a refugee is to settle in the first non war country which he lands in. Contextually, it is
"The right of the refugee versus the right of a people to be safe" that was taken to this political official. Introduced with:
Gatestone Institute called Sofia Häggmark, a non-partisan official at the Department of Justice unit for migration rights. Here is the Q & A:
Q. Should everyone get to seek asylum in Sweden, even if it leads to Sweden's undoing?
A. "The right of asylum is very strong. We have international rules and EU rules that say that if a person comes to an EU country, that person has a right to seek asylum."
Q. Is it all right to say no if there are groups in your country that are being threatened by the asylum seekers -- minority populations such as Roma, Jews and Sami [Lapp]? Or that Sweden cannot afford it?
A. "No, if a person has grounds for asylum or risks the death penalty or torture in their home country, you cannot deny them asylum."
Q. Is it not the Swedish government's primary task to protect Sweden and the Swedish people?
A. "We need to abide by international rules; we are obliged to do that. We can be dragged before the Court of Justice of the European Union if we do not allow people to seek asylum."
Q. Which is more important – Swedish lives, or the risk that you might end up before the Court of Justice of the European Union?
A. "I cannot answer that question; I can only tell you what the rules are."
Q. So you are saying that if 30 million people come here to kill us, we have no defense, we cannot stop it?
A "I can only tell you that the right of asylum gives very strong protection."
Q. But not for the Swedes?
A. "If a person kills someone here in Sweden, the criminal justice system handles that and tries them. We need to look at every individual asylum case."
Q. Do you think it has ever happened at any time in the history of the world that a country cared more for the citizens of other countries than its own?
A. "I cannot answer that. But there is no rule that sets a limit for how many [asylum seekers] Sweden can accept."
Q. So there is no plan for what to do when the country is full and the citizens are scared?
A. "No, there is not."
Q. Do you personally think that feels okay?
A. "I cannot answer that. That is not my job."
Q. If several millions of Muslims come here and implement Sharia law, then the right of asylum has effectively contributed to abolishing the democracy in our country, replacing the Swedish people and annihilating the whole concept of Sweden. Have none of you pondered these fateful issues?
A. "I understand your thoughts."