Svenska English

Close
Integrationsforum

Intresserad av föreläsningar om integration, multikulturalism och invandring?


Jag sätter pennan – eller tangentbordet – åt sidan och tar istället upp mikrofonen.

Hos dig.

Det vill säga hos statliga verk, statliga/regionala/lokala myndigheter, företag, föreningar, skolor, religiösa samfund.

Hälsningar
Ilya

Klicka här för att veta mer.

måndag 16 november 2009

Kidnappningsvågen har nått Sverige

Kidnappningsvågen har spridit sig från Mellanöstern till Sverige.

Kidnappning, gisslantagande driven av personlig och/eller politisk vinning, har nu definitivt tågat in i det svenska finrummet.

Gisslantagande är inte längre förbehållet fanatiska islamistiska grupper med en dunkel politisk dagordning eller våldsdyrkande Talibankåta anhängare i Peshawar, Ramallah, Beirut, Bagdad eller Fort Hood.

Nu utövas otyget här hemma i Sverige.

Dess främste förespråkare är Sveriges minst diplomatiske och mest aggressive utrikesminister genom tiderna: Carl Bildt. Aftonbladet publicerade i augusti en antisemitisk artikel om påstådd israelisk organhandel och hela världen väntade på att den svenska regeringen skulle följa i Sveriges Israelambassadör Elisabet Borsiin Bonniers fotspår och uttrycka avsmak för artikelns innehåll samtidigt som man klargjorde tidningens rätt att publicera den (pinsamt amatör yrkesutövning och infantilt språkbruk är inte olagliga i Sverige). JK har gjort klart att ett sådant ställningstagande från Carl Bildt möter inga juridiska hinder.

Carl Bildt gjorde dock precis tvärt om: drog tillbaka ambassadörens uttalande och vägrade yttra sig om Aftonbladets osmakliga artikel som smutskastade judar. Några veckor senare gjordes dock starka uttalanden från regeringshållet – men då var det muslimer som hade svartmålats i samma tidning.

Carl Bildt kritiserades av Israel för hans ovanligt hårdföre och även för honom klumpiga framfart i Aftonbladetfallet. Som svar på kritiken tar nu Carl Bildt Sveriges utrikespolitik och landets anseende utomlands gisslan genom att gå i spetsen för en aggressiv handling utan like i Sveriges historia: medan Sverige fortfarande har EU-klubban företräder han den islamistiska vägrarfronten och agerar för att Israels huvudstad Jerusalem tas från israelerna och ges till palestinierna. Genom att tvinga fram ett beslut i ärendet bygger han långsiktigt upp ett juridiskt underlag för internationell militär aktion mot den judiska staten. Det är en makalöst aggressiv handling som kommer att få vidsträckta konsekvenser för Sveriges anseende utomlands – och krossa varje möjlighet till fred i Mellanöstern.

Carl Bildt är en pinsam belastning för Sverige. Inte att undra på att flera partier är på stark frammarsch inför nästa års val, på både extremvänster- och extremhögerkanten.

Carl Bildt använder utrikesdepartementet som sin egen privata utpressningsliga. Han har kidnappat Sverige och håller den svenska utrikespolitiken gisslan medan han driver sin egen privata vendetta mot den judiska staten.

Etiketter: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
upplagd av Ilya Meyer

Hostage-taking in Sweden

Kidnapping as a political weapon makes the transition from the Arab mindset to Sweden.

Kidnapping, the taking of hostages for personal and/or political gain, has now made its triumphant entry into Sweden’s finest salons.

Hostage-taking is no longer the exclusive preserve of fanatical Islamist groups with a fearsome political agenda or of psychotically violent Taliban worshippers in Peshawar, Ramallah, Beirut, Baghdad or Fort Hood.

Now the disease has spread to Sweden.

Its prime advocate is Sweden’s least diplomatic and most aggressive Foreign Minister in history: Carl Bildt. In August, Swedish extremist left-wing tabloid Aftonbladet published an anti-Semitic article based on unfounded allegations of officially sanctioned Israeli organ trafficking using the bodies of dead Palestinian Arabs. The whole world waited for the Swedish government to follow in the footsteps of Sweden’s ambassador to Israel, Ms Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, who expressed distaste for the article’s racist content while at the same time supporting the newspaper’s right to publish it – embarrassingly amateurish journalism and infantile writing style are not, after all, illegal in Sweden. Sweden’s Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz confirmed there were no legal obstacles to either Carl Bildt or any other senior government representative voicing similar sentiments.

The Swedish government, however, did the exact opposite: Carl Bildt withdrew the ambassador’s statement and refused to comment on the article that made derogatory remarks about Jews. A few weeks later, however, there were very strong government comments in the Swedish media – because the same newspaper had published an article containing derogatory remarks about Muslims.

Carl Bildt was criticised by Israel for his unusually abrupt and – even for him – uncouth behaviour over the Aftonbladet case. In response to Israel, Carl Bildt has now taken Sweden’s foreign policy and its reputation hostage by spearheading an act that in terms of its aggressive intent is unparalleled in Sweden’s history: While Sweden still holds the EU Presidency, Carl Bildt has devoted himself to representing the Islamist rejetionist front, forging ahead in the vanguard of a movement to alter the status of Israel’s capital Jerusalem and formally give it to a non-existent state, “Palestine”.

By forcing through an EU decision on this matter, he is adopting a long-term strategy to create the legal foundation for international military action against the Jewish state. It is an act of unparalleled aggression that will have far-reaching consequences for Sweden’s reputation abroad – and will crush any hope of peace in the Middle East.

Carl Bildt is an embarrassing burden for Sweden. Voices in the Foreign Office mutter about his autocratic style and his constant efforts to put himself rather than Sweden’s interests or reputation in focus. No wonder then that several political parties are making huge gains in the run-up to national elections in autumn 2010 – on both the fanatical Left and extremist Right fringes and at the expense of the mainstream political establishment.

Carl Bildt is using the Foreign Office as his own private extortion organisation. He has kidnapped Sweden and is holding Swedish foreign policy hostage while he pursues his own private vendetta against the Jewish state.

Etiketter: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
upplagd av Ilya Meyer

onsdag 7 juni 2006

Putting Swedish justice into perspective

The right to earn an income is more worthy of the Swedish Chancellor of Justice’s direct intervention and legal proceedings, than the right of Swedish Jews to live in safety without having their lives threatened.

That appears to be the emerging truth in the ongoing saga of Swedish Chancellor of Justice Mr Göran Lambertz and the legal cases to which he chooses to lend the weight of his office.

Swedish Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz went on record in April 2006 as saying that Muslim Swedish calls to kill Jews – in Sweden – should be seen in the context of a conflict taking place 3000 kilometres away on a different continent in which no Swedes of any description are involved. He opined that such statements “should be judged differently, and therefore be regarded as permissible, because they are used by one side in an ongoing and far-reaching conflict where calls to arms and invectives are part of the everyday climate in the rhetoric that surrounds this conflict.”

Less than a month later the Chancellor of Justice, in a remarkable departure from the protocol of his office, micro-managed the case of an individual by suggesting it might be advisable to institute legal proceedings against a Swedish tabloid that published unfounded allegations of alcohol abuse against a renowned Swedish actor, on the grounds that such allegations could seriously damage the actor’s reputation and ability to earn an income. The Chancellor who declined to use his powers to defend the lives of Jews in Sweden apparently decided there was more merit to defending an actor’s good name so he could earn an income.

Sweden recently axed a long-planned peacekeeping drill with the several European air forces because the Israeli Air Force was also participating, although both Sweden and Israel took part in a similar exercise just last year in Canada. However, last year was not election year in Sweden. 2006 is, and the governing Social Democrats are trailing in the polls, with elections scheduled in mid-September.

A fortnight after pulling out of the long-scheduled air drill, Sweden contravened the EU and Schengen signatory states, violating international agreements to give the terror-branded Hamas Minister of Refugees an entry visa to Sweden. In that capacity, the minister, Mr Atef Adwan, came to Sweden to request support for something that has never previously existed in history, an independent Palestinian Arab state. As Minister of Refugees, however, Mr Adwan came to Sweden to structure his vision of how that Palestinian state should come about: through mass immigration of Palestinian Arabs into Israel – a country his Hamas government does not recognize, that it has sworn to replace with an Islamic state, against which it conducts a relentless war of terror, and whose Jews it has vowed to drive into the sea. It was to this Hamas representative that Sweden gave an entry visa, over the subsequent and strongly worded objections of allies such as Germany and France.

Sweden’s view of what constitutes justice thus seems to be at odds with that of its most vulnerable citizens, with that of its major European allies, and with the nation’s most fundamental concerns, such as whether income is prized more highly than life is.

When requested to comment on the apparent disparity between his handling of the two cases, the Chancellor of Justice replied that they deal with entirely different issues. In the case of the actor, the issue was one of libel, whereas in the case of calls for death to Jews emanating from the Stockholm mosque, the issue was one of racial incitement, and according to the Chancellor the allegations could not be proven. However, the reason the allegations could not be proven was because his office declined to insist on proper translation of the material from Arabic into Swedish. The Chancellor also pointed out that the two cases were examined “within the framework stipulated by the applicable regulations, and their assessment has been strictly objective”. He pointed out that “the criterion of ‘social relevance’ is not applicable when the issue under consideration is that of racial incitement”.

The Chancellor of Justice’s actions – or indeed lack of action – need to be examined against the background of what has emerged as a swing in Swedish policy towards Israel, the Swedish media’s keenness to obliterate the distinction between “Jew” and “Israeli”, and the resultant animosity to Jews and Israelis alike that is increasingly rife in this Scandinavian country. A brief examination of recent events in April and May 2006 makes for interesting reading:

Low-level Palestinian functionary Salah Muhammad al-Bardawil was denied a visa into Sweden, following immense protests not least from EU and Schengen member state France, and from many concerned Swedish citizens. Sweden responded by denying him a visa – but instead granting a visa to high-ranking Hamas minister Atef Adwan.

A Swedish Muslim politician for the Centre party demanded the imposition of Sharia law for the country’s Muslims. Initially including, but not limited to, legislation banning boys and girls from studying in the same classes, restructuring of inheritance law so men get two-thirds and women one-third since “we all know it is the duty of the man to look after the woman”, and altering of divorce law so divorce can no longer be granted by this country’s civil authorities.

Leading Labour daily Aftonbladet wrote (15 May) that in a Gaza Strip that has become an “emergency catastrophe area” owing to Israel’s “blockade”, it has now become necessary for Palestinian women to sell their gold and jewellery to finance the purchase of essentials such as water, food and medicine. It went on to say that the people profiting from this callous trade were the very people who erected the “ghetto wall” around Gaza – Israel’s Jews. It was a frightening throwback to classic Nazi-era vilification of the Jew as responsible for the suffering of non-Jews. No mention was made in the article about the remarkable ease with which weapons, dynamite, rockets and ammunition are smuggled into the Gaza Strip – apparently only food and medicine could not be smuggled in because of Israel’s hermetically sealed border and its “blockade”. A blockade, apparently, that did prevent food and medicine from getting in, but not a poor Palestinian woman’s gold from getting out to the avaricious Jews on the other side of the “ghetto wall” waiting to grab it.

Although Sweden declined to participate in an international air drill together with the Jewish state, Sweden had no compunction about participating in joint military exercises with Russia, which is currently waging a brutal war in Chechnya. Nor did Sweden draw the line at selling highly advanced military equipment to Saudi Arabia. And interestingly, the second-largest market for dual-purpose heavy-duty trucks from a major Swedish truck maker is Iran.

It is therefore perhaps unfair to point the finger of blame solely at Swedish Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz. He does not operate in a vacuum of his own making but is instead part of the wider Swedish malaise whereby both Sweden’s Jews and Sweden’s relations with Israel are called upon to pay the price as election time draws near.

Sweden is renowned for its pragmatism. Principle, unfortunately, gets to play second fiddle.

Etiketter: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
upplagd av Ilya Meyer

tisdag 30 maj 2006

Svårigheten i att hantera en Justitieminister som aldrig svarar på frågor

Bäste JK Göran Lambertz,

Tack för ditt brev via epost daterat 060529, genom din assistent Feryal Mentes.

Jag noterar att du konstaterar att det i fallet Persbrandt klart och tydligt gällde förtal, medan det i fallet Stockholmsmoskén inte alls gällde hets mot folkgrupp.

Det sistnämnda grundar du på påståendet att ”innehållet i de tekniska upptagningar som (du) har granskat rör i huvudsak konflikten i Mellanöstern mellan judarna och palestinierna.” Du har inte förklarat hur en konflikt mellan vissa judar som har israeliskt medborgarskap, och som bor 3000 kilometer österut på en annan kontinent, och vissa araber som kallar sig palestinier och kämpar för en suverän oberoende stat där borta överhuvudtaget har med dödsrop mot judar med svenskt medborgarskap i det avlägsna Sverige att göra. Kopplingen ter sig skör i bästa fall, fullständigt bisarr och artificiell i betraktarens ögon.

Du behandlar två incidenter som båda faller inom ditt ansvarsområde utifrån två diametralt olika synpunkter: i den ena är du engagerad, medan den andra avfärdar du som irrelevant för ditt ämbete.

Du skriver att ”prövningen har utgått från de ramar som bestämmelserna anger, och bedömningen har varit strikt objektiv.”

Läs igen dessa ord i Stockholmsmoskén som behandlar judar – ALLA judar – och kommentera sedan hur objektiv du har varit i din bedömning:

Domens dag skall inte komma förrän muslimerna kämpar mot judarna. Muslimerna skall döda dem och judarna skall gömma sig bakom stenar och träd. Stenarna och träden skall säga: Åh, muslim, det är en jude bakom mig. Kom och döda honom.”

Läs sedan ditt eget beslut i ärendet och bekräfta det objektiva i din bedömning:
De uttalanden som förekommer måste bedömas mot den angivna bakgrunden, dvs den ofta mycket våldsamma konflikten. Det går sålunda enligt min mening inte att vid prövningen bortse från detta sammanhang.”

Vilket sammanhang skulle det vara? Sist jag följde nyhetsflödet hade vi ingen konflikt – våldsam eller av annan karaktär – i Stockholm eller någon annanstans i Sverige mellan judar och muslimer, ej heller mellan israeler och palestinier eller mellan israeler och andra araber. Problemet tycks snarare vara att du gör misstaget att blanda ihop judar och israeler. Det är ett misstag som du bör rätta, och kan rätta med heder i behåll. Jag tror att om du gör denna distinktion kommer du att ha lättare att agera i enlighet med det hot som faktiskt uttryckts mot oss svenska medborgare, på svensk mark, av utländska uppviglare som kom hit för att uppmuntra religiöst betingade rasmotsättningar under förevändning att det gäller ett politiskt budskap eller analys av en religiös text.

Beviset ligger faktiskt i dina egna ord, då du skriver i beslutet att lägga ner förundersökningen att de starka ord som användes i moskén ”är även ämnade att skapa medvetenhet kring den s.k. Palestinafrågan och att tillkalla hjälp inom arabvärlden i kampen mot judarna. De framförda sångerna innehåller – såvitt kunnat bedömas – inte uttryckligen något hot mot judarna. Underförstått innebär de däremot både hets mot judarna och hot mot staten Israel.”

Enligt dig innebär uppmaningarna alltså både ”hets mot judarna” – i Sverige – och ändå samtidigt är de ”inte uttryckligen något hot mot judarna”. Trots att uppmaningarna är ett inslag i att ”tillkalla hjälp inom arabvärlden i kampen mot judarna” – alltså inte israelerna utan ”judarna”. Oss judar i Sverige – som ditt ämbete ska skydda.

Jag är tacksam om du åter granskar det som faktiskt har sagts och inte förlitar dig på det som ”såvitt kunnat bedömas”, om du tittar på vem som sagt det, mot bakgrund av var det har sagts och vem det har riktats mot, och väger in det faktum att dessa samband inte tillräckligt klargjorts i ditt tidigare beslutsunderlag.

Det skulle vara tragiskt för Sverige om ditt beslut nu öppnade vägen för mig att till exempel hålla tal där jag ”analyserar” texter där man förolämpar alla muslimer – även dem i Sverige – och där jag diskuterar idén om att döda muslimer på grund av de onekligen människovidriga aktioner som deras trosfränder företar i så avlägsna platser som Irak, Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesien, Ryssland, Pakistan, Israel, Jordanien, Egypten, Marocko, Algeriet, Spanien, England – ja listan av muslimskt övervåld kan tyvärr göras hur lång som helst. Tolv danska tecknare ritade bilder som satte en hel värld i brand. Tack och lov finns det inga judar i Sverige som ens skulle överväga ett sådant förfarande, hur förolämpade vi än är, hur mycket andra än hetsar mot oss som folkgrupp, och hur mycket våra egna myndigheter än förvägrar oss det skydd vi har rätten till. Därtill är vi för civiliserade och förälskade i våra demokratiska värderingar för att ta till sådana vidriga steg.

Det vore oerhört synd om det visar sig att det enda som förklarar skillnaden i behandlingen är att du vet med fullständig säkerhet vilken respons du får från svenska judar oavsett vilket hot som riktas mot dem, och vilken respons som väntar från svenska och andra muslimer, och att du skräddarsyr dina beslut därefter.

För det skulle vara ett hot inte bara mot de svenska judar som du anser inte är hotade trots beviset, utan faktiskt mot hela den svenska demokratin. Något som vi svenska judar, i synnerhet, håller mycket dyr.

Mycket tacksam för ditt svar, och med förhoppningar om att du åter granskar fallet mot ovanstående bakgrund.

Med vänliga hälsningar,
Ilya Meyer

Etiketter: , ,

Bookmark and Share
upplagd av Ilya Meyer

onsdag 24 maj 2006

Brev ill Justitiekansler Göran Lambertz

Till Justitiekansler Göran Lambertz:

Jag skulle vara mycket tacksam om du ville kommentera följande:

”Det är rejält kränkande … de är osanna och har fått stor spridning” sade du nyligen om Expressens osmakliga och osanna påstående om att skådespelaren Mikael Persbrandt intagits på en anstalt för alkoholister. Du sade till och med att det kan finnas ett samhällsintresse av att väcka åtal på grund av Expressens illgärning.

Persbrandts rykte och framtida inkomstmöjligheter stod på spel. Ingen svensk medborgare ska behöva lida för andras lögner eller påhopp, och ens inkomst ska inte behöva lida på grund av kränkande behandling.

Mot detta har vi en situation där det i Stockholms Stora Moské för ett tag sedan fälldes oerhört kränkande omdömen om att det är en välsignelse att ”döda judar”, dessa ”apors och grisars bröder”. Dessa och andra kränkande och hotfulla ord har också fått stor spridning i Sverige. Men dessa ansåg du vara full acceptabla uttryck av ilska, helt enkelt inlägg i debatten om en pågående konflikt några tusen kilometer längre österut i Mellanöstern på en annan kontinent.

Enkelt uttryckt har vi en situation där du lämnar den svenska judiska minoriteten åt sitt öde i ett läge där de riskerar att förlora sina liv till följd av direkta uppmaningar att döda dem, samtidigt som du kommer till en enskild individs undsättning när brottet är förtal och där den förtalade riskerar att förlora sitt goda namn och sin inkomst.

Det är mycket hedersamt att du intar en så prominent roll för att rädda en oskyldig skådespelares goda namn. Det hade varit lika hedersamt om du kommit till de svenska judarnas undsättning på samma sätt. Uppmaningen att döda judar – i Sverige – har fortfarande inte väckt ditt intresse i lika hög grad som skådespelarens framtida inkomstmöjligheter. Trots att uppmaningen mot de svenska judarna är djupt kränkande och har fått stor spridning – alltså dina egna kriterier i fallet Expressen. Fallet med Stockholmsmoskén tycks helt enkelt inte ha något ”samhällsintresse” för dig – ytterligare ett kriterium som du själv valde.

Min fråga är: väger du en svensk medborgares inkomstmöjligheter tyngre är en annan svensk medborgares liv, när det enda som skiljer är en konflikt som pågår på en avlägsen kontinent?

Jag tror inte för ett enda ögonblick att etnicitet spelar någon som helst roll i dina överväganden, eller som många påstår att politiska överväganden tas i beaktande detta valår, varför jag skulle uppskatta dina egna funderingar på detta, med dina egna ord.

Med vänlig hälsning,

Ilya Meyer

Etiketter: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
upplagd av Ilya Meyer

torsdag 27 april 2006

Swedish credibility at an all-time low

2006 is election year in Sweden. In early April, Swedish Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz quashed an investigation into calls from the Stockholm Grand Mosque to “kill the Jews”. In his opinion, incitement to kill Jews in Sweden should be seen against the background of the conflict in Israel, rendering such calls entirely permissible.

Later the same month Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström declined to withdraw an entry visa for Hamas leader Salah Muhammad al-Bardawil or to have him arrested upon entry – even though Sweden is a signatory to the pan-European decision to brand Hamas a terrorist organisation. al-Bardawil and his associates will be visiting Sweden in early May under the full protection of the Swedish authorities.

Policy of non-cooperation with Israel
And now Cabinet Secretary Hans Dahlgren announced that Sweden has withdrawn from a European peacekeeping exercise. The explanation: “the participation of the Israeli Air Force has changed the prerequisites of the exercise.” Swedish Defense Minister Leni Björklund goes further: Sweden pulled out because Israel is a state “that does not participate in international peacekeeping missions” – in other words, if you’re not already in the club you have no right to try and lend a helping hand to those in need. Ever. Of course, the Defense Minister is entirely wrong – nothing unusual in Swedish government circles – because Israel sent a peacekeeping force of policemen to Fiji in conjunction with that country’s elections. But then the Defense Minister is not exactly renowned for allowing fact to shape policy.

Electioneering
It is election year and the votes of Sweden’s 400,000 strong Muslim electorate easily outweigh those of the country’s mere 16,000 Jews. The Swedish Social Democratic administration obviously considers it worth the half million or so kronor it has already spent on its 10-month preparations for the joint exercise to drive home its thirst for votes.

Bad timing
Sweden’s latest in a long line of questionable decisions could scarcely have come at a more indelicate point in time – virtually coinciding with Holocaust Remembrance Day in memory of the millions exterminated on an industrial scale in a Europe unwilling to work together to stop tyranny and encourage coexistence and loyalty. Today Sweden is repeating what it did sixty years ago – turning its back on those in need and siding with the force it sees as likely to win. This is perhaps the right time to remind ourselves that it was high-quality Swedish ore that powered Nazi Germany’s war machine.

What price morality?
It is perhaps also the right time for people of conscience to vote with their wallets and give Sweden’s IKEA, Volvo and Saab a wide berth. There is no Swedish product that cannot be replaced with an alternative from a democracy based on moral values.

Most Swedes are indignant, shamed even, by this most recent example of their government’s anti-Israel stance, the more so since it smacks so obviously of pre-election jostling. At a time when the governing left-communist coalition is trailing in the polls by three to five percent, it is apparent that no measure is too marginal to be used in the drive to cement its power.

The shame is that Jews in Israel are being victimised yet again, denied the opportunity to participate in peacekeeping missions in other parts of the world owing to domestic electioneering tactics in faraway Sweden.

It does perhaps help put matters into perspective that the Swedish government’s decision to ostracize Israel came on the same day that the Muslim Council of Sweden publicised its demands for the implementation of Islamic Sharia law for Muslims living in Sweden.

Etiketter: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
upplagd av Ilya Meyer

måndag 17 april 2006

Swedish unwillingness or inability?

Swedish Chancellor of Justice Mr Göran Lambertz appears to be a victim of his own unwillingness or, at best, inability to do his job properly.

The Chancellor responded both defensively and offensively to a press release (http://www.upprop.net/pressrelease.php?lang=eng) highlighting his decision to drop preliminary investigations into a Stockholm mosque’s calls to kill Jews. He defended his decision on the grounds that such calls, while repugnant, should be seen against the background of the conflict in the Middle East, commenting further that even calls of an offensive nature are “protected by the Constitution, and (that) freedom goes very deep”. He is not on record as having stated that the Muhammed cartoons, while repugnant, should be seen against the background of Islamist violence against unprotected civilians in the name of Muhammed, nor that the right to publish them in Sweden is protected by the Constitution, whose freedom goes very deep.

It is interesting, moreover, to note the following:

1. The Chancellor is highly irate because he feels the press release suggested “it would be politically correct in Sweden to refuse prosecuting hate speech against Jews”. Unfortunately, the Chancellor interprets the English language the way he interprets Swedish law – rather flexibly: nowhere in the press release was there any suggestion that that it is politically correct in Sweden to do any such thing, but rather that the Chancellor has taken it upon himself to interpret the law in this way, perhaps out of inadequate preparation of the case (see point 3 below), concern in an election year (see point 2), or fear of Muslim sentiment, among other possible considerations. If the latter, then that is highly regrettable because the Chancellor is not in office to cower out of fear, but to uphold the law. He failed in spectacular fashion.

2. The Chancellor is also highly irate over what he sees as the suggestion in the press release that his decision might have had “something to do with the upcoming elections in Sweden”. The record needs to be put straight: this IS an election year in Sweden, he surely cannot be contesting that. And the Chancellor DID soft-pedal on an issue of considerable concern to Muslims in Sweden, and he did so on highly questionable grounds (see point 3 below). There is no reason to avoid pointing out all the facts in the scenario, however peripheral he may regard them from his scarcely objective viewpoint. After all, the Chancellor himself chose to point out facts that are widely regarded as remarkably peripheral in defence of his decision to drop the preliminary investigation into racial hatred at the Stockholm mosque – he after all chose to point to a conflict taking place several thousand kilometres away on a totally different continent, in which conflict Sweden plays no part whatsoever. It is hard to imagine why the Chancellor would grant himself the right to cite peripheral events in defence of his inaction, yet get upset over his citizens’ right to cite peripheral events when highlighting that inaction.

3. Despite his charmingly worded protestations (in English) to the contrary, the Chancellor is being somewhat economical with the full facts of the case. At a debate (in Swedish) at the Stockholm Jewish Centre in early April, some interesting revelations were made:
i. There exists no substantial documentation to which he can refer and on which his “findings” were based.
ii. The flagrantly anti-Semitic texts from the Stockholm mosque were never fully translated in writing for his examination; instead he received a verbal translation through the services of an interpreter, and this verbal translation was more in the nature of a summary of the contents. Yet the Chancellor writes: “There is furthermore no reason for me to review my decision as long as such re-examination would concern the same material.” The question is: what material would this be? The Chancellor, after all, admits he has none.
iii. The Chancellor also freely admits that the political situation in the Middle East is highly inflamed – it is in fact the very excuse he offers for sanctioning the viciously anti-Semitic statements in the first place. Yet despite the inflamed nature of the conflict – which has nothing to do with Swedish Jews – he does not see fit to put in place the elementary safeguard of employing several translators and subsequently comparing their renderings of the contents. This begs the question of just how naive a public upholder of the law is permitted to be in such a situation, when he freely admits that the very subject of the Middle East causes such high feeling among all concerned.
iv. Despite the Chancellor’s protestations to the contrary in his English letter, he was put in the highly awkward position of having to publicly backtrack in Swedish on every single count during the debate in Stockholm. None of which is evident in his English letter. It would appear he has taken a leaf out of Yasser Arafat’s book – Arafat going down in history as the man who made an art of out saying one thing in English and quite another in Arabic.

There is a consideration of moral relevance here. Not that anyone in their right minds in the open, democratic country of Sweden would think of suggesting anything as deplorable as the following – it being merely a rhetorical extension of the Chancellor’s own argument – but would the Chancellor’s decision now open the door for calls in Sweden to kill Arabs and/or Muslims everywhere? After all, the number of Jews blown apart in suicide bombings in Israel over the past five years is well documented. These suicide bombings all carried out, of course, by Arabs and Muslims. We also know how many victims of suicide bombings there have been in London, Madrid, New York, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, to mention just some of the venues of this Arab and Muslim pastime. All atrocities committed by Arabs and Muslims in countries remote from Sweden.

Against this background of wanton daily mass-murder in places quite remote from Sweden, would Swedes now be permitted to call on their fellow-citizens to kill Arabs and Muslims in the calm backwaters of Sweden? After all, as the Chancellor wrote: “it is quite safe to say that the (Swedish) Law does not make it a crime to sing battle songs or utter war-cries related to the conflict in the Middle East.” Would one be right in assuming it is quite all right for non-Muslim Swedes to pursue such a reprehensible line because, to quote the Chancellor once again, their right to say such things “is protected by the Constitution, and the freedom goes very deep.” God protect Sweden from a society in which its citizens would be allowed to utter such disgraceful, anti-democratic sentiments. However, that right apparently sits quite easily with the Swedish Chancellor of Justice.

There remains, of course, the ultimate problem with the Chancellor’s handling of this case: because it was actually the Swedish Chancellor of Justice who offered the argument that the repugnant calls for killing Jews should be set against the conflict in the Middle East. The Swedish Muslims guilty of this racial incitement made no such connection whatsoever, pointing solely to the Muslim religious aspects of the case. It is remarkable that the Chancellor is so keen to offer his radical Islamist citizens an escape hatch from what he himself calls their “utterly provoking and quite unacceptable” comments aimed at his own moderate Jewish citizens.

It is morally repugnant that the Chancellor has received hate-mail, as he claims, just because he did a bad job. Incompetence should not be responded to with hatred or threats, but with guidance and reason. If the Chancellor did indeed receive threats just for doing an inadequate job, I for one would stand should to shoulder alongside him and defend his right to live in safety and security – because this is precisely what all right-thinking democrats in Sweden are defending, it is precisely why there has been such widespread criticism of the Chancellor’s decision to close the investigation into calls that undermine the safety and security of Sweden’s Jews.

The Chancellor did what he did out of any one or more of a number of reasons. And it is reason that will bring him to ultimately do what he should have done in the first place – a thorough job.

But for him to suggest that the press release has “cheated” its readers is nothing short of a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible – his abject failure to live up to the high demands of his office.

Etiketter: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
upplagd av Ilya Meyer