Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2010

I have earlier written about how Swedish media and parliamentary parties’ members always defame the party the Sweden Democrats (hereinafter called SD) (here, here and here) and always connect the party name with the adjective “xenophobic” . The SD is today the biggest party outside the parliament and the prognoses show that the SD will probably reach the number of voters (4% or more) that will open the doors of the parliament to the SD. Let’s see what make the other parties so terrified of this party.

The SD was formed in 1988 and is a democratic and nationalistic party. Up to 2005 it was a fairly marginal movement. The founders and the early prominent figures of the party were to some extent of persons active in nationalist parties and organizations. These historical facts are something that other parties often refer to in order to defame the party. They often forget that their own parties have a lot of deadwood, like for instance the Social Democrats, who nominated Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize. At least three of the present parties in the parliament formed together the The State Institute for Racial Biology, the first of its kind in the world. So “brown roots”, that the SD often is accused of, are apparently to be found in several parties’ historical facts.

In 1997 the the National Swedish Police Board (Rikspolisstyrelsen) published a handbook, in which they describe that younger activists left the party because it was parliamentary and democratic. The authors were Anna-Lena Lodenius and Per Wikström. In the Daily News (Dagens Nyheter) the head of unit, Margareta Linderoth, stated on 8 May 2002 that the Security Police (SÄPO) was not interested in the SD since it was an accepted political party.

The well-known Nazi-researcher Helene Lööw published in 1998 the book “Nazism in Sweden 1980-1997″. In this book of 526 pages the SD is mentioned in only one case in which party leaders are afraid of being assaulted. “It’s not the immigrants that are after us, but the Nazis”. Helene Lööw has several times stated that the SD is democratic and not racist, not Nazi and not xenophobic. She has among other things stated this in the TV program Studio Ekdal in Axess TV on 30 September 2006 and in a seminar at the University of Karlstad on 7 February 2008. Some other journalists have also stated that the SD is not racist or xenophobic.

The largest inflow of SD members, a veritable explosion, has shown that many new members have belonged to other parties and some of them have been active in more than one party. But the politically correct journalists dedicate their time to scrutinize the SD from 1988. Their continuously repeated mantra is that the SD’s have no other ideology than racism.

It is true that in 1988 the SD had hardly no well thought-out political theory, but during the past 22 years, the movement has ripened and found stable social-conservative values. At the moment, the SD is unfortunately the only party in Sweden that with disease awareness.

Today the mass immigration must be handled. That is why many people are ready to vote for the SD in order to get an thorough change of this immense failure and waste. The parliamentary parties remain silent. They know that the immigration has failes, but if the acknowledge this they also have to take measures, which is impossible in this politically correct society where someone always feels injured if you roll up your sleeves. The parliamentary parties know that what is needed is a deus ex machina that can save the situation, and in the present situation there is only the SD that is willing to take on this responsibility.

A study of th SD’s list of future parliamentary members shows that the SD members come from:

Statistics of party members' former political affiliation

By that the question of where the SD at bottom has its roots is answered.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Here in Sweden, a lot has been written and said about the artist Lars Vilks this very last week. With his caricature, he almost stirred the whole world in 2007. The debate then was very much about how insulted the Muslims felt. This time, the international police have arrested seven persons in Ireland and one woman in the USA (Jihad-Jane) for planning the assassination of Vilks.

The debate here immediately revived and Vilks has participated in lots of radio and television debates. At first, the debate immediately relapsed to the same level as last time, i.e. about the insult of the caricature itself. Nalin Pekgul, a Muslim party member of the Social Democrats, as well chairwoman of the Social Democrats’ women’s federation, a prospective minister in a future socialist government, has, loud-voiced and on the verge of tears, attacked Vilks in all their debates (here is one) saying that he did the worst thing possible when he portrayed Mohammed as a dog, because “dogs are impure”. She has also drawn the conclusion, based on this incident, that freedom of speech should not be absolute. “Just because something is legal, is not necessarily advisable”, she says after about 10 minutes in this programme)

In another TV-program, Debatt (“Debate”), the Muslim Mohannad Yousif participates and alleges that he and 1,5 billion Muslims have been offended. He continues to state that this offence is worse than making fun of the Holocaust. A number of publicists also take part and one of them actually questions the fact that Mohannad Yousif sees himself as a spokesman for 1,5 million Muslims. Only Vilks contradicts Yousif for his statement by saying that there actually is a distinction between fiction and facts, and that religions at bottom are fictitious but that the Holocaust is a fact, so that there is no relevance in Yousif’s description.

Why did Vilks do this caricature? He notices that there is a restriction in society as regards freedom of expression within art. It is possible to criticize and taunt all the religions but for Islam. He sees this as a problem that Muslims are treated like children in society. He presumes that the goal is that they must become grown-up members of society and learn to bear other opinions that their own without reacting like insulted children. Here is an English interview with Vilks where he explains his function as a catalyst without taking any political standpoint, even though he admits that what he has done is most politically incorrect.

Now the discussion has more and more changed direction into dealing with freedom of speech. In 2007, the publicists were more inclined to compromise with our freedom of speech. This time, it is possible to discern a less tactful attitude. There are less “buts” this time than last time (“We must of course have freedom of speech, but ….” a standpoint that Pekgul adheres to, though).

In yet another debate program, Agenda, sent 14 March, Jan Guillou was one of the invited debaters. Guillou is, nota bene, a former KGB-agent. Guillou doesn’t seem to understand, or support, what this process with the Mohammed caricature is about: to teach people coming from other cultures that we in the west have our freedom of speech and that it means that what you don’t like yourself is permissible. And that you have to learn to live with people who have other views without having to threaten them or try to murder them.

Kurt Westergaard (the Danish cartoonist) and Lars Vilks do what politicians and journalists don’t do: they teach western culture and civilization to new minorities. Satire becomes an enormous explosive force when other ways of communication are closed because of taboos, fear and cultural clashes. That is when satire opens up the eyes of those who try to shut them, breaks through the sound barrier of those who refuse to listen.

There is a lack of Muslims today that openly defy the Islamic agenda. But there are a few. Mohamed Sifaouis is such an uncommon person. When watching this film (in French with Swedish text, though) it is not difficult to understand why.

Follow my blog with bloglovin

Read Full Post »

Sweden is the country in Europe that opens its doors to the highest number of immigrants. The Migration Board’s director-general, Dan Eliasson, sees no reason to worry.

In 2009, permanent residence permits (PUT) were granted to over 102,000 immigrants, the number UN convention refugees of which was less than 5 per cent. The largest immigrant group consists of people seeking family reunification with immigrants that have already been granted PUT.

Those who don’t meet the requirement of the UN standards, can be allowed a permanent residence anyway, with reference to “particularly compassionate grounds” (979 persons in 2009) or with reference to having a “need of protection” (5967 persons in 2009). As far as I am informed, no other European country have these other reasons for residence permit. NB! Most of the immigrants (95%) arriving to Sweden have no identity documents. They are more often than not allowed to stay anyway, even though this is against the law.

Now let’s look further into the reasons that convinced the Migration Court that the following persons must stay. I will here enumerate a number of reasons that led to a permanent residence permit (PUT):

Case UM 3139-80 Yemenite woman had had sex with a Canadian, now she runs the risk of being murdered by her uncle

Case UM 993-09 Divorce after bogus marriage (in order to get a PUT) no reason for cancelling the PUT

Case UM 3411-08 The parents’ reasons for PUT are not credible but the oldest child has turned apathetic so PUT is granted

Case UM 1673-09 Girl born 1992 gets PUT because of mental illness

Case UM 595-09 Man from Kamerun says he is son of a deceased headman; he doesn’t want to inherit the headmanship, the father’s 6 wives and 28 children

Case UM 2479-09 Raped Iranian woman had been harassed by her divorced husband after the rape

Case UM 1662-09 Young Iraqi man gets PUT in spite of no actual reason but for the fact that he otherwise must live in a state of uncertainty as regards the point of time of the expulsion from Sweden

Case UM 2902-08 Afghan man gets PUT because of a psychotic illness

Case UM 5814-08 A Sudanese woman risks being frozen out from society because she has a child

Case UM 2053-09 A family that states they come from Yemen and that Al-Qaeda are after them

These are only ten cases out of many hundred thousands more. A list of some more PUT permissions is to be found here.

In a British TV documentary, immigrants (the majority being young men) were interviewed on the reasons for trying to get into Great Britain. It appeared that they were trying to “live the European dream”, i.e. to get themselves better economic conditions than they had in Africa and in the Middle East. Consequently, the speaker called them “economical migrants”.

Having given examples of a few of all the reasons of the immigrants to Sweden granted permanent residence permit on the grounds of a “need of protection”, the immediate question at issue is if they are not as well to be called “economical migrants”.

Sweden’s welfare system is the most generous in Europe. The Swedish tax burden is the heaviest in Europe. There is a connection between these two facts. The one requires the other. An immigrant who has got a permanent residence permit automatically has the right to receive all the social welfare allowances there are. Couldn’t this, put together with the proportionate easiness to obtain the PUT, be a contributory reason for the fact that Sweden functions like magnet for immigrants?

Follow my blog with bloglovin

Read Full Post »