Moral Dictatorship

Unfree Speech in Sweden Part I

Our Scandinavian correspondent Rune writes us with news from Denmark and Sweden:

There is an American, Jonathan Friedman (fairly, in the context, potent name - here's his homepage), which you might want to read about. He has some interesting things to say about Sweden, their handling of the multicultural society and their particular virulent version of PC - as well as about the western world in general.

Jonathan Friedman is a New York Jew now living with his Swedish wife in the southern Swedish city of Malmø where he teaches socio-anthropology at the University of Lund. As an outsider living inside Sweden he sees himself in a unique position to comment both with inside insights and an outside perspective - but more to the point as foreigner he is able to comment candidly on issues which native Swedes would be quite unable to for fear of retribution for overstepping the invisible PC bounds.

He has kindly enclosed his translation of an article in Jyllands Posten, the largest newspaper in Denmark:

	The end of the Eveningland
	The suppressed freedom of speech in Sweden is a symptom of something much larger and much worse, namely the last spasms of the western civilisation, so thinks a professor of socio-anthropology, American and employed at the University of Lund [large university, southern Sweden].
	Jonathan Friedman is Jewish and New Yorker, and, as he welcomes you on the doorstep dressed in curly hair, hawaii shirt, khaki trousers and bare feet, he reminds you nothing so much as Bob Dylan - as Bob Dylan would have looked had he toured a little less and eaten a little healthier. The living room in the big flat in central Lund looks like the embodiment of the multiethnic vision; modern bright sofa, African art of walls and floors and the classical porcelain fireplace in the corner.
	The man is professor of socio-anthropology, kind and pleasant to look at with sleepy, intelligent eyes, but make no mistakes; he says things, you can only say in Sweden as long as you're not a Swede.
	"I'm pretty much waiting for all hell to break loose. But so far they seem to let me be in peace and I have only met critique internally at the university. Had I been a Swede, then I would have been decapitated, as it is, they mostly just try to ignore me."
	Friedman is employed at the University of Lund, together with his Swedish wife whom is also professor of socio-anthropology. And she has not been dealt with, with the same velvet gloves. Kajsa Ekholm Friedman made the grave mistake of accepting an invitation from the organisation "Folkeviljen og Masseindvandringen" [People's will and Mass Immigration] - an organisation no longer extant, but which typically consisted of pensioners and disappointed Social democrats, whom were critical of immigration. Kajsa Ekholm is/was not a member of the organisation and does not share its views, but just the fact that she spoke in the forum resulted in a demand from 27 teachers and students at Lund that she be removed from her position at the university.
	Jonathan Friedman knows a great deal about those mechanisms. He has functioned both in New York, Paris and Copenhagen before he came to Lund and has just finished a book titled "PC Worlds" an analysis of the phenomena Political Correctness.
	The ecology/environment of the debate
	We talk about the concept of "The Ecology of the Debate" [debattens økologi] introduced by Margareta Bertilsson, a Swedish professor of sociology at the University of Copenhagen. She wrote in Weekend Avisen [large Danish newspaper] July 12. "The right to speech must be weighted against him or those whom speak also have something to enrich the conversation with. The right to speak also entails duties to handle the responsibility. We take up other peoples' time. To take care of this public debating ecology has just as much value as taking care of freedom of speech."
	Jonathan Friedman however isn't shocked. "The suppression of the freedom of speech is a powerful mechanism. You are now here during the election campaign, and you'll see that the journalists and media try to make the debate seem large and varied - by simply removing focus from the essential and talk about something else entirely, like infrastructure policies. No debate about immigration polices is possible, the subject is simply avoided."
	"Why?"
	"I believe it is a long tradition. In the US for instance, political correctness is a university phenomena, in the public and amongst common people, it is a joke. But Sweden has such a close connection between the various powerful groups, politicians, journalists, etc. - they socialise privately, they marry each other, they go to the same social events and parties. The political class is closed, isolated. And add to that, that the Social Democrats have had something like near monopoly on the power. This instills a certain amount of security and stability - but also insecurity, for whatever would happen if the bubble suddenly burst? Or their view of the world seriously challenged? The elite, in their isolation and due to their isolation, has become more and more scared of the people and what they might think and believe. The opinion is that people in general are stupid. The Political Class has moved up and on and away from the people. It is cosmopolitical in its approach and views itself as more above the nation than part of it. Economical this is supported by the fact that precisely this class sees its salaries as the fastest growing of all."
	Absurd undemocratic, but is this something new?
	"A major changes has taken place. When I first came to the country, it was still so that you could call your politician and talk to him. It was a healthy democracy. In Denmark, where I lived in the 70's a separate political class already existed then. It is a such which has materialised in Sweden - even more so - and they're nervous and worried to see their power slip away and at anything which can stir or shake it. And it is therefore they want to close the mouth on the critics, as for instance The Swedish Democrats [Sverigedemokraterna. Swedish rightist party opposed to immigration. Not in parliament.] It is a completely legal party, they just aren't allowed to speak. It is absurdly undemocratic. They are marginalised. They are isolated and ridiculed. . . . and then they are called undemocratic. In reality, the heart of democracy is completely turned on its head. It is said: "democracy is a certain way of thinking, a specific set of opinions, and if you do not share them, then you aren't democratic, and then we condemn you and you ought be eliminated. The People? That is not democratic. We the Elite. We are democracy." It is grotesque and it certainly has nothing to do with democracy, more like a kind of moral dictatorship."

The symptoms of the PC disease seem to be more advanced in Sweden than in the USA; still, they are quite recognizable to us here in America. To take care of this public debating ecology has just as much value as taking care of freedom of speech. Campus speech codes are useful for managing the "public debating ecology" in the campaign against hate speech. The elite, in their isolation and due to their isolation, has become more and more scared of the people and what they might think and believe. Just open the New York Times, or listen to a John Kerry speech, to know that the same is true here. The rise of the blogosphere has contributed to the fear felt by the elites, and, if they can, they will use the FEC to regulate internet free speech into oblivion.

"Moral dictatorship" indeed.
______________________________________
(More on Jonathan Friedman in upcoming posts)