Monday, October 19, 2009

Putting Words in His Mouth

Jimmie ÅkessonJimmie Åkesson is the party leader for Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats). SD’s staunch opposition to mass immigration has made Mr. Åkesson and his fellow party members outcasts in Swedish politics, and the elites and the media never miss an opportunity to attack, smear, and sandbag the party.

Both Aftonbladet and Sydsvenskan have refused to carry paid advertising from the “racist” Sweden Democrats, but for some reason Aftonbladet was willing to carry an op-ed by Mr. Åkesson in today’s edition.

The paper, however, could not resist contriving some devious agitprop concerning Mr. Åkesson’s piece. Consider the difference between these two statements:

Islam is the greatest threat.


The Muslims are the greatest threat.

The distinction is not insignificant; Geert Wilders has taken great pains to emphasize it in his speeches and policy papers. But Aftonbladet decided to play fast and loose with the truth and thereby stick the ol’ Afton Blade between Jimmie Åkesson’s ribs.

Our Swedish correspondent LN has been following the news closely, and has sent frequent dispatches to Gates of Vienna as the situation developed. The results are compiled below; all translations are by LN.

First, an overview by the translator:

Today a journalistic war has started in Kretinostan. Aftonbladet presented an op-ed article by the Jimmie Åkesson, “Muslimerna är vårt största utländska hot” = “The Muslims are the greatest threat to us (since WW2)”.

The Islam-apologist par preference, Jan Hjärpe, professor emeritus in Islamic Studies, talks about Nazism and Racism; prominent lawyers talk about racial agitation; everybody is indignant.

I myself wondered if Åkesson could be so stupid as to write “Muslims…” instead of “Islam…” I had a suspicion that Aftonbladet chose that word for him.

Now it looks like the caption “Muslimerna är vårt största utländska hot” = “the Muslims are the greatest foreign threat to us (since WW2)” was constructed by Aftonbladet alone.

I have visited some SD home pages and the opinion is unanimous: whether Muslims as a “folk group” or Islam as a religion makes up a threat is certainly not small potatoes, legally speaking.

If this is true, it would be deliberate slander.

Readers will note the similarity between what LN said last night and what Jimmie Åkesson said in his op-ed in Aftonbladet:

Twenty years ago, I think it was difficult for most Swedes to imagine that Islam would become Sweden’s second largest religion, that Swedish artists who criticize or joke with Islam would live under constant death threats, that some ten Islamic terrorist organizations or representatives thereof would be established in Sweden, that leading Muslim representatives would make demands for the imposition of Sharia laws in Sweden, that Swedish county councils would use taxpayers’ money to cut off the foreskins of fully healthy little boys, that Sweden would have the largest number of rapes in Europe and the Muslim men would be highly over-represented among the perpetrators, that Swedish swimming halls should introduce separate bathing times for men and women, that Swedish municipalities could consider the inclusion of gender-segregated swimming in schools, that freezer counters in our grocery stores would offer ritually slaughtered meat, while Swedish nursery schools and kindergartens stop serving pork, that Swedish schools would introduce new holidays to celebrate the end of Ramadan, while the church is prohibited from school/term closing ceremonies in more and more schools and so on.

All this is now part of the Swedish reality. The question is how it will look in a few more decades, when the Muslim population, if the current pace persists, has multiplied in size and many of Europe’s major cities including Malmö will most likely have a Muslim majority.

The prime minister has weighed in:
- - - - - - - - -
Reinfeldt: We need to promote tolerance

The prime minister is critical of Jimmie Åkesson’s op-ed in Aftonbladet. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (M) believes that the Jimmie Åkesson(SD) article is significant concerning what the Sweden Democrats want to achieve.

And Journalisten reports that the dreaded hets mot folkgrupp (agitation against an ethnic group) is being directed at Aftonbladet:

Aftonbladet has been reported to the police for hets mot folkgrupp

Mariam Osman Sherifay, chairman of the Center Against Racism, reports the Aftonbladet to the police for the publication of Jimmie Åkesson’s debate article. Mariam Osman Sherifay writes on Newsmill that the article is “so openly racist that no explanation as to why I report it is needed.” She believes that the publication follows a pattern through which the Sweden Democrats are allowed an increasing foothold in the Swedish general public, and wonders how far Aftonbladet is willing to go: “Could the newspaper publish an article in which “the Jews” are highlighted as the major threat to our country?

LN adds this final wrap-up:

On Swedish Radio P1, Studio One, at 1600 Oct. 19, the political editors of Aftonbladet: Jan Helin and Dagens Nyheter: Peter Wolodarski debated the Åkesson article in today’s AB.

Wolodarski spoke about “crude/rude and aggressive racial agitation”; “this is open racism”; “this time it is about Muslims, next time it will be about Jews”.

Mona Sahlin was asked about her opinion and spoke about the Muslims as a “big part of the Swedish population” (ca. 5%!).

Prime Minister Dhimmifeldt was also asked — and had the same to say as in today’s Local.

Peter Althin, the defense lawyer for Mehdi Ghezali, also lawyer for the People’s Party [Liberals] and Aftonbladet (Socialist!), spoke about “racial agitation…”

The “Centrum mot Rasism” (CMR), the notorious “Yvonne Ruwaida League”, led by Mkyabela Sabuni, an uncle to the minister Sabuni, has expressed the intention to report (to the police) the AB for “racial agitation”. Let us hope they do — it will cause SD to expand!

With all these well-chosen words the standard of the debate is/was set.

Stupidity and ignorance (true — or pretended?) on the highest level.

Kretinostan is the rightly-deserved name of this miserable and unsuccessful country.

For news in English, see Swedish Radio:

Sweden Democrats Lash Out Against Islam

With their party conference just barely over, the ultra right wing Sweden Democrats are creating headlines in Sweden again.

In an article in Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet Jimmie Åkesson, party leader, writes that Islam is the greatest threat against Sweden since WWII.

And the Local:

Islam ‘Sweden’s Biggest Threat’: Far-Right Leader

An article by the leader of the far-right Sweden Democrats claiming that Islam is the biggest threat to Sweden since World War II is tantamount to hate speech, according to legal experts.

A number of jurists believe the text, published in the opinion section of the Aftonbladet newspaper, qualifies as agitation against an ethnic group (hets mot folkgrupp).

Further material from Aftonbladet (in Swedish):


Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but I'm getting fed up with those Byzantine discussions about "Islam" versus "Muslims".

Granted, it might be politically wise (not to mention legally wise) to speak about Islam rather than Muslims. I'm no politician.

However, let's have a reality check over this. Does Islam rape girls ? Does Islam shoot policemen ? Does Islam campaign for criminalisation of anti-Islam thoughts through Western courts ? Does Islam bomb cities and march for charia on the streets ? No, Muslims do.

Remember : guns don't kill people. People do.

Rewind the tape back fifty years. As a European, would you say : we have to fight Nazism ? Obviously. Would you say : oh! no, don't say we have to fight Germans, that's awfully rrracist, and you shouldn't be stereotyping those poor Germans ? Certainly not. People would think you're nuts (unless they were pro-Nazi).

Besides, what's the difference ? When an official goes as far as saying : "The article is “so openly racist that no explanation as to why I report it is needed.”", what other proof does one need that nobody really cares about words, and that the pro-immigration and pro-Muslim/Islam/whatever forces will fight their enemies no matter what, by all means available ?

Henrik R Clausen said...

The article is “so openly racist that no explanation as to why I report it is needed.

Which translates into:

In case you can't see any 'racism' here, YOU are the stupid (or evil) one!

Henrik R Clausen said...

Robert, I don't think it's all that 'Byzantine' to discriminate (note evil word here :) between Islam and Muslims. Islam is the ideology that protects Muslims when committing crimes in its name.

Attacking the ideology is one important task, holding criminal Muslims individually responsible is another. They are different, and both are needed.

Anonymous said...

Henrik R Clausen wrote: Attacking the ideology is one important task, holding criminal Muslims individually responsible is another.

The distinction is right in a situation when society is at peace with itself. In a war situation, the distinction is fatal.

Orlando said...

Muslims are dangerous. Muslims are the biggest threat, along with their Western leftist sympathizers.

Your enemy is not an ideology. Your enemy is a flesh and blood human being. 1.3 Billion of them.

Anonymous said...

Henrik, I agree that it is necessary to attack :

1) the ideology,
2) individual, criminal Muslims.

However, what the post suggests is the old chestnut that you should not generalise, that many (or even most) Muslims are just OK, etc.

The important thing to realise is that we are past this point. This type of thinking is all right in a functioning democracy, in peace time. This is no longer the case. We are technically at war. And what's worse, lawful authority does not exist any more -- to a significant extent. Parts of our territory have already been lost to the enemy.

So I posit there is a third group that we should consider hostile and nefarious as a whole : Muslims, period.

Now, am I saying that we should grasp weapons and shoot Muslims at first sight ? Round them up and exterminate them, Nazi-style ? Certainly not.

But I do say that we should consider them as political enemies. Dangerous enemies. All of them, as a group. And act accordingly, which may mean different things at different times and places.

How do we know whether any individual Muslim does not harbour hostile intentions towards us ? We cannot. If he is, indeed, peaceful, how can we know he will not turn up against us at some time in the future ? We cannot. Many of them have followed such a path. Anjem Choudary was an alcohol-guzzling student. Tariq Ramadan was secularised and unintersted in Islam up to his 30th birthday.

Is this unfair to many individual Muslims ? Certainly. But life is unfair. History is unfair. Politics are unfair.

Did we start this whole business ? No. We were ready to live in peace with immigrants, be they Muslim or anything else, on our own territory. War was declared upon us.

Is that unfair to us, collectively and individually ? Very definitely so.

Would it be unfair to our children, to our civilisation if we lost the fight just because some individual Muslims might be inconvenienced in the process of counter-djihad ? Very certainly.

Anonymous said...

One must keep in mind, that as long as there are significant numbers of Muslims living amongst us, there will be continuous demands for sharia this or that, there will always be terror plots germinating from within the city walls, and there will always be fatwas whenever Muslims feel that their religion/prophet has been insulted. The last will lead to threats of violence and terrorism. This terrorism leads to the government clamping down on freedoms, as well as increasingly intrusive security measures on all, for they have no option but to be PC.

All this is the natural culmination of having Muslims, regardless of whether they pose an existential threat or not. It leads to loss of freedom of speech, and eventually freedom of thought.

It is worth pondering that a mere 3% Muslim population in the UK, has brought us to this pass. This is just a 3% Muslim population, not enough to pose an existential threat, but more then enough to virtually shut down any criticism of Islam on the MSM, and encompass us all with draconian security measures. What will happen when when Muslims are 10 or 20% of the population?

The distinction between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims is meaningless, for the simple reason that the larger the number of Muslims, moderate or radical, the greater will be the demands for sharia. If these are not granted, then threats of violence follow with all the unpleasant side effects as above.

What funds and generates the Jihad is the total number of Muslims. Radical or moderate is meaningless.

Orlando said...

It is worth pondering that a mere 3% Muslim population in the UK, has brought us to this pass. This is just a 3% Muslim population, not enough to pose an existential threat, but more then enough to virtually shut down any criticism of Islam on the MSM, and encompass us all with draconian security measures. What will happen when when Muslims are 10 or 20% of the population?

This is why you cannot fail to mention complicit Western, white leftists along with Muslims as the enemy to civil life.

Henrik R Clausen said...

What will happen when when Muslims are 10 or 20% of the population?

I think you should look to Cyprus, which has around 18-20 %.

Anonymous said...

I think you should look to Cyprus, which has around 18-20 %.

Exactly. Partition, with half the nation given over to Islamic colonisers. This is one of the four ways that Anjem choudry talks of bringing islam to lands of the Kuffar.

Laurel said...

I agree that debating about "Muslim" versus "Islam" is putting too fine a point on the discussion.

You can't help that you were born into a certain culture. In the West we do have a duty to rescue people born into this culture who truly want out. The problem is Islam encourages Muslims to lie in the service of their "faith."

Islam is the ultimate sleeper cell ideology. Just when you think someone from this culture sincerely wants to leave it and embrace Western values, you find out that, actually, it was all just a trick. In order to gain a toehold into the West, Muslims lie about wanting to integrate and become Western.

But, then, there are some who truly want to embrace Western values. And therein lies the problem. How do we know who to choose? Who do we believe? Who is sincere?

The only moderate Muslim is a non-practicing Muslim. Practicing this "faith" is utterly incompatible with Western values.

Anonymous said...

"Who do we believe? Who is sincere?" (Lygeia)

Muslim women speaking out against Islam are a safe bet. Sure, that's a light straw to grasp at, but we know it's there...

Some Muslim women in the West, those who value their newfound freedom, are among those who stand the most to lose if Islam wins. Another group of Muslim women, of course, willingly take the Islam way : the illiterate brides directly imported from Arab countries, the professionally active women who use Islam as a weapon to gain entry into society, and of course the native converts.

Slavery has its advantages, especially under Islam.

laine said...

"Islam is the ultimate sleeper cell ideology."

Truer words were never spoken.

It is pointless for us kaffirs to stamp any Muslims as "moderate". It is only wishful thinking on our part. Muslims are the biggest killers of other Muslims in the world today. If they have no respect for their co-religionists, why do we persist in believing that they will tolerate peaceful co-existence with infidels? Where Muslims dominate, non-Muslims are at best inferior citizens, at worst squeezed out by oppression or killed outright.

How many stories do we have to hear of actual Muslim bombers whose family and friends claim that they were "not very religious" to understand that any Muslim could go off at any time? (Many will not show their true colors until they see that Islam is in the ascendancy, hedging their bets until the end).

The only trustworthy Muslims are basically ex-Muslim self-declared apostates (or are declared apostate betrayers by the majority Muslim community) who reveal insider info on Islam that is of strategic use to non-Muslims in countering jihad. In doing so they take some risk and therefore clearly are sincere in their beliefs. But they are an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.5 completely brainwashed billion.

We should take it as a given that even the most indolent Muslim contributes to enlargement of the umma by colonizing non-Muslim lands and swelling the numbers that the activist Muslims use to gain more and more concessions.

There is no sizable percentage of Muslims who declare themselves moderate in the sense of accepting separation of church/mosque and state as a permanent and desirable feature of western countries or publicly and effectively opposing the constant multi-headed push for sharia.

Most so-called moderate Muslims are soldiers in Allah's army or at the very least the supply convoy for the fighters.