Wednesday, September 15, 2010

All Meetings of the Sweden Democrats Banned by Police

Sverigedemokraterna in the crosshairsThe police have told Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats) that they must cancel all their public meetings because their safety cannot be guaranteed.

In other words, Swedish law enforcement admits that it either can’t or won’t prevent anarchist and Muslim thugs from assaulting and firebombing the meetings of a officially registered political party whose members are assembling lawfully and peacefully.

This is what the electoral process has become in modern multicultural Sweden.

The following message just came in from the Sweden Democrats:

Dear friends,

Yet another dire event in Sweden and a major setback for freedom of speech.

Let’s start first with a portion of the press statement we just made:

SD’s planned public meetings in Norrköping, Karlstad, Eskilstuna, have in all cases been cancelled by the police after they informed us that they are unable to guarantee the safety of speakers.

This morning, a planned square meeting with party secretary, Björn Söder, in Norrköping was cancelled.


After a long wait for a go-ahead from the police to carry out the planned square meeting in Karlstad, Sweden Democrats party leader Jimmie Åkesson was informed late this afternoon that the police do not intend to prevent the left extremists who gathered on site from disrupting the meeting — including throwing eggs and voicing their threats. The police told the Sweden Democrats that the meeting must be cancelled.
- - - - - - - - -
Thus, the police have officially given up in the face of left-wing fascism. We are not allowed to hold election meetings, just a few days away from the election day (Sunday).

The full press statement may be found here.

Please pass this on and spread as much as you can.

Readers who maintain blogs or other websites: please help Sverigedemokraterna get the word out. There is a cone of silence over them in Sweden, and now they are locked out of public meetings. The internet is the only way they can communicate.

Pass it on!

Update — More details have arrived:

In Eskilstuna, Björn Söder was met by a large group of left-wing extremist counter-demonstrators. That meeting was also aborted on the advice of the police. In spite of police escort, the vehicle that the party secretary and other Sweden Democrats were travelling in on their way from the square was attacked with kicks and spat upon.

Jimmie Åkesson, Sverigedemokraterna, comments:

“It is very remarkable that during the election campaign leftwing-extremists are time and time again allowed to stop us from delivering our message. The events in Karlstad are unfortunately one example of many, and show that the leftwing-extremists and their violent methods have triumphed over the police, who are no longer able to uphold law and order in the country.”

The Sweden Democrats will file a complaint to the Justice “ombudsmannen”, JO, against the police.


Elan-tima said...

Desperation by the ruling elite has forced them to annul the pose of civility. They can't insult or demonize enough to cause the people to abandon their SD enemies so they clear the streets of the "proper" athorities so their ngo brown shirts... whoops, I meant brown skins can do what the "governing" can't and thats break some heads. As I mentioned in another comment, its time Europes Nationalist parties form security squads to make the castrated police irrelivent. If the police are not around then they can't arrest anyone for defending themselves by truncheon. A more likely scenario is the police would always show up in huge numbers thereby ensuring separation between the SD and the barbarians.

The Observer said...

According to both Swedish and Norwegian newspapers it was the leadership of Sverigedemokraterna themselves who chose to cancel the meeting and not the police. The newspapers also states that there were more than 50 police officers present at the scene, but that they were still unable to guarantee the safety of the representatives from the party.

Regardless I still think it’s sad that a legal political party can’t present their message in public because of intimidation and the threat of violence from fascists and anarchists. The same thing happened in Norway in the mid 80’s with Frp and various other anti-immigrant parties.

wagger said...


First off, what the swedish media say isnt always the truth or the whole truth.

Furthermore, the police has made the tactic of "letting the other party cancel" as the tactic-of-choice. What they do is they willingly (or just out of pure incompentence) let a situation get out of hand; ie they let arabs/muslims/lefties do violent attacks on us (or other groups they dont like). When the situation is worsening, the police approach and say that they "cannot" do anything about it, suggest that the meeting should be aborted but do not themselves order it.

Then, in the face of an angry mob of, usually, arabs and left-wing extremist you dont have a choice but to abort.

So its not really a choice at all, but the police dusguise it as such. Afterwards they can always say "well, it was their choice".

The Observer said...

I don’t know what the truth is; I’m simply saying that the media in Norway and Sweden have a different version to the one that has been posted on GoV.

There is however a big difference between the party leadership cancelling the meeting and the police ordering the leadership to cancel the meeting.

But like I’ve just mentioned, I have no idea what really happened.

pst314 said...

"Furthermore, the police has made the tactic of 'letting the other party cancel' as the tactic-of-choice."

Haven't leftist European governments been doing that for many years?

Baron Bodissey said...

kritisk --

I'll give you an analogy to what wagger is saying.

Imagine there's a traffic light where drivers on one of the two roads keep running the red light at high speed.

You're on the other road, and want to be able to get through when the light is green. You can't proceed, so you complain to a passing cop.

"Sorry," he says, "but there's nothing I can do about it. You can try to cross if you want, but it's at your own risk. I can't guarantee you won't get t-boned."

So you turn around and go back the way you came.

When the newspaper reporter hears the story, he asks the cop about it. "Hey," the cop says, "I didn't tell the guy to go back -- he made that decision himself."

- - - - - - -

After learning about all this, if you were to say that the cop did not force the driver to turn around, your assertion would be utter casuistry, and not worthy of use in a serious argument.

You should know better.

The Observer said...


The initial post on GoV states that the police ordered the leadership of SD to cancel the meeting. The media reports from Norway and Sweden states that the leadership of SD made this decision.

Regardless of what people might think of the police for not protecting the right of a legal political party to assemble freely there is a big divergence in the accuracy in the two statements above.

One is false and the other one is true. It’s not only a matter of semantics, surely that should be very obvious.

But like I said I don’t know which one is which.

Baron Bodissey said...

kritisk --

The original Swedish should be readable for you, since you are Norwegian.

Bear in mind that the press release was translated by a person whose native language is not English.

Wagger has explained the situation, and my analogy should have clarified matters completely. To say that the police did not compel the cancelling of the event is indeed casuistry.

The police have a sworn duty to protect the public from violent malefactors, and to arrest and charge all such malefactors. If we were to consider them professionals, a failure to execute their duty using due diligence would be termed malpractice. However, in the case of law enforcement officers, it would more likely termed malfeasance.

Malfeasance on the part of the police caused the cancellation of SD events. That is an exact and concise logical restatement of what the SD press release means.

If that does not satisfy your need for clarity, then you probably cannot be satisfied. And you have a great future ahead of you as a Jesuit.

The Observer said...

Baron said ...

“Bear in mind that the press release was translated by a person whose native language is not English.”

Well, then it’s just a matter of getting ‘lost in translation’. It was still a pretty relevant misunderstanding.

And I’ve already given my view on the police’s inability to protect a legal political party’s constitutional right to hold public meetings.

Baron said..

“If that does not satisfy your need for clarity, then you probably cannot be satisfied. And you have a great future ahead of you as a Jesuit.”

Considering that I’m an atheist I don’t think I’ll ever become a Jesuit.

Jewish Odysseus said...

Baron, can't we confidently assume by now that this pose by the police goes beyond malfeasance and is probably a rather crude political collusion with the moneyed forces of Eurabia? Back in the days of the red and black, it was easy for police to effectively liquidate a targeted political party within their jurisdiction by pretending that "there is nothing we can do to guarantee your safety," then give it the big "tsk-tsk, I tried to warn them" when a few homes or shops or offices are incinerated...And the politically incorrect group learns that to survive it must SHUT UP.

I'll bet that if the Swedish police caught a rumor that the SD was forming units of armed cadres to ensure their free speech and political rights, they would be on them like white on rice with all the spy gear and heavy artillery you cd imagine.

As I like to say: "It's amazing what you're unable to do, when you really don't want to."

Anonymous said...

the leftwing-extremists and their violent methods have triumphed over the police, who are no longer able to uphold law and order in the country

No longer able, or simply unwilling? I can't say what's act work with Swedish police, but I've met plenty of American police who hold themselves as being above and more important than the general public. Their overriding goal is to protect themselves, not the general public. They'll take the overtime pay for doing crowd control, but if the crowd gets rowdy, they won't exert themselves to stop them. That's very different from the 1960s, when American police had no qualms about bashing heads to quell riots.

Baron Bodissey said...

kritisk --

Pity! You've got the talent for it. :)

Baron Bodissey said...

J.O. --

Oh, yes, we certainly may assume that. The police are most assuredly acting with the interests of the political establishment in mind, whether or not they receive actual orders to neglect their duty when the antifas start attacking SD.

But in this case I was arguing with a Philadelphia lawyer, which meant I had to stick to the realm of demonstrable fact, and not assume anything.

pst314 said...

Mark Steyn has described Sweden as "Islam's most obedient prison bitch". I wouldn't trust anything a Swedish government apparatchik says.

sulber nick said...

Ultimately though this is in the hands of the Swedish people themselves. Without their votes (and abstentions) the machine politicians would be out of the machine.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Randian, my bet is on 'unwilling', for a fairly simple reason:

To the Swedish establishment, it would be Bad Media if the Swedish police was to conduct a major street battle in defence of the rights of a widely-despised party (SD) - despised by themselves, that is.

It's a Catch-22, and they chose the lousy way out.


If this is to be the way of things,they should employ the bikers to ensure the security of thier meetings,do not cancel,fight fire with fire,if the police,like here in England refuse to protect the citizen,then the citizen must take steps to protect himself,arm yourself in whatever way possible and make this fight for free speech physical and more than verbiage.

Unknown said...

If the police can't guarantee their safety, then more force will have to be brought to bear to allow the peaceful expression of non-treasonous opinions. I say "non-treasonous", because these people aren't advocating the overthrow of the state and its replacement with a caliphate ruling under sharia law. They are passionately concerned to save their country and its culture.

Anonymous said...

And to think these are the people who were once Vikings . Isn't sickening what a couple generations of socialism can do? Hear that, kiddies? Just say No to Marx.

WAKE UP said...


At some point (which is becoming increasingly clearly denoted), inaction and self-indulgent chardonnay soliloquising actually become cowardly, treasonable and collaborative with the enemy.

I think you've crossed that line.

The Observer said...

Wake up...

Why don’t you just do outside and play in the traffic?