In a recent article in Dagens Nyheter the newly appointed head of police, Dan Eliasson, explains that three new police units have been formed to “prevent crimes that threaten the open society” and will work to combat “the marshlands of the internet”, where people host opinions that are not in line with “everyones equal value”.
The article lulls the reader into a false sense of security with the headline “New Police Units will protect the democratic freedoms”, and the preamble starts off by listing a number of threats against the open society such as Charlie Hebdo, the Copenhagen shootings, young “Swedes” travelling to the Middle East to fight. But it turns out that the article had little to do with preventing terrorists but instead regarded setting up new special units in metropolitan areas aimed at upholding democratic freedoms by… limiting democratic freedoms.
“Threats and attacks on religious and ethnic minorities is a serious problem. We see that politicians, journalists and artists are exposed due to their opinions. A breeding ground for these threats and attacks is found on the marshlands of the internet, where a harsh tone is used against those who stand up for everyones equal value”.
What exactly constitutes a harsh tone and why should the police defend those who believe in a mistranslation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights?
“In the middle of all this we must not forget that Sweden is one of the worlds most tolerant and open societies. The majority have a view on immigration, multiculturalism, respect for sexual orientation and freedom of religion that is developing in a more tolerant direction. But this tolerance and opennness must always be defended. The police as an organisation have an especially great responsibility to embrace these values.”
That the department is forced to embrace multiculturalism and open borders doesn’t surprise me but what is interesting is that the article co-incides with a text written a couple of hours prior by Anne Ramberg, General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association. She defends the tabloid Aftonbladets decision to co-operate with criminal and left-wing extremist “Research Group”, a scandal I wrote about here.
“The right to anonymity entails that the person who has written a text or done a recording can publish it anonymously. […] However, the right to anonymity has no relevance when it comes to protect those who work against the fundamental principals that the constitution protects. I therefore want to support Aftonbladet.
“Controversial, racist, and derogatory statements shall not be veiled in the fog of anonymity. They shall not enjoy the protection of freedom of speech laws.”
The Swedish constitution was changed without the consent of the people, left-wing extremists are mapping and exposing dissidents, the General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association doesn’t think people should be able to write controversial statements anonymously and police units are being set up to combat those who don’t agree that “everyone is of equal value”.
A wise individual once said:
Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent.
Alan Dershowitz (1938-?)