Vi har översatt danskan till engelska då den svenska översättningen bara trasslar in sig. Länk finns nedan till danska artikeln. Läs även alla kommentarer, en hel del svenskar uttrycker sin åsikt.
Sweden is at the other end, after the chairman of the immigrant critical party Sweden Democrats Jimmie Åkesson has been admitted his speech in the newspaper Aftonbladet, which scourged the multicultural society and identifies immigration from the Islamic world as the greatest threat to the country.
Newspaper editor before publishing has consulted with an army of lawyers and made it clear that although he gives space to party leader debate on the pages, he will not include ads for Sweden Democrats in next year’s elections.
Daily article has triggered a report to the police for incitement to ’smear campaign against a population group’ and the notifier considers that it is so blatantly racist that she does not need to explain further.
Several things stand out when you look at our neighbor from the other side of Øresund.
Firstly, the established Swedish media, thanks to a warped view of the press’s role in a democracy, the Swedish consensus thinking assumes the role of censorship body. The media knows best what Mr and Mrs Svensson can bear to hear. But pluralism presupposes precisely that a diversity of opinions will meet at marketplace of ideas, not – as in the case in much of the Swedish press – the media should decide which views the room clean and what is not. The adults may well even consider.
When we have followed in recent days Swedish debate may get the impression that the media sees itself in a public educational role. They must teach the people and set boundaries. However, it is contrary to freedom of expression nucleus of confidence in the free speech requires that no views in advance denied access to the debate, as long as there is no incitement to violence. Must be easily also recall that a major cause of Adolf Hitler’s great popularity in Bavaria in the mid-1920s was that the authorities forbade him to speak in public trust.
Secondly, it is clear that the press and the old parties have difficulty dealing Sweden Democrats in the same manner as other legal political parties. Critical, fair and with an unbiased journalistic approach. It is a challenge, the Danish press has faced with the Danish People’s Party and loose with varying success. In Denmark, mixed the old parties and especially the Social Democrats in the 1980s also the voters’ concerns about immigration and critical issues to the Aliens Act with racism, and DF gave extra impetus.
Since the Swedish newspaper Expressen in 1993 tried to do critical journalism on immigration, was chief editor sacked. It is hardly in Aftonbladets cases. The debate has shifted, but there is still a long way to go before Sweden can boast of having a free and open debate on this important area.
Thirdly, it raises the week-Islam debate in Sweden, a key question: What is the relationship between debate and the tone of immigration debate on the one hand and the quality of integration on the other. Benefit the integration to keep critical views out of the debate, and what consequences will result if these attitudes censored when they reflect widespread perceptions in the population? Nothing suggests that the integration succeed better in Sweden than in Denmark. On the contrary, so if it must be allowed as a Nordic brother to come up with some advice: Let the debate free.
Tack till Andreas
Ursprungsartikel
Källa: Politiskt Inkorrekt (medlem)
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar