Beginning of June. Rapeseed fields and groups of deer in decorative patterns along the road. And yet: between Enköping and Sala I wondered if I had ended up in the right country. The unreal came from within, from the car radio. A young man told that he was bullied by a gang who took his mobile phone from him. These tormentors, he said, "came from another culture".
Hell no! I thought instinctively, you can't say that on the radio! Now it's on fire! But not straight. A female radio voice was heard, full of empathy for the young man, who continued in the same vein without any reproach.
The whole thing made an enigmatic impression. I am not an expert on Sweden, my time is spent trying to understand other countries. Had I misunderstood what I heard? Once in Bergslagen, I told some real Swedes about the surreal radio experience. No then, they explained, it was no joke and no satire. I had heard right, and not only that: The female radio voice, so full of compassion, belonged to a well-known social democrat!
In November 2003, Magnus Karaveli, lead writer at Östgöta-Correspondent, wrote a debate article in DN, where he warned of a dangerously uncritical attitude towards Islamism: "...politicians on both the left and right encourage cultural separatism, such as veils, prayer breaks and Muslim free schools. Anti-Semitism is growing among young Muslim immigrants. Säpo warns that mosques and Koranic schools serve as breeding grounds for al-Qaeda. Only one policies that facilitate swedishization can stop the Islamist trend..."
Intellectuals and opinion leaders who demand - and enforce - the banning of central issues bear a much heavier responsibility.
Karaveli disapprovingly mentioned how Mona Sahlin veiled herself during a visit to a Stockholm mosque: "Her visit was hosted by the chairman of Sweden's Muslim Council, known for having demanded that Muslims in Sweden be granted separate legal status ... and for having branded marriages between Swedish men and Muslim women ... Recently, Andreas Carlgren, Director General of the Swedish Integration Agency, declared that Muslim employees should be given the opportunity for prayer breaks during working hours..."
The condemnations against Karaveli were unanimous and comprehensive, from the right-wing newspaper Barometern to the liberal Upsala Nya Tidning and the metropolitan press. Most were touchingly in agreement: his post was both racist and fascist. Press colleagues terminated the acquaintance. At a dinner for editorial writers, no one spoke to him. A high-ranking person called and warned him threateningly not to appear in the media. Karaveli contacted Sveriges Radio and withdrew from an agreed debate.
Today, Karaveli's writing is commonplace, even in the camps where the most anguished outcries were raised against him in 2003. One of Karaveli's most rabid detractors at the time recently called for unlimited freedom to criticize Islam.
Religions will be abused for political purposes. The atrocities in the West Bank are strictly forbidden in Jewish law - but still happen, because it suits those in power. In Sweden, the state mobilized (and falsified) Christianity to keep women on the carpet and silence writers well into the 20th century. Many of the Islamist inventions Karaveli warned against are things the Prophet Muhammad expressly forbade.
What does it look like inside the person who so unquestioningly beats down a deviant opinion - only to embrace it without apparent pain a few years later? What am I asking for then? That the parties that pushed during the years immigration was declared unproblematic should ignore the voters and continue with the rudder bolted for another decade? No, politicians have to balance conviction and power play, and it's rarely a pretty sight. But intellectuals and opinion leaders who demand - and enforce - the banning of central issues bear a much heavier responsibility.
What does it look like inside the person who so unquestioningly beats down a deviant opinion - only to embrace it without apparent pain a few years later?
Britain has moved even more rapidly from puritanism to adaptability. Last year, when conservative Kemi Badenoch said that "all cultures are not equally good", sparks flew. A famous Labor politician said this was white supremacy in black-face. (Badenoch was born in Nigeria). This summer the British Home Office (led by Labour) handed out a leaflet to asylum seekers, making it clear that both partners must say yes to sex; that children may not be married off; that women's genitalia are inviolable and that sexual signals to strangers, including kissing sounds, fall under the penal code. Lucy Powell, the responsible minister: "People from other countries have different cultures and we need to be clear about our values and rules."
And the conundrum Sweden: Was the indignation against Karaveli in 2003 real or fake? How many of those who condemned him really thought he was a dangerous racist? And how many just howled with the wolves so as not to get hurt themselves? Fanaticism and opportunism are completely different things, but they look the same to the outside observer.
Read more:
Isobel Hadley-Kamptz: With the election loss, the bourgeoisie has a chance to find its way back to itself
