Dispatch International

How Expo silenced debate in Sweden

How Expo silenced debate in Sweden

by 12 June, 2013

Dispatch International continues its examination of how Expo arose and came to have “expert” status.

During the autumn of 1995, a full page in the magazine Expo was entitled “Expo thanks.” Among those who were thanked there were Youth against Racism, Hasan’s Friends, the Young Left, Jewish Chronicle, ABF and the political youth organizations SSU (Social Democrats), CUF (Centre Party) and LUF (Liberal People’s Party). A “special thanks” was directed to SKMA, the Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism.

A number of people who “support the project Expo and take a public stand against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism” were mentioned, too: Bengt Westerberg, Andreas Carlgren, Beatrice Ask, Jonas Gardell, Göran Rosenberg, Jackie Jakubowski, Jan Hammarlund, Pia Sundhage, Babben Larsson, Ulf Lundell, Mikael Wiehe, Ingrid Segerstedt-Wiberg, Juan Fonseca, Kurdo Baksi and Yvonne Ruwaida.

This caused Jan Milld of Blågula Frågor (“Blue-Yellow Questions”, a dissident magazine, organization and website founded in the 1990s by the activists Jan Milld and Anders Sundholm and named after the colors of Sweden’s national flag) to send a letter to Expo:

“Two weeks ago it became clear to me that there is a magazine called ‘Expo,’ and that it places ‘Blågula Frågor,’ which I edit, in the same category as ‘Storms nätverk.’ Our magazine and association are explicitly labeled as ‘racist.’ At first I believed ‘Expo’ was just a type of AFA product, and therefore not to be taken seriously.

Since then it has become clear to me that it is being sent to all the newspapers, and that this is clearly a part of the explanation for the mass media drive against Blågula Frågor and the preconceived notions about our organization encountered among journalists. I have now also been told that behind the magazine ‘Expo’ are a number of organizations, among which the most noteworthy are ABF, SSU, Young Left, CUF and LUF. Hence this letter.

The stated ambition of ‘Expo,’ to which I have no objections, is to expose right-wing extremist movements. It is important to draw a line, but then it also becomes important where to draw it. The line should, I think, be drawn at anti-intellectualism and violent behavior, contempt for weakness and the absence of a democratic attitude. If you instead draw the line at any questioning of the refugee policy that is being conducted then this becomes wrong, in so many different ways.

You place a majority of the population among your ‘enemies,’ and thus contribute to broadening the base of the extremists.

You block the chances of a dialogue, and contribute to polarization.

You reinforce a sense of confrontation, and pave the way for a violent development.

The association Blågula Frågor has on every occasion renounced violence and hostility towards immigrants. (but it is critical towards immigration!)”

In Expo magazine 1/96, Jenny Larsson was said to be the editor and Mattias Flyckt the publisher. A web page was also mentioned (www.hill.se), and an email address (expo@hill.se), but this had been removed in 2/96. In issue 2/96, Andreas Rosenlund was named as editor. David Magnusson was back as publisher and “J Larsson” was editorial secretary.

In the editorial, under the heading “Muddled speech,” there was this passage: “Another example is Blågula Frågor, which presents a left-wing profile and pretends that they represent a ‘progressive message.’” This prompted Jan Milld to submit a rebuttal:

“The leader in Expo number 2/96 attacks our association: ‘Blågula Frågor, which presents a left-wing profile and pretends that they represent a ‘progressive message.’” So we allegedly do not mean what we say and what we write? Why should we not do so? And how, in that case, can Expo know this? Do you know things about us that we do not know ourselves?

“The key point of our message is the need for a dialogue in Sweden on refugee policy, and we want to try to the best of our abilities to contribute to this. We find this quite necessary, because when people are no longer able to communicate, when they stop talking to each other, then it can become dangerous. But if you, like Expo apparently does, assume that we do not mean what we say then it will be hard to see any meaning in a dialogue with us.

“In another place in Expo it is claimed that we ‘blame the difficulties in getting our message across on a conspiracy in the mass media.’ Where do you get this from? When have we been talking about a ‘conspiracy’? Large national media such as DN, Expressen and Aftonbladet have not accepted any contributions defending the government line in the Åsele case – whether from us or from others. This is a fact, and that’s bad – because it affects the citizenry, who end up being ill-informed. But we never imagined that behind this was more than a convergence of opinion among the editors.

“Expo is also trying to make us indirectly responsible for what is written in another magazine, different from our own. Under the heading ‘Lobby organization hostile towards refugees,’ we’re alleged to form a part of ‘Fri informations nätverk.’ Should this be interpreted that our own magazine, Blågula Frågor, gets approval after all?

“Behind Expo’s writings we get a glimpse of an anti-democratic mentality. The main points of your criticism are, in practice:

“1. A is affiliated with B, and B is affiliated with A.

“2. Both A and B are trying to shape public opinion and influence decision makers.

“But let us unreservedly admit: We both subscribe to the magazine Fri Information (Free Information). Jan Milld also has a subscription to published material from Ingrid Björkman’s network, while Ingrid Björkman in turn subscribes to Blågula Frågor. Anders Sundholm for his part subscribes to the magazine Expo, and Expo receives Blågula Frågor (basically for free, but they read it).

“On the other hand, there’s a reason why Blågula Frågor was started at a time when Fri Information already existed. Although we deal with the same subject matter, and even though we have similar views on some issues, there are still important differences. We are, in other words, not responsible for what they write in Fri Information.

“What we take responsibility for is what we write in our own journal, Blågula Frågor. But even here there is a reservation: We may be wrong, and where we are wrong, we want to be corrected. Then we will change ourselves. If you want to correct us, you must, however, do so by employing facts and arguments, not simply by using labels and ‘guilt-by-association.’

“We do not want to be right if we are not right. In other words, it is important to have your positions reviewed, to get feedback and face criticism. This really goes for all of us. That’s why there is a need for an open debate.

“Back to ‘lobbying.’ What exactly does Expo mean by that? Is it wrong to point out basic facts, to express opinions and try to influence public opinion?

“In that case, would this criticism then even apply to Expo itself? If so, it must also apply to Dagens Nyheter and every other newspaper, just like every TV channel.

“When lobbying could be criticized, this might be about having access to superior financial resources and thereby gaining influence – not that you have a good arguments or represent many people’s interests. Such criticism can in any case not be warranted against Blågula Frågor, and probably not against Fri Information, either. If there’s something we don’t have a lot of, it is money!

“Finally, regarding the term ‘hostile towards refugees.’ Is every migrant to be regarded as a ‘refugee’? Is it ‘hostility’ to question a person’s right to residence in Sweden? Do you become hostile towards refugees by advocating a policy of managed migration?”

Normally, this rebuttal would have been included in the issue number 3/96. It was not accepted there, but if it had been, it would have reached an audience of millions since that specific issue was distributed together with the national newspapers Aftonbladet and Expressen. This might have changed the entire climate of debate in Sweden, which instead, largely because of Expo, has become totally one-sided. Their anti-democratic ethos, where only ideas that coincide with their own may be presented in public debates, has had a strong impact on the whole of Swedish society – from Parliament right on down to people’s private homes.

 

To be continued.