Jimmie Åkesson: Prime Minister Reinfeldt playing the fiddle while Sweden burns
Statements made by the Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt during a May 23rd question session in the Swedish parliament, following the Swedish Intifada in a large number of suburbs and cities, imply a de facto surrender of sovereignty over the areas where the youths have seized power.
Under severe pressure from several nights of dramatic events, including arson, stoning and assaults, Reinfeldt announced his confidence that local citizens would restore order. In doing so, he surrendered what ultimately makes a state, namely the monopoly on the use of violent force.
That is an important message sent to the public, the police and not least the masterminds who undoubtedly led and coordinated the rioters: The Swedish state is not able or not willing to defeat the uprising.
Swedish police appear to be a whole lot more efficient against the counter-demonstrators, who on the night after the parliamentary question session stood up in the streets of Stockholm in order to counter the rampaging youth. Thus, in the district of Älvsjö, police managed to apprehend a group characterized as members of the nationalist party Svenskernes Parti.
Also the mainstream media had no problem giving a precise characterization of the counter-demonstrators. They are right-wing extremists, it is to be understood, while the very same media merely designates those starting the riots as youths not extremist immigrants or extremist Muslims.
The youths and their masterminds can largely continue the Intifada with impunity, or resume it when it seems convenient, for they do not have to fear the use of force from the state, merely unarmed citizens in the local community. What chance do these citizens have against determined aggressors? That question was not asked during the parliamentary question session.
It is hardly the first time that such riots have taken place in Swedish cities. For example, that was the case in 2011 in Gothenburg and Malmö, where a hundred cars were torched, where youths stoned the police, stating that police had no business in their areas. Back then, a spokesman for the police stated that the rioters apparently felt excluded from Swedish society, which would justify their anger. The absurdity of this explanation when it was clear that this youths wanted nothing to do with Swedish society was hardly noticed by the Swedish press. Possibly because these riots took place far from the Swedish capital of Stockholm, where most of the Swedish journalists live.
Also nobody from the mainstream media asked where the thugs had gotten the idea that certain areas in Sweden are theirs. This thought is of course exactly what Islam preaches, but as Islam, through the glasses of Official Sweden, must not be seen as playing any role when there is rioting, this was not discussed.
Apart from Jimmie Åkesson of Sverigedemokraterna, the question session in the Swedish parliament showed broad agreement that the reasons for the violent events were social and economic. Parliamentarians of all parties, again apart from Sverigedemokraterna, pointed towards unemployment, poverty and increases in class differences, and thought that the appropriate tool to deal with the unpleasantness was to grant more money to the vulnerable meaning the instigators of riots. More state projects were needed to diminish class differences, create better schools with better special education teachers, and to diminish income gaps.
Åsa Romson of the environmentalist party thought that the riots were due to unemployment. Teres Lindberg of the Social Democrats pointed to growing differences in income.
Prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, for his part, denied that such descriptions of Swedish society were correct. The government had made great progress in fighting unemployment and reducing social exclusion, but throughout the question time, he accepted the underlying premise: The Swedish Intifada has its roots in social and economic issues, according to the prime minister, who for that reason pledged to provide more funding.
Jimmie Åkesson was the only speaker to reject this premise. He placed responsibility squarely on the politicians, who had accepted out-of-control immigration, which has led to the dissolution of the unitary Swedish state.
Prime minister Reinfeldt, said Åkesson, reminded him of the emperor who reputedly played the fiddle while Rome was on fire.
Fredrik Reinfeldt retorted by accusing Åkesson of hatred towards immigrants.
It is written into the Swedish constitution that Sweden is a multicultural society. Now follows the logical sequel to this decision, namely that Sweden abolishes the unitary state. That is, a state where the same law applies everywhere, enforced by the state authorities, exclusively.
For sure, Fredrik Reinfeldt pledged in the parliament that the law is equal for all but at the same time he left the responsibility for enforcing this law to scared citizens in the local communities. They will no doubt have some deep thoughts about how they are to succeed in that task when the police are not able to.
The Stockholm police are under such pressure that they had to draw on forces from the police in Malmö, in southern Sweden. What is going to happen in Malmö, when the police have been sent to the capital, remains to be seen.
The nation-state is based on the premise that the state does not need to negotiate with any party over its right to uphold sovereignty within its territory. If a state were forced to do so, it would no longer be sovereign.
The Swedish state does not even know to whom it is ceding sovereignty, or who their counterpart will be when it is to conduct a dialogue. Who will represent the youths? Which player is animating them, laying the plans, commanding the troops? Who has the authority to initiate riots and to call back the thugs? Is it the local imams, local Islamic organizations, or is it ultimately foreign potentates like the Muslim Brotherhood or the OIC, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation?