Moron. There is no ‘integration debate’ in Sweden, since ‘multiculturalism’ has been inscribed into their constitution. Multiculturalism is diametrically opposed to integration.
No Ruben. Stating from the get-go that the Sweden Democrats are ‘anti-immigration’, a bodacious lie, is what passes for ‘normal political discussion’ by the main parties who hold a monopoly on political power, and the average Swede, who lives with the failed political decisions and policies of these repulsive ‘PC’ politicians, have had enough.
Mass immigration into a self deemed multicultural welfare state, which results in the failure of many immigrants to successfully integrate and eventually assimilate into society (and become an unproductive appendage of the welfare state, which like it or not, draws many who refuse to participate in society), is the fault of the failed policies of the main parties who maintain an iron grip (monopoly) on power, whether they’re the majority party or not.
‘Sweden’s integration debate skewed by political correctness’
Published: 24 Sep 2013 08:13 CET |
The fear of being labelled “politically incorrect” keeps Sweden’s main political parties from engaging in an honest debate about integration, and plays into the hands of the far-right, anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, argues contributor Ruben Brunsveld.
On August 19th, local politician and human rights activist Robert Hannah came out of the closet in dramatic fashion by publishing an article in the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper with the headline “From now on I will be myself”.
The article made waves as it was not only a personal story about his decision to come out as a homosexual, but also a public denouncement of the honour culture still prevalent in some parts of the Assyrian immigrant culture in which he was raised. Since then, the waves have become stronger as both support for and the attacks on Hannah have grown in intensity. His article exposed Sweden’s sensitive nerve of political correctness for what it really is: a self-imposed straight jacket.
Since he went public and shared his experiences as a gay man living under the moral oppression of the Assyrian honour culture, it seems the strongest criticism he has faced has come from within the ranks of Sweden’s left-wing progressives. He has been accused of feeding xenophobia, abusing rhetorical techniques to “win a debate” and of using his own personal experiences as scientifically unsound evidence for making generic statements about immigrants. In short he has been accused of playing straight into the hands of the extreme right.
Ironically enough, this almost Pavlovian reaction by the politically correct establishment is reminiscent of a mantra employed by former US President George W. Bush which later became known as the Bush Doctrine: you’re either with us or against us.
It denies the reality that the world of immigration and integration is not black and white but one with at least 50 shades of grey. Worse than that, it prevents an open and honest debate about the challenges of integration. These challenges are not only about honour violence, women’s rights, and individual freedoms. They also include language training, housing, and social integration, just to name a few. And the solution cannot be one; they must be many, taking into account the vast array of talents, skills, and backgrounds of immigrants of all different kinds.