Hate speech
A comparative study of the rhetoric in the official documents of the Sweden
Democrats and the rhetoric in Samtiden, a news site owned by the Sweden
Democrats
Sara Loredana Kiros
Human Rights, MR106L / SGMRE16h
Bachelor Thesis- 12.0 credits
Spring 2019
Abstract
The aim of the thesis is to shed light upon how the Sweden Democrats, in their official party documents and in the party- funded newspaper Samtiden, crosses the line of hate speech. This thesis uses Parekh's model in identifying hate speech as a theory. The thesis is a comparative case study as it compares and analysis the Sweden Democrats official documents with the Samtidens articles. The method used to analyse the material is interpretive content analysis. The thesis reaches the conclusion that the documents from Sweden Democrat use an implicit and subtle form of hate speech, while the articles from Samtiden use a very explicit and aggressive form of hate speech.
The word count is 11 204
Keywords
Table of contents
Introduction
4Aim and purpose of the study
4Background and introduction to Sweden Democrats and Samtiden
4Research problem in relation to human rights
6Research question
6Limitation of the study
7Structure of the study
7Background and previous research
8Theoretical framework
11Method and material
14Method
14Material
15Analysis
16Samtiden news articles
17Researcher: No western country has succeeded in integrating Muslims 17 Demography bomb makes Sweden a more dangerous and poorer country 18 Young Swedish women targeted - ‘‘Ethno-religious motivated rapes’’ 19
Post apocalyptic Denmark without multiculturalism 19
Trump speaks clearly again: Europe is losing its culture because of mass
immigration 21
Soheila Fors: ‘‘Islamism can only handle discourse about the religious oppression
with screams and aggression’’ 22
Sweden democrats official documents
23Sweden Democrats migration politics 2018
24Swedish citizenship 24
General principles for residency rights 24
Modern asylum rights with focus in refugee aid 25
Controls and measures over infringements 26
Sweden Democrats election manifesto 2018
27Migration politics 28
Politics concerning criminal activities 29
Housing politics 31
Equality 32
Conclusion
331. Introduction
1.1. Aim and purpose of the study
Lately there has been an increase in populism and with it hate speech is becoming
normalized. Far right political parties that target minorities negatively, by for instance using hate speech against them, is a phenomenon that opposes the fundamental value of human rights, that is that everyone is equal in worth and has equal dignity. It subordinates and stigmatizes some groups and denies them membership in the good standing society. The aim of this research is to analyse and compare the official Sweden Democrats party documents and the articles from Samtiden, regarding hate speech and anti-immigration sentiments. Furthermore, the articles chosen are articles relating to immigration and immigrants, since the paper intends to research hate speech directed against minorities with immigrant background. The comparison will be made in order to understand to what extent both the rhetoric of the Sweden Democrats and Samtiden is considered hate speech. Although hate speech has been researched previously, there hasn’t been a great deal of research about hate speech in relation to a contemporary political party, especially hate speech in relation to the Sweden Democrats. While the Sweden democrats have also been researched previously, they have been
researched mostly for their past and in terms of racism, but not from the perspective of hate speech specifically. This research therefore intends to fill the gap within the hate speech field by researching the Sweden Democrats rhetoric and the Sweden Democrats owned newspaper Samtidens rhetoric from the perspective of hate speech.
1.2. Background and introduction to Sweden Democrats
and Samtiden
The relation between Samtiden and Sweden democrats is that, although Samtiden is an independent editorial board, it is however owned by the Sweden Democrats. The Sweden democrats are a social conservative populist party that was founded in 1988. Today the party is the third largest political party in Sweden and their current party leader is Jimmie
previously they have been deemed as a racist and controversial party. In 1981 the party elected Anders Klaström as their party leader, before his election, Klarström had been a member of the neo-Nazi party, Nordiska Rikspartiet. Similarly other party representatives also shared his past as they were members of racist organizations such as Vitt Ariskt
Motstånd and Bevara Sverige Svenskt.1 However soon the party started to clear its name by
distancing themselves from such extremist organisation and gaining political legitimacy and slowly, but steadily the party started to gain support which resulted in them entering the parliament (riksdag) in 2010.
Samtiden is a social conservative independent news site that started publishing in 2014.2
Samtiden is owned by the Sweden Democrats, but claims to be independent. Although Samtiden claims to be independent one notice a clear bias with the Sweden Democrats, as many of their articles are news articles that show a clear support to Sweden Democrats by presenting them as successful, as well as the only party that has Sweden and the Swedish people's wellbeing as their priority.
An illustration of the connection between the Sweden democrats and Samtidens is the position of the current chief editor of Samtiden Dick Erixon. When Erixon started as chief editor in 2016, he stated that he has decided to support the Sweden Democrats after carefully evaluating their party documents. He further adds that
‘‘… I felt delighted about my decision last summer to start working for an SD-owned business. … I left the party politics in 1999 because I got tired of the misery, fatigue and cowardice. I returned to the political sphere as editor because I saw that SD dares to stand for what is required in our time, ...’’3
To this Jimmie Åkesson, the party leader of the Sweden Democrats, wrote in his official Facebook page ‘‘Dick Erixon at Samtiden is a very wise person.’’ and tagged the blog article in the status.4 Here one can clearly see the connection of the Sweden Democrats to the news
1 Hellström, A. and Nilsson, T. (2010) ‘‘We Are the Good Guys’: Ideological positioning of the nationalist
party Sverigedemokraterna in contemporary Swedish politics’, Ethnicities, 10(1), pp. 55–76. Page 57
2 Samtiden. Om oss (about us). https://samtiden.nu/om-oss/
3 Mitt första år med Sverigedemokraterna. Dick Erixon. 9 September 2017
https://erixon.com/2017/09/mitt-forsta-ar-med-sverigedemokraterna/
4 9 November 2017, Jimmie Åkesson official Facebook profile
article Samtiden, other than relation through ownership, as Åkensson openly support Erixon a chief editor of Samtiden.
1.3. Research problem in relation to human rights
The distinction between freedom of speech and hate speech puts two human rights into conflict, the right to freely express one's thoughts and opinions and the right not to be discriminated against. Although article 10 paragraph 1 of the ECHR state that the right to freedom of expression is a fundamental right that shall not be breached, the right is
simultaneously not absolute as with the right comes the responsibility and duty, as stated in article 10 paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 in article 10 does not explicitly states the word ‘hate speech’, however, the convention still draws a vague line between freedom of speech and hate speech with other wordings.5 In the international jurisprudence and public discourse the
line that separates freedom of speech and hate speech is vague, especially on what constitutes hate speech. Recently the rise of right-wing populism added more to the vagueness as many populist parties in democratic societies, such as the Sweden Democrats are refuting political correctness and defending their controversial rhetoric with the notion of freedom of speech. This is endangering the right not to be discriminated. It is therefore important to study and understand this phenomena within human rights as many confuse hate speech to be a part of freedom of speech, as well as they use freedom of speech as a legitimate reason to express discriminatory opinions. However, by studying and analysing hate speech one can shed light to the difference between acceptable speech and hateful speech.
1.4. Research question
(1) To what extent do the chosen Sweden Democrats documents and Samtiden articles exhibit characteristics of hate speech?
(2) What are the differences and similarities between the Samtiden articles and Sweden Democrat documents regarding the use of hate speech?
1.5. Limitation of the study
The study intends to analyse only material within the timeframe of 2018 to 2019, to analyse recent views and ideologies from Samtiden and the Sweden Democrats. There is a probability that the chosen timeframe has an effect on the result of this research, as for instance the older Sweden Democrats official documents could have been more direct and discriminative in their speech. However, as it is a known fact that the Sweden Democrats had a racist past, I chose to analyse their recent documents to see their recent view on immigrants instead. Also, when it comes to analysing the Sweden Democrats and Samtiden, the material will be
analysed only in regard to speech against immigrant minorities. Religious, national and ethnic groups will also be included as for instance, after the sampling of the material one notices that the most targeted groups are Muslims and those that come from Muslim countries. Furthermore, this thesis is not going to include the juridical aspect of what hate speech is, as for instance the Sweden Democrats are aware of the law and plausibly would not compromise their legitimacy by violating the law on hate speech. Instead the thesis is going to use another model to identify hate speech, as the model that will be used goes into detail in explaining what makes a certain speech discriminating. The model will be used as the theoretical framework of this thesis and will be further explained in the theoretical chapter.
1.6. Structure of the study
In chapter two of this thesis, previous research and background within the discussion between freedom of speech and hate speech will be briefly presented. In chapter three a theoretical framework based on the arguments of Parekh Bhikkhu will be presented. Chapter four will include an explanation of chosen method and material. While in chapter five, two types of materials will be analysed, the first been six articles from the news site Samtiden, while the other one been two official party documents of the Sweden Democrats. Finally, chapter six will be a concluding remark.
2. Background and previous research
Hate speech versus freedom of speech
The previous researches presented in this chapter is literature used as background, literature that specifically discuss hate speech and acceptable speech and the vague line separating these two notions.
The first book that will be presented is ‘On liberty’ by John Stuart Mill. According to Mill everyone is free and has the right to govern themselves whether it is through, speech or action. Whether the speech and action of that person is right or wrong is not the concern of others. Each individual knows what is best for themselves and knows what makes him happy and what does not. Therefore, nobody should interfere with another person's choice of action, speech or lifestyle. The only instance where legal actions can be exercised against the
individual’s will is when the individual poses harm to others.6
One can then with certainty say that Mill is a strong advocate of freedom of speech. According to Mill, everyone has the right to hold and judge an opinion and no authority should deny the expression and the critique of any opinion since the opinion that is trying to be suppressed might hold a truth. This because no authority and no man holds the objective and ultimate truth of all matters in life.7
Mill then gives an example that distinguish acceptable speech from harmful speech by using the example of the corn dealer. One should openly discuss the fact that corn dealers are starving the poor, however one should not incite an angry mob that is already in front of the corn dealers house by stating that corn dealers are starving the poor, since that type of expression deserves punishment as it might directly harm the corn dealer.8
The second book that will be presented in this chapter is ‘The harm in hate speech’ by Jeremy Waldron. The point of hate speech for Waldron is to send messages of exclusion and
disapproval of minorities and to make these messages a permanent fabric of society.
Although many scholars disagree over the content of hate speech, they however don't oppose hate speech in itself because as much as they find the content of it distasteful they abide by
6 John Stuart Mill's ‘On Liberty’ 1859. Batoche Books Kitchener 2001. Page 13 7 Ibid. Page 19
the principle of freedom of speech. “I hate what you say but I will defend to the death your
right to say it.’’9 They believe that for the sake of freedom of speech to be an untouchable
right at all times, minorities have to live with such speech. According to them law and the state should not concern itself with the regulation of free speech as it is the right of the people to say as they wish.10
According to Waldron, what hate speech aims to accomplish is to undermine the human dignity and reputation of those that it targets. It ascribes undesirable features to the intended groups in order to exclude the group from the good standing society.11 Waldron
states that the laws concerning group defamation are in place not only to prevent violence against minorities, but to also maintain public order, as well as a shared respect of the dignity and reputation of each members of society.12
Waldron presented another case were a man named Osborne in 1732 published a pamphlet in London stating that Jews killed an infant and his mother because the infant was Christian13, the man further wrote how cruel the Jews were. As a result the pamphlet awoke
anti-Semitic sentiments in London and many from the Jewish community were attacked and threatened14 According to Waldron hate speech is not only reserved to racism, but also
speech against religious groups. For instance today it is common to hear that Muslims are supporters of terrorism, especially by populist parties and their supporters.15 However
religious groups, just as any member of a good standing society need to be protected from violence, false reputation, as well as be able to practice and follow their faith without any arbitrary restrictions. 16
Defenders of free speech concern themselves with hate speech that only result in public disorder or violence, however according to enlightenment philosophers, such as Locke, public order is reached not only in the absence of violence, but when individuals, including those belonging to different groups, engage peacefully in everyday matters with respect toward each other and without prejudice against religions groups and other minorities. Such society, however, will be hard to maintain with the influence of hate speech. In some
9 Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech. 2012. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Page 2 10 Ibid. Page 3 11 Ibid. Page 4 12 Ibid. Page 57-58 13 Ibid. Page 204 14 Ibid. Page 205 15 Ibid. Page 209 16 Ibid. Page 219
cases, such as the case of Osborne hate speech leads to attacks and violence against the targeted group while in other cases, hate speech leads to exclusion and alienation.17
The book ‘Striking a balance. Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-discrimination’ Edited by Sandra Coliver, discusses the rise of populism and the normalization of hate speech as a result of the rise of nationalism. According to the book, in order for racism, including hate speech whether subtle or extreme, to flourish in a society it has to be a society in which racism is not frowned upon, as well as a society where the social and political climate accommodates anti-immigration sentiments.18 The far right has been increasing in the past
years and the trend has reached even Sweden, making the current far right party, the Sweden Democrats, the third largest party in Sweden. Political leaders capture the attention and votes by inflicting fear in society, through the portrayal of minorities as a threat to society, by accusing asylum seekers of been economic immigrants and abusing the refugee system, Muslims been anti-Europe, linking immigrants to crimes, drugs and diseases.19 According to
Gordon although it seems a necessity for politicians to take restrictive action on immigration, however what this does is it conforms that the people are right to feel as immigrants are a threat to the society, that the minorities are a problem that should be taken care of. Coming from the state or state actors this legitimizes racism and worsen the relation between the majority and the minorities.20
‘The Limits of Tolerance in Diverse Societies: Hate Speech and Political Tolerance Norms among Youth’ by Allison Harell, is an article that research tolerable and intolerable speech among Canadian and Belgium's youth. This article was specifically interesting as it explores the limits of freedom of speech. It defines freedom of speech and hate speech as political tolerance and political intolerance. Harell draws a dilemma, as restricting speech could restrict free and open debate which it is important into a democratic society, while on the other hand the lack of restriction for certain speeches might impede the stigmatised group to be included in the democratic process.21 According to Harell, although the value of freedom
17 Ibid. Page 232
18 Striking a balance. Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-discrimination. Chapter 2 Racist violence:
The expression of hate in Europe. Paul Gordon. Edited by Sandra Coliver, Contributing Editors Kevin Boyle and Frances D’Souza. Article 19, London and Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, 1992. Page 15
19 Ibid. Page 16 20 Ibid. Page 17
21 Allison Harell, A. 2010. “The Limits of Tolerance in Diverse Societies: Hate Speech and Political Tolerance
of speech conflicts with other democratic values, freedom of speech including even
controversial speech, is an important democratic value that is expected to be tolerated. This is usually referred to as political tolerance.22 Political tolerance is a concept that allows
individuals to permit and tolerate other groups to express their worldview, practices and opinions that the majority disagrees with, meaning that even if one disagrees with a groups speech one still allows them to act on their civil liberties and does not prevent them from expressing that same speech one disagrees with.23 While actively objecting certain speeches
and expression is considered as political intolerance. Defenders of speech restrictions, especially hate speech, focus on the effect hateful speeches have on the targeted group. According to Matsuda, messages sent by hate speech is harmful to the targeted group as it is a propaganda that affects the targeted group with physiological harms and emotional distress.24
Hate speech is also used as normalizing hate towards the targeted groups, as according to Harell there is evidence that hate speech makes the majority feel negatively towards the target group. Furthermore, according to studies of genocides and large-scale discrimination, hate speech has been used to stigmatize groups and make discrimination more accepted in a society.25
3. Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework is composed by Bhikkhu Parekh’s model used to identify hate speech. The model is suited for the research as I am especially interested in the subtle form of hate speech. Arguably, the Sweden Democrats, do not use extreme and blatantly racist
speech, in their official documents, since the use of blatantly discriminatory speech in a liberal democracy such as Sweden, presumably would compromise their political legitimacy. However, although they might not use extreme hate speech, one might still find hate speech in its subtle form when analysing it with Parekhs model. Therefore, Parekhs model in which
22 Ibid. Page 407 23 Ibid. Page 408-409 24 Ibid. Page 410 25 Ibid. Page 410
he made to identify hate speech will be used as a theory. Since the model include three criteria to identify hate speech, the Samtiden articles and Sweden Democrat documents will be compared and analysed by assessing them with the three criteria found in this model in order to find out if whether or not the documents and articles fall under hate speech.
Parekh Bhikkhu on hate speech
Three essential criteria of hate speech
1. First criteria. Hate speech targets a group.
According to Parekh hate speech targets a certain group or individual based on certain characteristics that differs them from the majority. Speech against humanity for instance, would not count as hate speech, as hate speech discriminates a group based on what differs them from the rest. 26
2. Second criteria. Hate speech stigmatises the targeted group.
Hate speech stigmatises and demonises the targeted group by giving them unwanted features, because of the given unwanted features the targeted group is regarded as abnormal, looked down upon and despised. The negative features are presented as inherent which as a result the targeted group is permanently condemned.27
3. Third criteria. Hate speech places mistrust and excludes the targeted group.
The targeted group is placed outside the good standing society, it cannot be trusted to follow laws governing society, to build meaningful relations with the members of the community and to show loyalty to the shared practices, norms and institution of the society. In short, the targeted group is seen as a hostile and untrustworthy group that
26 Parekh, Bhikkhu. 2006. ‘Hate speech: Is there a case for banning?’. Public Policy Research. 12(4), pp. 213–
223. Page 214
must be expelled, discriminated or at best tolerated as an evil presence living in the margins of society.28
According to Parekh, the case of hate speech is not always expressed in its extreme form, while some forms of hate speeches are as we expect hate speech to be, highly abusive,
threatening and insulting, other forms of hate speech are subtle and moderate29 Therefore one
might include subtle discriminatory rhetoric as hate speech as well, instead of defining hate speech in only its extreme form. Hate speech even in its subtle form, advocates and promotes distaste for a minority group by adhering to them features regarded as undesirable.30 As
Parekh formulated it ‘‘Hatred… implies hostility, rejection, a wish to harm or destroy, a
desire to get the target group out of one’s way, a silent or vocal and a passive or active declaration of war against it.’’31 Hate speech does not always necessarily result in negative
consequences such as violence and public disorder, therefore one should not condemn hate speech for its social consequences, but the damage the speech itself inflicts on those the hate speech is directed to.32
The importance of free speech is inarguable, free speech is a necessity for a functioning and developing society. However as much as free speech is vital for the
functioning of a healthy democratic society, only because one has the right to express one’s thought does not mean one is allowed to say anything that comes to one's mind without weighing the consequences of the speech. Everyone has a responsibility and duty to use the right to free speech responsibly, especially if what one says violates or might result in the violation of other rights. 33 In fact free speech is not the only important value, other important
values and rights are for instance the right not to be discriminated or harassed, to maintain one's human dignity and protection of one’s good name as well. Parekh states that although rights may come in conflict with each other and we might at times prioritise one right over the other in certain circumstances, one can never choose to always trump one right over the other. He stated even in circumstance where national security is at threat we cannot violate a human right over the security of the nation by for instance torturing or imprisoning someone 28 Ibid 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid 31 Ibid 32 Ibid 33 Ibid. Page 216
who is suspected of terrorism.34 Although freedom of speech is an important value in a
democratic state so is social harmony, equal treatment, the right to live life without harassment and intimidation, therefore freedom of speech should never trump over these values.35
Although free speech is a fundamental right that should not be violated and restrained it is questionable if hate speech in all its forms should be included within freedom of speech. According to Perekh hate speech is disputable for it sees the group in question as an enemy within, it creates hostility and distrust between groups, fuel fear, it stigmatises the group and violates their dignity and denies their capacity to live as good member of the society.36
One of the result of hate speech is then that stigmatised groups become indirectly silenced to speak their minds out of fear of been judged or out of fear to further confirm the stereotypes adhered to them, resulting in them been alienated from the rest of society. Hatred of a group does not happen overnight instead it grows slowly resulting later on in the
normalisation of discrimination and open stigmatisation of a group.37
4. Method and material
4.1. Method
The method used to analyse the material will be interpretive content analysis. Interpretive content analysis a technique that systematically identifies and interprets specific characteristic of messages. Interpretive content analysis analyses two types of data, manifest and latent. Manifest is a denotative data that has messages considered obvious or literal, while latent is a connotative data that has implicit or implied messages, messages that are not all to evident.38
34 Ibid
35 Ibid. Page 219 36 Ibid. Page 217 37 Ibid
38 Drisko, James W., and Tina Maschi. "Introduction." Content Analysis. Oxford University Press, November
This method is relevant for the analysis for it allows one to find manifestative and literal as well as latent and implicit anti immigrants and discriminatory messages in both the Samtiden articles and Sweden Democrats documents.39 This type of method is qualitative as it does not
rely on word counts and other quantitative analytical methods. This method is also known to be a flexible type of research method.40
The articles from Samtiden relating to immigration, as well as the Sweden Democrats documents will then be analysed and discussed by the chosen theoretical framework
consisting of Bhikkhu Parekh’s model of hate speech identification. The statements deemed stigmatizing or discriminating from the Samtiden articles, as well as statements that relate to immigrants and immigration from the Sweden Democrats documents will be analysed through Parekh Bhikkhu three criteria model in identifying hate speech. Further reading of the documents and articles used in this research is also recommended in order to get a better picture and understanding of the contents. The links of the articles, as well as links for the documents are presented in footnotes and bibliography for this purpose, as well as for reference.
4.2. Material
The reason why the Sweden Democrats official documents and the Samtiden’s articles were chosen is because one notices at first glance a difference in the expression on their view concerning immigrants. What is even more interesting is the fact that the Sweden Democrats owns the newspaper Samtiden. It will therefore be interesting to see if there are any
underlying similarities and differences between the chosen Sweden Democrats official documents and the chosen Samtiden articles in terms of hate speech after one analyses it with Parekhs model.
The material from Samtiden to be analysed have been chosen through purpose
sampling. In order to target instances of hate speech, articles where hate speech is most likely to appear has been chosen. The Samtiden articles to be analysed were not chosen for
representative view, but to find instances where the content of the articles published by Samtiden verges on the limits of hate speech. Therefore, the articles chosen are articles relating to immigration and immigrants, since the paper intends to research hate speech
39 Ibid. Page 4 40 Ibid. Page 5
directed against minorities with immigrant background. Therefore, while sampling for articles, in the search bar I specifically searched with the word’s immigration and
immigrants. However, in most articles found on immigration, Islam and immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries seems to be the most targeted group. From the articles that emerged from the search result I chose articles dating from 2018 and on, in order to analyse Samtiden’s most recent articles on immigration. Four out of six of the chosen Samtiden articles have the same author, which is Anna Ernius. This has come to my attention after the articles where already chosen. After noticing this I went back and looked at other Samtiden news articles that had to do with immigration and noticed that most of the news articles concerning immigration were written by this author.
As for the official documents of the Sweden Democrats, I chose the election manifesto from 2018 and the Sweden Democrats strategic policy on migration from 2018. The reason for choosing the election manifesto for the analysis is to get the party’s most recent general view on different matters. Election manifestos are useful for such purposes since they are normally written with the intent to make key political and ideological issues visible for the voters in a convincing manner. While the document Sweden Democrats strategic policy on migration from 2018 was chosen in order to get a more recent and closer reading on their views concerning immigration specifically. Finally I would also like to add that the reason why six Samtiden articles and only two Sweden Democrat documents were chosen is in order to balance the analysis, as a Samtiden article is much shorter compared to a Sweden Democrats document.
5. Analysis
The news articles from Samtiden and Sweden Democrats documents that will be analysed are originally written in Swedish, however, as this thesis is in English, the quotes presented in the analysis will be translated to English. The sections and statements from the Samtiden news articles and the official Sweden Democrats documents that will be presented and analysed will be statements relevant for the purpose of this paper, meaning hate speech and how the Samtiden articles and Sweden Democrats document presents and perceives immigrants and other minorities. Each article and document will be analysed according to Parekhs model consisting of the three criteria’s that assist in identifying hate speech.
5.1. Samtiden news articles
5.1.1. Researcher: No western country has succeeded in
integrating Muslims
The first Samtiden article to be analysed presents the problem of integrating Muslims in western societies. The article is based on the conclusions made by a migration researcher, Ruud Koopmans. In the article Muslims are seen as a hostile group, as according to
Koopmans, over 60 percent of Muslims refuse friendship with homosexuals and 45 percent refuse friendship with Jews, along with other statements such as Muslim having oppressive opinions concerning women, having a high birth rates while also not investing in their
children's education. The article recites Koopman in that Muslim do not belong in the western society, stating that Muslims are the hardest group to integrate and that the problem is in the religion. Furthermore the article claims that Islam does not want to unify with democracy as well as the western society and that even if one changes the socioeconomic and demographic variables, data always shows the same results.41
All three criteria’s in Parekhs model are applicable is this article. Firstly, as the first criteria states, it has a targeted group, which in this case is Muslims. Secondly it has ascribed
Muslims with undesirable features, such as them been hostile by stating that they refuse to be friends with homosexuals and Jews, it was also stated that Muslims stand against equal treatment between women and men. In this article, Muslims are deemed as incapable of reforming, a trait found in the second criteria in Parekh's model of identifying hate speech, in fact this whole article is about how one cannot change or integrate Muslims. The article begins by stating that Muslim are harder to integrate and that it is inherent to the religion, as well as there is no hope for integrating them in the future. This article covers even the third criteria as the article stated that Muslims don’t respect the countries laws as much as the Islamic rules, ‘‘The studies show inter alia that two out of three researched Muslims deem
religious rules to be more important than the legislation of the country they live in.’’ 42
Meaning that they cannot be trusted to adhere to laws governing society, their presence is a threat to western societies. Finally, one can surely say, according to Parekhs model, that this
41 Samtiden. Forskare: Inget västland har lyckats integrera muslimer. Editorial. 6 May 2019.
https://samtiden.nu/2019/05/forskare-inget-vastland-har-lyckats-integrera-muslimer/
article falls under hate speech.
5.1.2. Demography bomb makes Sweden a more dangerous and
poorer country
While the previous article was more exclusive in the form of Muslims not belonging to the western society, this one is more stigmatising. The article begins by stating that foreigners from Syria and other violent areas from the Middle East and North Africa are increasing in population in Sweden, while Swedes are emigrating instead. Adding that foreigners in total are 5 times more overrepresented in comparison to Swedes when it comes to rape. According to the article it is especially men from the Middle East and North Africa that are
overrepresented in crimes. They then further add that since the welfare dependency is high among crime-active groups, the extensive demographic change makes Sweden a more dangerous and poorer country to live in.43
Firstly, this article covers the first criteria as the targeted group are immigrants, specifically Syrian and other men from the Middle East and North Africa.Secondly it covers the second criteria as in this article the targeted group are demonised and stigmatized.Thirdly it covers the third criteria from Perekhs model by presenting non- European immigrants as a group that cannot be trusted to follow the laws governing society. They may have not used these exact words, however by stating that most immigrant men are criminals and rapist they are
indirectly stating that they don't follow the norms and laws of Sweden, that they don't belong to the good standing society. Not only are they stating that most of them are criminals, but also blaming the group for the reason to why Sweden is becoming poorer and more
dangerous. Reading the article, one receives the message of major societal crisis and in the article, the fault is given to immigrants. What this article does is frame the targeted group as an enemy within, as formulated by Parekh. Even if the article did not openly state that every non- European foreign male is criminal or rapist, the picture one receives from the article is that immigrant men cannot be trusted and instead should be feared, it clumps everyone in one category. From the analysis made one can then conclude that this falls under hate speech as it includes all three criteria’s from Parekhs model.
43 Samtiden. DEMOGRAFIBOMBEN – GÖR SVERIGE TILL ETT BÅDE FARLIGARE OCH FATTIGARE
LAND. Anna Ernius. 5 October, 2018 https://samtiden.nu/2018/10/demografibomben-gor-sverige-till-ett-bade-farligare-och-fattigare-land/
5.1.3. Young Swedish women targeted - ‘‘Ethno-religious
motivated rapes’’
The article is about group rapes taking place in several European countries, and according to the article the perpetrators are non-European men. The article states that group rapes are happening in Europe in countries such as Sweden, Finland and England, while society looks the other way. According to the article, 88 percent of the perpetrators are foreign Muslim men, while the victims are white European women with the median age of 15 years. The article states that it is time to start viewing these attacks as an ethno- religious motivated attack. The article then gives an example of Finish authorities warning the public of foreign men that contact minor Finish girls online.44
Here the first criteria from Parekhs model can be applied as there is a clearly targeted group and that group is foreign Muslim men. The article once again paints the targeted group as rapists. Reading the article, one gets the impression that foreigners are attacking European women, as the article points out that the rapist are of non-European descent and the victims are European. The picture painted is that an internal ethnic and religious motivated conflict is escalating since the increasing arrival of foreigners and the state is looking the other way not willing act on the problem. It is not only the Swedish society that is threatened, but Europe as well. The article frames the situation as if an invasion of the hostile other is happening by painting the targeted group as a hostile and unlawful presence that cannot be trusted. One can say with certainty then that this article includes all the three criteria from Parekhs model of identifying hate speech, as it targets a specific group, stigmatises it and lastly, the targeted group is viewed as a hostile presence that cannot be trusted to follow the laws and norms of a good standing society.
5.1.4. Post-apocalyptic Denmark without multiculturalism
45 Here the op-ed problematizes multiculturalism, specifically the Islamic belief, by giving an example of how a multicultural society would look like if a catastrophic event would take44 Samtiden. SVENSKA UNGA KVINNOR MÅLTAVLOR – ”ETNISK-RELIGIÖST MOTIVERADE
VÅLDTÄKTER” Anna Ernius. 6 december, 2018
https://samtiden.nu/2018/12/svenska-unga-kvinnor-maltavlor-etnisk-religiost-motiverade-valdtakter/
45 Samtiden. Postapokalyptisk Danmark utan mångkultur. Mohamed Omar. 24 July, 2018
place in Europe, similar to the one in the Danish TV show The Rain. The op-ed speculates how life in an apocalypse would look with multiculturalism. How the interaction between women and men would be, halal food, hassle with showers and prayer times and how Muslims would demand to set up arrows in the bunkers that show the direction towards Mecca, split into ethnic and religious gangs fights, or if the Islamists established mini-caliphates. Since according to the op-ed article Islamist take advantage of the situation in times of crisis as they did in Somalia, Afghanistan and Syria and according to the article, with a large Muslim population in Europe, a similar scenario is not unlikely. Lastly the op-ed article concludes that, unlike in the series The rain, where the one’s behind the apocalypse was a corporation led by middle aged white men, in reality, the one’s behind an apocalypse would be jihadist with weapons of mass destruction.46
One can apply the first criteria from Parekhs model as the target group are once again
Muslims. The op-ed describes the Nordic society and the foreigners, especially those that are Muslims, to be inherently different in norms and practices. According to the op-ed these two groups (native and foreigners) can't coexist well together and the implicit message is that this further adds to the danger. Implicitly the author is stating that even in matters of survival they won’t put aside their belief. The author further gives an example of how they would even demand practices that belong to their faith. This statement creates a trust issue, this is the opposite of a social glue that trust depends upon. The message sent is that we cannot trust them, they are not like us, even in such terrible circumstances they won’t stop been different, further outlining the otherness. One can then conclude that criteria three from Parekh’s model is applicable. Later, the statements in the op-ed further emphasize Parekhs second criteria, the stigmatisation of the targeted group. The article points out that perhaps the already dreary events would still include ethnic and religious gang fights, as if to say ‘it is not enough that there is a disaster happening, but they would worsen the situation by even more violence, since that is who they are, always violent and driven by their religion and ethnicity.’ The chronicle further speculates that not only is everyone in danger, but they would take
advantage of the misery and add even more misery to the situation just as they have done in Syria, Somalia and other conflict zones. Not even in times of disaster and danger will we unite. This further insinuates the fact that foreigners and natives are two inherently different
46 Samtiden. Postapokalyptisk Danmark utan mångkultur. Mohamed Omar. 24 July, 2018
groups that can never coexist even in the worst of times. The message is that they are always opportunists and dangerous. Finally in the last section, the article states that the real danger in Europe is ‘jihadist who will destroy us with weapons of mass destruction’, insinuating that if a disaster would occur in Europe it won't be because of Europeans, but because of foreigners. In the article foreigners, specifically Muslims are considered dangerous and untrustworthy, further ascribing them undesired features. Finally, this op-ed includes all the three criteria’s from Parekhs model for identifying hate speech.
5.1.5. Trump speaks clearly again: Europe is losing its culture
because of mass immigration
This Samtiden article presents an interview between Donald Trump and the news article The Sun. Donald Trump addressed his concerns for Europe and the way Europe is handling immigration by stating that as a result of migration from Africa and the Middle East, Europe is losing its culture and changing for the worst. He then told to The Sun that if you
(Europeans) don't act fast, Europe will never be the same again. The Samtiden article also brings up the Swedish Prime minister Stefan Lövens visit to the white house where he was told by Donald Trump that Sweden has grave problems with immigration, the Samtiden article then adds that Löven however did not want to admit the statement made by Trump. Finally the Samtiden mentions Trump statement over the situation in London where he told The Sun that a hospital in London was covered in blood, comparing it to war zones where Trump stated that the hospital in London was worse than any hospital seen in any war zones, while also bringing up the grave problem London is facing due to knife attack
and shootings.47
Here the targeted group are immigrants, specifically those from the Middle East and Africa. The overall picture the Samtiden article gives is that Europe is in ruins and it is only going to get worse, the situation is so critical that another states president is urging for immediate action in order to save the little that is left of Europe's safety and culture. The other leaders, such as Stefan Löfven, are looking the other way and ignoring the issue, however President Trump, another far right politician is the only one acknowledging the issue. Although the
47 Samtiden. Trump talar klarspråk igen: ‘‘Europa förlorar sin kultur på grund av massinvandringen’’ Anna
Ernius. 14 July 2018
https://samtiden.nu/2018/07/trump-talar-klarsprak-igen-europa-forlorar-sin-kultur-pa-grund-av-massinvandringen/
exact words were not presented in the article this is the overall message. It is an urgent matter as Sweden is in crisis, and even other countries are raising their concern. It is a wakeup call for Sweden as well as Europe. The message this article sends is that most immigrants, especially those from the Middle East and Africa, are criminals, they are ruining the
European culture and making Europe a dangerous place to live in. In the article Trump even compares the hospital in London to hospitals in war zones This article covers criteria one, two and three from Parekhs model as well, as it conveys the message that immigrants are endangering society, and that they lack the capability to follow the rules governing society, they don't belong in a good standing society. They are changing the European culture to the worst.
5.1.6. Soheila Fors: ‘‘Islamism can only handle discourse about the
religious oppression with screams and aggression’’
The article presents a lecture on child marriage held by Soheila Fors and the events that followed after Fors referred to child marriage as Paedophilia, which according to the article led Muslims, from the Middle East and North Africa to become aggressive and defensive. According to the article then Fors states that her work will only be an attack to Islam in which Muslims can only deal with screams and aggression. Later on, the article depicts the contrast between westerners and Muslim by stating that after she showed the picture there were two groups, shocked and silent westerners and aggressive and screaming Middle Easterners and North Africans. According to the article then Fors states that there is a huge gap between the two groups and there is little to no hope of integration. She also added that a woman in particular that screamed in defence will be Friday’s prayer hero for defending her faith.48 Lastly Fors statement presented in the article was
‘‘What for me is, a contribution to humanity in the name of the Swedish freedom of
religion, for them it is an attack on the religion, because child marriage is an integral part of an Islamist faith.’’ 49
48 Samtiden. Soheila Fors: ‘‘Samtal om det religiösa förtrycket kan islamismen enbart hantera med skrik och
aggression’’Anna Ernius. 11 April 2018 https://samtiden.nu/2018/04/soheila-fors-samtal-om-det-religiosa-fortrycket-kan-islamismen-enbart-hantera-med-skrik-och-aggression/
The target group in here are Muslims, specifically Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East making criteria one in Parekhs model applicable. In the article, Muslims and people from the Middle East and North Africa in general, are portrayed as aggressive and unreasonable. The article ascribes Islam and its followers’ undesirable practices such as child marriage, as if it were something accepted by everyone that follows that religion. The article further adds that Muslims are hard to integrate, echoing the first Samtiden articled analysed. The article also tries to show the inherent characteristic difference between westerners and those from the Middle East and North Africa, describing the westerners as calm victims in contrast to the foreigners which were presented as aggressive and unruly. The article assumes that the woman who screamed in the auditorium would be seen as a hero in the Muslim community, as to say that such an aggressive behaviour and the defending of the practice of Islam is praised and encouraged within the Muslim community. While the Swedish
community is portrayed as victims of their own tolerance and because of their liberal belief in freedom of religion, they have allowed undemocratic practices and values to thrive in a democratic society. This article is applicable to criteria one, two and three making it hate speech according to Parekhs model, since there is one, a targeted group which is Muslims, the group is stigmatised as aggressive, unreasonable and followers of awful practices and norms and finally, the article depicts Muslims as inherently different from the liberal and just western society.
5.2. Sweden democrats’ official documents
Each document has different sections on different matters such as immigration, citizenship, healthcare, security and so on. Not all section are going to be included in the analysis since, as mentioned in the beginning of the analysis, the statements extracted from some of the sections are statement that have to do with immigrants only, including different immigrant groups, such as ethnic and religious groups. All the statements concerning foreigners will be presented whether they fall under hate speech or not and will then be analysed using Parekhs model in order to determine whether their documents falls under hate speech or not.
Furthermore, the abbreviation SD that stands for Sweden Democrats will be used in the following analysis as the word Sweden Democrats will appear quite often.
5.2.1. Sweden Democrats migration politics 2018
5.2.1.1. Swedish citizenship
The document Sverigedemokraterna migrationspolitiska inriktningsprogram 2018, starts by stating their view on the Swedish citizenship. In this section of the document the Sweden Democrats state that in order to strengthen the link between citizenship and national identity those applying for the citizenship should speak Swedish, know basic facts about Sweden, know the Swedish society and history, as well as current laws regulations, obligations and rights. These knowledges must be ensured through tests before citizenship is granted.50
This paragraph does not cover the three criteria’s in the model Parekh has designed to identify hate speech since it does not specifically target or stigmatise any group. Of course, since the paragraph is about obtaining citizenship, it is primarily for non-citizens, however since it is a statement of their political vision one can say it informs everyone including even Swedish citizens. The documents begins by stating that there will be well regulated
requirements to obtain citizenship, such as knowledge of the Swedish language, history, facts about Sweden and the Swedish society, as well as laws and regulation. The knowledge of laws and regulation is of course very reasonable, the other points seem also reasonable, however when it comes to the requirement of knowing the history of Sweden, the link between knowing the history and feeling a sense of belonging to the country seems a bit implausible. It is of course good to know the history of the country one intends to live in, but to make it a requirement through a pass and fail taste seems excessive. Although it is
nowhere near to be deemed as hate speech, it seems however the point of this is to make it hard to get a citizenship.
5.2.1.2. General principles for residency rights
According to this section non- Swedish citizens must apply for a visa or residence permit before entering Sweden, this is granted if the stay is well motivated and complies with given regulations and does not entail dependency on Sweden. This however can be given in advance to Nordic citizens. The SD oppose the idea of permanent residence in the basis that residence should be always linked to the basis they were granted. Instead the Sweden
50 Sverigedemokraternas migrationspolitiska inriktningsprogram 2018. En ansvarstagande reglering av
Democrats want to have a system that regularly reviews granted residence permits for possible renewal. If the basis for the given residence permit changes the residence permits should be withdrawn as a rule.51
This section of the document does not explicitly relate to the first and second criteria given in Parekhs model, as firstly it does not target a specific group, secondly it does not stigmatises any group making it difficult to qualify it as hate speech. However, the third criteria is partially applicable as this section has the features of exclusivity. They don't want to give permanent residence, as well as they want to regularly check to see if the reason for the temporary residence is still valid. It is as to say that they simply don't want to have foreigners in Sweden, it won’t be impossible to get in, but it will be hard to stay. They are eager to send those from non- Nordic countries back to their countries. The message is that ‘certain
circumstance will let you in, in Sweden, but rest assure, as soon as these circumstances are no longer valid you will not be able to stay any longer’.
5.2.1.3. Modern asylum rights with focus in refugee aid
Here SD believes that the states geographically closest to the crisis areas should ensure reception of refugees, as well as international cooperation such as the UN should provide resources such as food and shelter so that no single state is imposed with excessive burden. They further state that asylum should only be granted if Sweden is the nearest state to a crisis, otherwise refugee reception should only be possible through organized further re-settlement system. They also add that refugees should apply for residence permit before entering Sweden the same way as non- refugees, as been a refugee should not give priority to
migration, additionally, the reception of refugees should be entirely up to each receiving state to decide. 52
This section is of course dedicated for refugees covering the first criteria from Parekhs model. The fact that they believe the countries close to the conflict areas should be the one to receive the refugees is a way of saying that they will not take in refugees as they know that Sweden is far from conflict areas. They also want Sweden to take a distance from helping refugees by stating that other international cooperation should be liable for taking care of the
51 Sverigedemokraternas migrationspolitiska inriktningsprogram 2018. En ansvarstagande reglering av
migration. Generella principer för uppehållsrätt. Page 2
52 Sverigedemokraternas migrationspolitiska inriktningsprogram 2018. En ansvarstagande reglering av
basic needs of the refugees by further adding that no state should be burdened of this. Another way they would make it harder for refugees to enter Sweden is also by, for instance requiring legal documents of entry. This is clearly another way of saying ‘we know this way it will be hard for you to get within our border and if you try to do it without legal entry document you will be declared as an illegal immigrant and be immediately expelled’, when they probably know that someone running from danger, persecutions or conflict will have a harder time to request visa or residency permit. Also even if they do request for a visa or residency permit successfully what is the guarantee that they will not be denied for the sole purpose of being refugees that might be dependent on the state at least initially. Here refugees are in no way stigmatised or demonised, meaning that the second criteria from Parekhs model does not apply, however subtly, one notices the third criteria is applicable as their message in this section is ‘you are an unwanted presence, we will make it as hard as possible for you to enter and stay in Sweden’. So, is this section considered hate speech? Not precisely as this is not a classical hate speech case, for the key element of hate speeches is the defamation of the targeted group, however one can clearly see the anti-immigration sentiments in here as well.
5.2.1.4. Controls and measures over infringements
In this section the Sweden Democrats state that the police should have sufficient resources to carry out searches within the country and expel persons who lack the right to residency. Anyone staying in Sweden illegally should not move freely and instead be kept under supervision, special guarded and locked places should therefore be established until their expulsion or voluntary departure. Furthermore, persons that have resided in Sweden illegally must not only be expelled, but also be subjected to an entry ban.53
Those statements explicitly cover only criterial one in Parekhs model since they target undocumented immigrants. Although this section does not stigmatise groups other than referring to those who lack residence permit as illegal, the fact that they are illegal is enough to be stigmatised since declaring someone illegal is a stigmatising act in itself, but other than that immigrants are not further stigmatised. The section could also be applied to criteria three, as been illegal in itself also means been an unwanted presence in a society. Those considered illegal then are automatically seen as a group that cannot be tolerated and needs to be
53 Sverigedemokraternas migrationspolitiska inriktningsprogram 2018. En ansvarstagande reglering av
expelled. In this section illegal immigrants are also presented as criminals on the sole basis that they are illegal and the Sweden Democrats are prepared to use authoritarian measures to control the borders as well as search for illegal immigrants within the Swedish borders. This in itself have been a product of debate in Sweden, as for instance in 2013 there was a debate on the media over racial profiling concerning the collaboration project between the migration board, the police and the prison and probation service referred to as Reva, which was created to search and identify illegal immigrants in Stockholm’s subway. The project received criticism over its racial profiling as many stated that they were stopped because of the way they looked.54 Similarly the fact that the Sweden democrats would want to introduce a search
and control check for illegal immigrants would only increase racial profiling by authorities ‘‘The police are the authority that is responsible for securing law and order,
sometimes with force if required. The goal is to establish boundaries between the criminal and the law-abiding, but in practice it also maintains unequal power relations based on race / ethnicity’’55
Two criteria’s from Parekhs model could be applied in this section as they have targeted immigrants, illegal immigrant to be exact, secondly they have criminalised those who lack legal papers of stay and thirdly they stated that they would take authoritative measures to search and expel illegal immigrants. Here immigrants that lack paper are seen as criminals, something that doesn't belong to the good standing Swedish society, a threat that needs to be expelled, and according to Parekhs model this section has a strong potential to be considered as an indirect form of hate speech.
5.2.2. Sweden Democrats election manifesto 2018
5.2.2.1. Cohesion
Here the Sweden Democrats begin by stating that today Sweden is a split country, split between immigrants and Swedes, city and country, old and young. Therefore, Sweden needs more than ever politics that builds on a common identity, social trust and cohesion. Later on, they add that foreign citizens who wish to become Swedish should clearly show that they are
54 Civil Rights Defenders. Slumpvis utvald. Ras etnisk profilering i Sverige. 2017. Leandro Schclarek Mulinari,
in collaboration with Criminological Institution, Stockholm University. Page 7
ready and willing to take part in the collective responsibility for Sweden.’’56
This statement begins by drawing attention to the societal division, and one reason of the societal division among others are immigrants, according to the SD. Here it is the
immigrants, among other groups who are targeted and blamed for the division of society and by stating that ‘in order for Sweden to be whole again immigrants have to be part of the collective responsibility’ the party is assuming that most immigrants usually don't take on the responsibility to contribute to Sweden and its unity. Here one can apply the first criteria since they are targeting immigrants among other groups for causing division in Sweden. The third criterial is also applicable as in the second statement, immigrants are seen as a group that places itself outside the good standing society, a group that does not show loyalty and shared institutional practices, as well as a group that usually does not contribute to the development of the Swedish society. Would this be considered hate speech? Although it indirectly and loosely relate to two out of three criteria’s from Parekh’s model, it is still difficult to classify it as hate speech since it is so implicit and subtle, it is very vague.
5.2.2.2. Migration politics
In this section of the document similar statements and propositions from the previous document are found. For instance in this section SD states that Sweden should grant asylum only to asylum seekers from neighbouring states and stop all other asylum receiving’s as long as Sweden neighbouring areas are safe, this was also similarly stated in the section Modern
asylum rights with focus in refugee aid. As also found in the section Controls and measures over infringements, here they also add that police should be given more resources to search,
detain and expel illegal immigrants, increase detention centres, as well as link residence permits to clear grounds and withdraw residence permit if the foundation no longer remains. while this time also adding to also abolish the limitation period for denied asylum cases. Aside from including statements from the previous document they also had new statement in this section. For instance the SD adds that Sweden should seek agreements with other states in order to expel immigrants to either their home countries or other countries that can offer space and basic protection, as well as use Sweden's diplomatic weight to urge states to
receive their own citizens.57 They then further add that a high level of asylum and family
reunification has split the country, cultivated exclusion and exploited the Swedish welfare. Sweden's security has been compromised as a consequence of weak requirements and
controls of residence permits and granting of citizenship. Because of the considerable amount of illegal immigrant Sweden has become internationally known for problems and citizen active in terrorist networks.58
Here one finds all three criteria’s from Parekhs model in identifying hate speech. Firstly, since the entire section is reserved for matters concerning immigration, the targeted groups are immigrants in general. Secondly immigrants are perceived as group who takes advantage of the welfare system, a group prone to criminality and terrorism, a group that brings havoc and division to the Swedish society, making criteria two applicable. Finally, criteria three is also applicable as immigrants are seen as hostile and unwanted presence endangering society, they cannot be trusted to follow the laws governing society. The picture this section paints is that Sweden is amidst an internal conflict and even other states are raising their concerns, echoing the article analysed above ‘Trump speaks clearly again: Europe is losing its culture
because of mass immigration.’ Illegal immigrants are infiltrating the good standing society
further endangering the people, and those in power are doing nothing to stop it. SD then promise to put an end to this by prioritising the Swedish people, they will adopt policies that will deny asylum seekers entry, except for those that are Nordic citizens, they will search illegal and criminal immigrants by enforcing the police, they will expel those that don't belong in the Swedish society. In short, they will make it very hard for immigrants to enter and stay in Sweden, as they don't belong in the good standing society. Since this section satisfies the three criteria from Parekhs model then according to Parekh this would be considered hate speech.
5.2.2.3. Politics concerning criminal activities
In this section the SD states that women, children and the elderly are scared to go out in the evening, brutal civil wars are being fought between rivalling gangs, policemen and their family are shot in their homes and their cars explode in attempted attacks and fire
departments and ambulances cannot get in immigrant-dominated areas without armed escort.
57 ‘Sverigedemokraternas valmanifest 2018. Migrationspolitik. Page 7 58 Sverigedemokraternas valmanifest 2018. Migrationspolitik. Page 6
They then add that as a result of uncontrolled immigration terrorist roam freely in Sweden's streets and abuse the Swedish welfare and asylum system.59 Then as a solution of the
problem SD proposes to introduce a national begging ban, introduce compulsory expulsion to foreign criminals, revoking citizenship in case of terrorist involvement and renting prisons in other European countries for life sentenced and foreign prisoners.60
The message this section gives is that Sweden is in chaos and the government is not doing anything about it. One then notices that under the proposed policies to combat criminality some of them are in relation to immigrants. One of the promises is to enforce a national begging ban, begging ban especially against the Roma. The Sweden democrats together with another party, Moderaterna, carried out a begging ban campaign under the election times, whereas now municipalities such as Vellinge have implemented a begging ban. After the event took place, organisations such as Civil Right Defenders and Amnesty International have criticized the begging ban. Amnesty international stated in their campaign against the begging ban that, since it is targeted only towards the Roma people, the begin ban is a discriminatory policy.61 Aside from the begging ban, there are two other policies against
criminality, and they are to expel criminal immigrants, as well as rent prisons to put life sentenced criminals, as well as immigrant criminals in. Although they don't say explicitly that most of the criminals are immigrants the fact that these policies are suggested sends the message that according to the Sweden Democrats it is mostly immigrants that are rendering the society into chaos. This section covers all three criteria’s from Parekhs model to identify hate speech. In this section there are targeted groups and they are immigrants and Roma, which covers the first criteria. Secondly, they subtly insinuate that it is the immigrants who are causing all this havoc making the second criteria applicable. Finally, the third criteria is covered by the open statements that immigrants in relation to their criminal tendency need to be expelled from the society because they are unlawful and create havoc.
59 Sverigedemokraternas valmanifest 2018. Kriminalpolitik. Page 8 60 Sverigedemokraternas valmanifest 2018. Kriminalpolitik. Page 9 61 Amnesty international. Tiggeriförbud måste stoppas. 12 February 2019.
5.2.2.4. Housing politics
Here the Sweden Democrats blame immigrants for housing shortage, or as they formulated it failed migration policy. They then add that vulnerable and dangerous areas in Sweden are increasing and segregation is spreading. The housing shortage has mainly affected students and young people. A solution to this problem among other solutions according to the SD is to abolish the Anvisningslagen.62
In November 2015, in order to improve the newly arrived immigrants establishment in the labour market as well as in society, the government proposed a new law, where all
municipalities must be obliged to receive newly arrived immigrants. On January 27, the Riksdag (parliament) voted yes to the government's proposal and the new Act came into force on March of 2016.63 The fact that the Sweden Democrats intend to abolish this act shows
their support for segregation and discrimination. As to abolish the law means to support the refusal for municipality to take in immigrants. This statement meets with criteria 1 and 3 in Parekhs model. The targeted group in this section are immigrants, newly arrived immigrants to be specific. This section meets criteria three as well as it does implicitly agree that
immigrants are an unwanted presence, as well as supports the discrimination and exclusion of newly arrived immigrants by allowing municipality to deny them residency. They are also openly blaming immigrants or as they formulated it ‘failed immigration policy’ for the shortage of housing, lack of security and segregation in residential areas covering criteria one two and three. Firstly, the targeted group are immigrants, secondly it stigmatise them as a hostile presence by stating that areas are been precarious due to failed immigration policy and thirdly, they indirectly agree that immigrants are an unwanted presence. The statements also contradict themselves as in the first statement they believe that housing areas are segregated due to immigration, while in the next statement they want to abolish the anvisning lagen by further contributing to even more segregation.
62 Sverigedemokraternas valmanifest 2018. Bostadspolitik. Page 12
63 Regeringskansliet. Anvisningar till kommunerna att ta emot nyanlända. Published between 03 October 2014 -
20 January 2019. https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2016/02/anvisningar-till-kommunerna-att-ta-emot-nyanlanda/
