Freedom of speech meltdown in Sweden: a local chapter of the journalists unions are trying to gain control over what views are fit to print. I’m Henrik Jönsson, a Swedish independent libertarian entrepreneur – and today I’d like to explain how polarization and increasing conflict levels in Sweden bizarrely are beginning to affect both freedom of speech and our freedom of press. If you appreciate my videos, please feel free to contribute to my ongoing production using one of the payment options to the left. Without your support, this Swedish libertarian channel would not be possible. Also don’t forget to hit the “Subscribe” button down below if you haven’t already done so, and make sure to click the “Bell icon” so that you’ll get notified – if you’re lucky – when I release new videos – which I do with razor sharp precision every Saturday morning at 8am central European time. Today I am talking about consensus, conflict and censorship. Stay tuned! *INTRO MUSIC* The once fiercely egalitarian and consensus driven country of Sweden is suffering an acute trauma of conflict and disagreement for all the world to see. The consequences of a heavily regulated labour market, some of the world’s highest taxes – and an unsustainable altruistic moral ideology are generating an ever-increasing swathe of financial, social and cultural conflicts. As a result, polarization ensues, with an ideological trench war between bleeding hearts of all denominations on one side, and with the conservatives on the other. Two weeks ago, healthcare professional and classical liberal writer Kajsa Dovstad wrote a much debated opinion editorial for the Gothenburg Post. I had initially decided not to comment on this as the subject bores me, the article was poorly written and because the analysis was juvenile and anecdotal in my opinion – but as things since then have spiralled out of all proportion, I now need to tell you the background of the story. The text carried the headline “Have you had a Jimmie-moment?” – referring to the party leader Jimmie Åkesson of deeply divisive nationalist right-wing conservatives “The Sweden Democrats”. Dovstad had late one night found herself in a small city looking for the Swedish national dish meatballs. Finding only an Arabic convenience store open, Dovstad relates herself feeling alienated upon not finding her desired food, but rather a staple of Middle Eastern products. She went on: “I find myself in a Sweden that no longer feels Swedish. And I don’t like it. A Jimmie-moment, as my friend would say.” Given the polarized debate climate of consensus oriented Sweden, a text like this was like pouring gasoline on the fire of conflict, and the chattering classes immediately all went through the predictable virtue posing required to manifest and strengthen their commitment to their respective sub-cultures by either dencouncing or celebrating Dovstad’s text. Let me emphasize that this is all fine, had things stayed there ”It was pretty good, it was alright, it wasn’t great, but it was fine.” It is fine to express an opinion of feeling culturally alienated because of a lack of meatballs. It is also fine to find this position ridiculous. It is also fine to cancel your interviews with the paper that published the text, which is what publicly celebrated actor Kjell Bergqvist – mainly known for his daring role interpretation as “The Silver Man” the 1996 mini-series with the same name – chose to do. Fine, but… hysterical… as an opinion piece does not reflect the views of the paper. However, what is NOT fine, is what the journalist union representatives of the Gothenburg Post did next – as they decided to circulate an internal letter among the unionized journalists suggesting that action should be taken against the paper for publishing the opinion piece. The chair of the journalist’s club, Gabriella Mohoff, stated: “After the publication of the text about the “Jimmie-moment” we are finding ourselves under pressure concerning how the editorial page is affecting us who’re on the editorial staff. As you know, we will not comment on what is published – but we can choose to act when a decision to publish a text affects the work environment of the reporters.” Let’s be clear on what is going on here. Mohoff is trying to circumvent regulations barring her from intervening in what opinions are published – by turning it into a matter relating to the work environment of her staff. Undesired opinions cannot be labelled work environment hazards. ”Now you and I have a conflict.” This is a flagrant attempt at manipulating what views should get published, and it reflects the long-standing conflict between parts of the staff on the Gothenburg Post and the editorial management. Particularly after the latter ideologically turned more right wing under the stewardship of outspoken conservative Alice Teodorescu in 2015. The Gothenburg post has under Teodorescu, and as of April this year, classical liberal opinion maker Adam Cwejman, risen from a largely irrelevant local newspaper, to a nationally read controversial and liberal-conservative force. This transformation has been painful for locals in general – and local journalists in particular – who left the paper in droves while voicing strong discontent with the change. The port city of Gothenburg has always been a socialist bastion dominated by the workers movement and strong maritime unions with their tentacles digging deep into the public offices of the municipality. This has earned the city the nickname “Bribe-burg”, and it is from this perspective the tampering journalistic unions must be viewed. They feel so entitled to subvert ideologies and opinions they do not agree with, that it makes it difficult for them to determine what constitutes democratically acceptable behaviour. After Mohoff had made her statements calling the publication of the Dovstad text in question as a work environment hazard, the national journalistic establishment justly responded with furore. This does them great credit. It is important to understand and uphold the difference between two different types of content published by papers: News, and Views. When a reporter is presenting news, they need to be reviewed by a team of journalists in order to make sure all sources check out, and that the presentation angle and its relating of events meet basic journalistic standards of truthfulness. “Bernstein are you Sure on this story?” “Absolutely.” “Woodward?” “I’m sure” “I’m not” This is often very difficult to do, as the same story often can be framed in very different ways. There is legitimately an ongoing debate concerning how well journalists at various papers in general, and at Public Service in particular, are capable of doing this job. However this is very different from the category of views. Views are opinions. You are entitled to YOUR opinion, and you can choose to publish it online or in a paper – if they deem it fit to print. Kajsa Dovstad is also entitled to HER opinion, and the Gothenburg post is entitled to publish it if they choose to do so. The fact that you do not agree with something does not give you the right to prevent it from being said. Even if you are a unionized left-wing journalist. When you cross this line, you cease being a journalist – you instead become an activist with issues on freedom of speech. ..and as things currently stand in Sweden, the activists certainly seem to be outnumbering the journalists in the war of information. Do you think the legally sanctified freedom to express your opinion cannot be relegated as a work environment issue? Please share this video, and subscribe to my YouTube channel! Have you had experiences of your own, where various activist groups try to affect what should be allowed to be said in public? Please share your views in the comment sections down below, I welcome all respectful communication – regardless of whether I agree with you or not! My name is Henrik Jönsson, and I have no problem with going without meatballs every now and again. But I will defend your right to complain about it any day of the week. Thank you very much for watching this video.