Racism in Sweden. Today. Every day.

April 23rd, 2017 by ilyameyer

Today is Yom HaShoah – Holocaust Remembrance Day. The day on which we particularly remember the Jewish victims of racism in Nazi Germany.

Fast-forward to Sweden of today, 2017. And make no mistake – the Jewish victims of racism can be found to this very day. Yes, in Sweden. But they are not the victims of Nazism. They are the victims of Islamism.

I should know. I am one of them.

I’ve been out of the public spotlight for three long months, living, or should I say barely existing, in a kind of prison whose barriers consisted of my own walls and doors.

Yet not quite. Because those barriers were built by Swedish Islamists – racists who denied me some of the most elementary rights we take for granted in a free and democratic state like Sweden is nominally perceived as being – rights such as my job, my health, my freedom.

All because I was selected by racist Swedish Islamists for character assassination.

Bearing in mind the ethnicity and dogmatic interpretation of the perpetrators’ religion, it’s anyone’s guess how the situation may end.

Some time back I returned part-time to my roots as a teacher, working 3 days a week as a substitute at various preschools as and where needed. It’s a vibrant, rewarding and wonderful – and sometimes exhausting! – job.

One day after working at a preschool in a predominantly immigrant (read Muslim) area, I was summarily suspended, accused of having molested a 5-year old girl the previous day.

This naturally came as a surprise to me, not least since I had been working exclusively with 2-year old children.

However, Sweden being a politically correct society not known for letting facts get in the way of Islamist demands, and since my accusers (the girl’s parents) come from a Muslim country notorious for its particularly patriarchal society and exceptionally strict adherence to Sharia law, the authorities had to be seen to be taking the allegation seriously.

It all appears to be about something so primitive as the desire to ban male staff from the preschool attended by children of Islamists. The parents solved their problem by accusing me of molesting a child about whose very existence I was totally unaware. The facts didn’t matter – the scam worked since I was immediately barred from teaching pending an investigation.

To the day 12 weeks – 3 months – later, I was finally officially notified that the police investigation had ended and I was in the clear – the investigation “has not been able to find any suggestion whatsoever that any crime has been committed”. But here comes the interesting bit: after filing the complaint against me, my accusers have “been unavailable” to assist the police in their enquiries. You think this sounds odd?

Not at all: there’s a very logical reason for this seemingly odd behaviour: in Sweden, the victim of a crime is entitled to financial compensation according to a set tariff. Sex crimes against children generate a particularly high level of compensation. My accusers had probably expected a double jackpot: get rid of male staff working with their daughters in school, AND be richly rewarded for the scam. They didn’t count on their allegation actually prompting a police investigation – they likely expected the accusation itself would be sufficient to open the money taps directly into their bank account. There is a social disease in certain parts of the Swedish immigrant community known as “sense of entitlement” – people who just “know” what they can get if only they are sufficiently brazen and insistent. It usually works in a Swedish society too cowed to say “no”. But it didn’t work this time.

My accusers’ three-month-long “unavailability” for police questioning has been interpreted as indication of a planned, deliberate assault on me with malicious intent. However, the police will not prosecute the family for knowingly bearing false witness, even though this is a criminal offence that carries a custodial sentence. Instead, it is up to me to decide whether to press charges.

So why have I decided to make this public, despite being completely exonerated and despite the prosecutor’s acknowledgement that there is no indication whatsoever that any crime of any sort has taken place? For many reasons, not least because I now have to start the slow process of extricating myself from the psychological living grave into which I was thrust by Islamist barbarians who object to male teachers working with female schoolchildren, primitive gender segregationists who think nothing of accusing a fellow human being of the worst crime imaginable in a civic society simply in order to foist their own pathetic brand of Sharia compliance on a gullible host society. From the very outset my lawyer pointed out to the police that the case was not what it appeared, that I was being targeted because I was a man working in a profession that the Islamists wished to reserve for women, and moreover that I was being particularly targeted because I am a Jew, an outspoken figure in the ongoing debate in favour of democracy and equal rights in Sweden, a staunch Zionist who supports the Jewish state of Israel, and because I speak and write openly against the spread of Islamism in this country. Not Islam, but Islamism – for those sufficiently aware to make the distinction.

There is another reason why I have decided to make this public: because Swedish society – and the world beyond – needs to know just how pervasive Islamism is in this country. It reaches its tentacles into every facet of a naïve, unsuspecting population’s lives. Swedes seem to think that the full extent of Sharia compliance in this country is limited to separate seating for boys and girls on school buses (yes, in Sweden!) and separate bathing times for boys and girls in taxpayer-funded swimming baths to acknowledge the demand for gender segregation by Islamists. They don’t realise the situation is way more serious – reaching all the way into the staff rooms of preschools. Where the next generation of Sweden’s leaders are being educated. Or, rather, subliminally indoctrinated from a very tender age in an educational climate from which men are being intimidated into expulsion.

In today’s Sweden, in 2017, it would appear that it is not Town Hall that decides who to hire for its schools. Instead, it is Islamist parents who want to decide who has the privilege of getting a job in a taxpayer-funded preschool.

The world media is – quite rightly – focusing on the vicious Islamist terror attack on a street in central Stockhom in early April. What appears to be escaping everyone’s scrutiny, however, is the daily Islamist harassment terrorising Swedish civilians in multiple invisible ways on every single street – particularly those streets containing preschools – throughout a Sweden that is already crumbling from within, a Sweden whose social infrastructure, whose very will to survive, has caved in in ways most people don’t even know about.

Like for instance when it comes to deciding who gets to teach the upcoming generation of children – based on the teacher’s gender and/or religion.

On this particular day, when we remember those Jews who were heartlessly victimised by the barbarity of racism, we should not forget that this same racism flourishes to this very day in Sweden. Not in the German language, but in a variety of tongues spoken in various parts of the MENA area (Middle East and North Africa).

It’s an uncomfortable truth to point out in a Sweden that pompously styles itself a “humanitarian superpower”.

SWEDEN: THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS’ ANTI-SEMITISM

January 18th, 2017 by ilyameyer

The following article was first published in The Huffington Post by co-authors Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museum of Tolerance, and Dr Manfred Gerstenfeld, former Chair Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, JCPA.

It is linked here with the approval of its authors.

Each year, the Simon Wiesenthal Center publishes a list of the main anti-Semitic and/or anti-Israel incidents. In 2016 Swedish Social Democrat foreign minister Margot Wallstrom was #8. In view of the recurrent Palestinian terror attacks she could have been expected to ask for an investigation of who was behind the long record of Palestinian incitement which led to murders of Israeli civilians. Instead she wanted an investigation into what she dared to call “extrajudicial killings” by the Israeli police of those succeeding or planning murder.

Israeli Minister of Infrastructure, Yuval Steinitz, noted that Wallstrom singled out Israel for investigation but avoided calling out other nations – including the U.S., Russia and France – all of whom also kill terrorists. Applying such double standards against Israel is an act of anti-Semitism, according to its definition by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Its adoption had required the approval of 31 democratic countries among which was Sweden.

Minister Steinitz also pointed out that Sweden has produced more Islamic State volunteers than any other European country. Relations between Israel and Sweden deteriorated greatly in 2015 after Wallstrom cited the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a major reason for growing Islamist radicalism. A year earlier, shortly after becoming Sweden’s foreign minister, Wallstrom recognized ‘Palestine’ as a state. She did this despite the fact that the largest Palestinian party by far, Hamas, promotes genocide of Jews in its Charter.

Read the rest of the article here.

Worrying differences between Democrats and democrats

January 16th, 2017 by ilyameyer

May I ask a question in all humility? Because I genuinely don’t understand some of the thought processes involved.

Here goes:

I appreciate there are a lot of people who don’t like US President-elect Donald John Trump. And there are also a lot of people who like him.

Equally, there are a lot of people who don’t like current US President Barack Hussein Obama. And lots who did and still do.

Not too difficult to follow so far.

But for all the criticism of Obama during his eight years in office, duly elected according to the laws and regulations governing free and democratic elections, we never saw the plethora of threats, lawfare, name-calling, mudslinging and more that we are seeing regarding Trump. Neither did we see the previous incumbent try to hamstring President-Elect Obama during the transition period. Nor did we see public criticism of Obama before he had even put his foot inside the White House. Quite the opposite, Obama was universally lionised – before having achieved anything. The point being that not just in US society, but globally too, the incoming President was given every opportunity to prove himself, to get the job done.

And quite rightly too – every person taking on this immensely powerful and responsible job, that of the President of the United States, needs to be given the greatest possible opportunity for doing the job properly. So much rides on the success of a successful US President.

Yet here’s what I don’t quite get: for all those who do not like Trump – and they are perfectly entitled to their views, such is the beauty of democracy and free speech – is there a special, invisible cut-off point beyond which being a Democrat requires you to stop being democratic in your outlook? I mean, you don’t like Trump, I get it. Really I do. Just as there are people who detested Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama, there are people who detest Trump.

Fine.

But how does this justify the relentless dismantling of the democratic institution that is the US electoral process, simply because the results of that democratic process didn’t pay the expected dividends in terms of the favoured Democratic winner?

Isn’t that what democracy is about? That every now again – let’s say every four years – there’s going to be a national leader who happens not to appeal to every single individual voter in the country?

I’m not a US citizen, but it is frightening to observe from afar the feeding-frenzy that ensued after democratic elections failed to re-elect a Democrat to the highest office in the nation. The fallout, the language, the methods and taunts and insults and undercurrent of violence, are not doing Democrats any favours.

And Democrats need to do themselves a lot of favours so that they can compete against the Republicans in the democratic process and retake power in future elections. It’s what the whole process is about – the smooth transition of power, back and forth, even to people you may not like.

Because that’s kind of the whole point of democratic elections – at any given point in time, there are going to be a whole lot of people who like the incumbent, and those who don’t and who didn’t vote for him or her.

You want to take down Donald Trump? Excellent. Take him down for what he actually does. Which means waiting for him to start his job. Otherwise we are in the position we were in eight years ago, with a US President who received the highest global accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize, for nothing he’d actually done.

Both extremes equally undeserving and equally insulting to the individual’s integrity – praising someone for what he hasn’t yet had time to achieve, and criticising someone for what he hasn’t yet had time to achieve.

Criticise Donald Trump by all means – in fact, please do so since no leader should ever be allowed to get so comfortable that he/she feels unassailable and thinks there is no need for accountability on his/her part.

But keep it real. Justifiable. Base it on a measurable track record. For the sake of US democracy.

Which actually impacts democracy in the few remaining countries that still practise this noble form of social coexistence.