# Sweden Quran Burning: Did Stockholm Let Freedom Of Speech Go A Bit Too Far? | Geeta's World, Ep 51

An episode of [Geeta's World](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1635741757), 5 Jul 2023, 52 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/56005063/05_jul_23_geetas_world_5_july_ep_51_128.mp3

Recently, an Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika engaged in a controversial act by setting ablaze pages of The Holy Quran and desecrating it with a strip of bacon. But this was not a first, since earlier this year, a far-right politician Rasmus Paludan also burnt the Quran. While the refugee claimed his act wasn't against Muslims, the politician paired his act with an anti-immigrant speech. So should these two Quran-burning incidents be examined together or in isolation? And do these incidents forfeit and sabotage Sweden’s bid to join NATO? Listen in!

## Transcript

[0:00] This Is Today podcasts. Recently, an Iraqi refugee, Sulivan Mormica, engaged
[0:08] in a controversial act by setting a blaze pages of the Holy Quran and desecrating
[0:14] it with a strip of bacon. But this was not a first since earlier
[0:19] this year, a far right politician, Rasmus Palodan also burned the Quran.
[0:24] While the refugee claimed his act wasn't against Muslims, the politician paired his act
[0:30] with an antiimmigrant speech. So should these two Quran burning incidents be examined together
[0:37] or an isolation? They come from very different streams of thought. Salivan Mormika,
[0:42] he's coming from a place where he's talking about liberalizing. Rasmus Paludan comes
[0:47] from a place where he is actually an Islam of hope. And to these
[0:52] incidents for feet and sabotag Sweden's bid to join nature, this Qoran desperation will
[0:59] ensure that the bid is held up for longer than Sweden would have wanted.
[1:06] Hello, I'm anna PREDESSIONI with India to Day TV's foreign affairs editor Geta Mohan,
[1:11] where with Geta's astute and incisive crasp of world affairs, we delve into
[1:17] all that is urgent and pressing in world politics and comprehend how these developments in
[1:22] other countries could shape India's global ambitions of being a Vishwa Guru. Let's unravel
[1:29] Geta's World. Well, this is the fifty first episode of Githa's World and
[1:36] Geeta is joining me via zoom. And you know, this is not the
[1:40] usual day that we record. You We usually record on the either Mondays or
[1:45] Tuesdays, and the episode is already up by Tuesday, which was yesterday,
[1:49] But this time around due to you know, some unavoidable reasons. I think
[1:53] those are unavoidable reasons for basically the SCU summits and multiple you know, like
[1:59] multiple meetings and conferences scheduled in lives that Gaeta has to do. So Gata
[2:05] would be better to explain that, Hi, Hannah, apologies to our listeners
[2:09] because yesterday, that is Tuesday, when our podcast on a regular basis falls
[2:17] or is uploaded, it could not happen because of the SCO summit, and
[2:23] it kept me busy from very early in the morning too very late in the
[2:28] night because the joint statement wouldn't come. We kept waiting for the Joint Community
[2:34] till very late in the night and in the meanwhile, there were too many
[2:38] conversations, too many statements. I was reporting all day and right filing my
[2:44] copies. Apologies that we have a bigger story, and a very important one
[2:47] at that to discuss. Actually yes, I mean, as you say that,
[2:52] better late than never. So yeah, so here we are we although
[2:57] it's like a different topic. I don't know if for many of the listeners
[3:00] would be familiar because from the Indian context, they've been France riots and of
[3:07] course, like Gata mentioned, the Seo summits that have dominated the new space.
[3:13] But while all this was happening, there was something crucial that happened in
[3:17] Sweden. So this time around we've decided that, you know, we'll be
[3:21] focusing on that. A little bit of brief as to what happened. So
[3:25] on the day of Eath, an incident occurred outside the Stockholm Mosque in Sweden
[3:31] that sparked up protest. So a man called Selvan Momaker, he is an
[3:37] Iraqi refugee, he engaged in an insulting act that's being claimed by setting a
[3:44] blaze some pages of the Holy Quran and desecrating it with a strip of bacon.
[3:50] Earlier this year during a protest outside the Turkish embassy in Stockholm. Another
[3:55] politician I mean another man is a politician called Rasmus Paludan. He is a
[4:02] politician from the Danish far right Stramkers hardline party who also burned a copy of
[4:10] Kuran. Now Paalaudan's actions were preceded by public rallies where he made where he
[4:15] had made threats to burn the Kuran, resulting in riots. Sweden's response to
[4:20] these incidents is a matter of scrutiny which will be discussing because while condemning the
[4:26] Quran burnings, the state has not takes stringent actions against the individuals involved,
[4:30] and this has indeed upset the Islamic nations for obvious reasons. Now, this
[4:35] discrepancy between condemnation and enforcement raises questions about the government stance and its commitment to
[4:42] combating Islamophobia. So this episode, Geeta and I will delve into the meaning
[4:48] of meaning behind these acts, exploring whether they solely indicate Islamophobia or if there
[4:55] are you know, deeper messages at play. Will also examine Sweden's response response
[5:00] to these incidents and assess their potential impact on the country's aspirations to join NATO,
[5:06] which is the very like the larger picture here the larger questionnaire Sagita laying
[5:12] out the basics. First, you know these two incidents. One happened in
[5:15] January when a far right politician burned the Quran and he was actually you know,
[5:20] he gave an anti immigrant speech, while this other incident, where an
[5:26] Iraqi refugee burned the Quran, he did not give any inflammatory speech. Rather,
[5:30] he said that you know, this is democracy. It is in danger
[5:33] if they tell us we cannot do this, and we are going to say,
[5:38] wake up Sweden, this is democracy and it will be in danger if
[5:42] they say we cannot do it. That's that towards his court. And he
[5:45] also added that you know, we are not fighting against Muslims, but against
[5:48] their thoughts. We are not against Muslims. We are on their side.
[5:53] That's what he said. So I was wondering that should these incidents, although
[5:58] the act is similar, but the kind of comments that they have made.
[6:01] One was anti immigrant, one was on democracy. Should these two incidents be
[6:05] looked at in isolation or And also one factor that the politician Rasmus Paladan he
[6:13] burned the Quran outside the Turkish embassy, while this one, the Iraqi refugee,
[6:18] he burned it outside a mosque, the Stockholm Mosque and Momica. The
[6:25] man, the Iraqi refugee, he fled to Sweden from Iraq several years ago,
[6:29] and he said that, you know, he was burning the Quran to
[6:31] express his opinion about the Islamic Holy Book. And I read it somewhere that
[6:35] in his Instagram page, he has said that the idea behind the burning of
[6:43] the Quran is to highlight the freedom of speech in Sweden. And he also
[6:46] identifies as a secular liberal atheist. And in future he has planned to you
[6:53] know, burn the Iraqi flag and the Quran in front of the Iraqi embassy
[6:58] in Stockholm. So should we look at the separately in isolation or you know,
[7:01] there's a there's a common theme that is binding them together. See.
[7:05] Um, let's begin with the basics on what happened and why it happened.
[7:12] You see, there is a condemnation that came in from the Swedish government as
[7:15] well. So Swedish government also was not happy with this entire incident, Hannah.
[7:20] But where did the where did this uh one immigrant and a politician get
[7:27] the power to do what they did. That is this desecration of a holy
[7:32] book and hurting the religious sentiments of an attire community, not just in the
[7:39] country, but also outside of the country across the world. It comes from
[7:43] the powers that were given through the court. Now because the matter went to
[7:48] court and the court said, well under freedom of speech, uh there that
[7:55] they are allowed to. Uh that nobody can disallow stop somebody from burning the
[8:03] holy book. Is the reason why you've seen the kind of action by this
[8:07] man and then the obviously the reaction and the responses. But how did it
[8:13] happen and all the all the criticism for the Swedish authorities in the government and
[8:20] their failure to prevent the Quran burning protests is a matter of concern, will
[8:24] be a matter of debate, and the impact of that would be felt by
[8:30] Sweden more more than anyone else. And Anna you think Sweden would not be
[8:33] aware of the fact that this would have massive repercussions on Sweden's bid for NATO
[8:39] membership, Sweden's standing in in the international platform, Uh, Sweden's positioning of
[8:50] respecting minorities and uh, you know rights of minorities, not really so they
[8:58] knew about it. But if the court orders or allows something, then it
[9:03] has to go through due process, which means challenging that would that would that
[9:09] have meant anything for the administration, because one it would have been a long
[9:13] dround process, and if the courts have already decided on grounds of the basic
[9:16] constitution of the country, then there is not much that can be done.
[9:20] So, yes, it was allowed. The permission was given so and the
[9:26] only pretext under which Sweden could have stopped it was security reasons, right,
[9:33] But the failure was also because there haven't been There hasn't been a massive outreach
[9:39] within Sweden. There haven't been protests as such within Sweden. We've seen protests
[9:45] outside Swedish embassy in Turkey, in Ira so on and so forth, but
[9:50] not much when it comes to within Sweden. So I think that that that
[9:56] that basic pretext as to why and how Sweden allowed this to happen should be
[10:03] put out there, because yes, it was a failure. Yes the government
[10:07] should have taken a stand in a position that desperation of holy books or hurting
[10:11] religious sentiments is against the basic principles of any country and constitution, irrespective of
[10:22] whether it is allowed as freedom of speech, and expression or not. But
[10:28] yes, the fact that courts allowed it is something that ANNA countries should consider.
[10:33] Although we know that the OYC that's the Organization of Islamic Nations Countries Islamic
[10:41] Cooperation, they certainly will not and have not taken very kindly to the incident
[10:48] and also are now questioning Sweden. So the Swedish government is being condemned,
[10:54] being called condemned for the failure to contain an islam for we act. But
[11:01] and the desecration did take place in Sweden, but the consequences are for the
[11:07] Swedish government to bear. No, I understand that, but I mean I
[11:11] was asking whether these two incidents guita. Yes, you know, the act
[11:16] is similar. The act is saying that both of them, when a far
[11:18] right politician was involved in Quran burning, then the latest incident when an Iraqi
[11:24] refugee does the same. But the kind of speeches, you know, when
[11:28] they said when they committed the act. Both these incidents, do you think
[11:33] both of them have like a similar agenda and like a similar you know message
[11:39] to circulate? Do you think that because one on one hand, you know,
[11:43] a far right politician is talking about is giving an anti immigrant speech,
[11:48] and on the other the Iraqi refugee is saying that, you know, we
[11:50] are not against Muslim Muslims, We are not fighting against them. We are
[11:54] fighting against their thoughts. And I mean saying that it's it's democracy and this
[11:58] is democracy. It will be in danger if they say we cannot do this.
[12:03] So what is your sense, well, Ana, The thing is that
[12:07] they come from very different streams of thought. If you go ask the immigrant
[12:13] Salvan Momika about what his opinions are of Rasmus Paluddin, you will realize that
[12:20] he will have much hatred for the man because they come He's coming from a
[12:26] place where he's talking about liberalizing. Yeah, Rasmus Paladan comes from a place
[12:31] where he is actually an islam of pope. He is a man who comes
[12:37] from a place of hatred towards Muslims and Islam. So they are very different
[12:43] in why they're questioning the book or why the desiparation took place. The messaging
[12:50] is also for the immigrant. It has to do with changes he left his
[12:58] own own country many years ago, and yes, a lot of questions about
[13:05] ethnic clashes, sectarian clashes, what Islam brought to his life or you know,
[13:11] the destruction he's seen all through his life. Very different from Rasmus Paladan,
[13:20] who actually advocates that Islam is the worst form of religion right and also
[13:30] that the place where they come from, while his is a social liberal or
[13:37] more progressive you know, in many ways. I'm sorry, but but that's
[13:41] how many would look at it in terms of what he's questioning the immigrant But
[13:46] Rasmus Paladan comes from a very political agenda. Look where did they burn the
[13:54] Mormiker burned the Quran outside a moss It was messaging. It is messaging,
[14:01] clear messaging as to what the motive, the intention or the messaging is not
[14:07] liked by all. You have to respect religious sentiments, even if you're trying
[14:11] to question a book, question, a religion question the basis of where the
[14:18] you know, religion derives its strength and its ideology from. On the other
[14:24] hand, Rasmus Paladan burned the Holy Book outside the Turkish embassy in Sweden.
[14:31] That is a very very strong political statement. Also because why is that a
[14:39] political statement is because Sweden's bid for Nature membership is being stopped by one country,
[14:46] and that is Turkey, and actually Turkey and hungry booth. But turn
[14:52] hungry, hungry can shift victor Obah might ship or good shift. Turkey has
[14:58] made it very clear that Sweden's Sweden harboring and allowing space to PEKK is a
[15:07] problem for them and that till the time this continues that uh and there is
[15:11] no assurance of any action, that there is going to be no forward movement
[15:16] on a Sweden's bid. So what was what was Rasmus Palodan doing he was
[15:22] messaging to Turkey, you know, this is hatred towards Islam, towards Muslims
[15:31] and also questioning Turkey because Turkey has been very clear that should this continue,
[15:37] should the should what they call Kurdish militants, but basically are people who fled
[15:45] uh their their own countries uh and took took asylum or you know, are
[15:54] being harbored or are now living in Sweden are members of the stand Workers Party
[16:00] or the PKK. And many of them, according to Turkey um that PKK
[16:07] was involved in a in an a failed pool in twenty sixteen. So for
[16:12] them this is a national security issue. So if Sweden becomes a Nature member,
[16:18] how will Turkey field protected as a natural member If a member state is
[16:23] harboring militants according to them, they who who who are militants to them in
[16:29] their own country. So this is a this is a huge issue between Turkey
[16:33] and Sweden. It's looks like a slippery slope. Yeah, yeah, because
[16:37] if it was, if it was about just stopping then the Sweden and Finland
[16:41] both had had pitched and then guard it. The Hungary did not stop it.
[16:48] If it was only because of Russia, then Hungary would have blocked Finland's
[16:52] bid as well. And in nature, it is all about consensus, so
[16:56] it is not more about Hungary or here. It is about Turkey. That
[17:00] Turkey is going to block the bid. And now with this recent incident of
[17:07] Quran burning, it seems like it's only getting worse, Yes, just getting
[17:11] worse. Yeah. Actually, and I come to that, come to the
[17:15] NATO part a bit later as because this is the larger question here. But
[17:18] you know, when you mentioned that both the both the acts and the persons
[17:25] who have committed the same act come from you know, two different streams of
[17:29] thoughts. So on that line, you know, and just him playing the
[17:33] devil's advocate here, you know, is the fact because this both the acts,
[17:37] they are painting it under the brush under this islamophobic brush. So I
[17:41] want to concentrate on this. That is the fact that you know, Sweden
[17:45] allowed the protest to happen. It's legally mandated and everything. And US had
[17:51] this entire thing saying that it's legally mandated, mandated, but it's not appropriate
[17:56] and everything. That's what they quoted. But is the fact that you know
[18:00] Sweden allowed the protest to happen the sign of a reformed and progressive society.
[18:06] When you consider a society you know that doesn't let religion take precedence over freedom
[18:12] of speech and expression, to be progressive. Because the reason I say this
[18:18] is because from what I read Geither, you know, I understood that the
[18:22] law in Sweden does not allow the police to preemptively, you know, stop
[18:27] a protest from happening, just on the mayor suspicion that someone might break the
[18:33] law. And you know, at a time when most democracies are witnessing,
[18:37] you know, a clamping down on civil descent and protests, Sweden is the
[18:41] country where giving permission for protest is the norm and not the exception, which
[18:48] is why in February, while the police had denied this person permission to you
[18:53] know, burn the Quran outside the embassy. In in April, an administrative
[19:00] quote overturned that ban, saying that the right to assembly and peaceful protest is
[19:06] protected under constitutional law. So the point being that, you know, like
[19:11] one way of looking at this is this whole thing of countries having blasphemy laws
[19:15] and then instances such as the ones in India and Pakistani, you know,
[19:21] where people are lynched for desecrating religious symbols. So the whole thing of blasphemy
[19:27] comes about when the followers of that particular religion are insecure where they feel threatened
[19:33] by anyone and everyone. Now, blasphemy could be could also be seen as
[19:37] a few religious clerics, you know, dictating the rules for all followers of
[19:41] that religion and thus deciding to punish the non believers. So compared to what
[19:48] happens in other democracies and hate crimes and lynchings in the name of religion,
[19:52] should we be really condemning Sweden, which prioritizes the people's right to protest above
[19:59] everything thing, you know, because this protester the Iraqi refugees from Iraq,
[20:03] which has been described as an and as in the Islamic militant theocracy and has
[20:08] stated reason for burning the Quran. He himself comes from a place, you
[20:12] know where he's seen how those who are preaching Islam are human rights abuses.
[20:18] So what do you make of this? Well interesting question, interestingly putana,
[20:22] But my counter question would be have we seen Bible being burnt in Sweden?
[20:27] And if he haven't, then how do you know what the repercussions of that
[20:30] really would have been within the country. Courts might have allowed it. Point
[20:37] the Swedish government might have not been able to do anything because their laws allow
[20:42] it. But is Sweden a neutral country in terms of religion? Do they
[20:49] do the people who they're not practiced religion? What is the definition of secularism?
[20:53] There are two definitions of secularism Anna. One is for secularism for a
[20:59] state, you know, a secular state. I'm not talking about secularism in
[21:02] terms of English language. In when a state recognizes itself as a secular state,
[21:07] there are two definitions. One is you're secular in way of respecting all
[21:14] religions and treating all religions as equal, or the other where you do not
[21:19] recognize any religion. Does sw do not recognize any religion? Or does Sweden
[21:26] respect all religions. I think if it is respecting all religions and freedom,
[21:33] then we will have to question what would Sweden and the people of Sweden have
[21:37] done, especially people like Rasmus Paladan, who's a politician. Should an entire
[21:44] Islamic group come out and burn the Holy Book of the Christians, which is
[21:52] the Bible, what would what would they have done? Then? So anna
[21:57] the fact that at the end of the day we are we live in a
[22:03] global village. Every country now has a lot of diversity. There are diverse
[22:08] people culturally, religiously, community wise, and if you're a country that wants
[22:15] to show freedom of expression and honor it, it has to be also within
[22:21] the realms of not hurting sentiments. Also, when it comes to messaging,
[22:26] you see a lot of women, a lot of women who have suffered at
[22:30] the hands of authoritarian regimes in various countries and the name of religion, particularly
[22:36] Islam, have gone ahead and done a lot of things to rebel when they
[22:40] go out, but you would not find them desecrating and disrespecting, because if
[22:45] you're a follower, or if you're a Muslim, if you're not even a
[22:49] follower and you stopped following in a religion does not give anybody to the right
[22:56] to hurt others religious sentiments by burning. You can keep questioning that also would
[23:02] have been blasphemous if the man would have gone outside and done, you know,
[23:07] made statements, opened the book, talked about each paragraph, you know,
[23:11] saying that this is wrong, this is wrong about the book. But
[23:14] tearing, desecrating, burning, is you being disrespectful? Which country should really
[23:18] allow such things to happen in the name of freedom of expression? I'm only
[23:23] asking this is because we do not know what Sweden's or the reaction of the
[23:27] people of Sweden would be should this happen to a religion that they follow.
[23:33] And that's when you have to see where what the politicians would do, because
[23:37] everybody has a vote bank. What would the politicians do? Would they sit
[23:40] quietly and allow these so called you know, he's an anti immigrant, so
[23:45] these so called immigrants coming to their country, to their land, and then
[23:49] questioning their religion. You instead of talking about fairness and equality and what the
[23:55] constitution says. Sometimes, as in the case of Judiciary, they played by
[24:00] year oldso they see the changing times and a lot of your laws. Then
[24:06] have to be modified according to changing times. Here, I know it's going
[24:10] backwards where we're saying honor, respect religion, secularism, you know, so
[24:14] on and so forth. Where if it should exist in the manner of not
[24:17] recognizing religion or exist in a manner of respect for all religions, I think
[24:23] right now, with such a polarized world where everybody is only wearing his or
[24:30] her religion as a badge of honor, it's the latter that becomes more important,
[24:34] where you have a respect rather than not recognize. Yeah, I mean
[24:38] very interestingly put and the counteract reactions in fact, yeah, but also Hanna,
[24:45] look at the reactions. Both Francis came out and has condemned and lamented
[24:49] the incident. We have the entire Muslim world, but forget about the Muslim
[24:56] world. The United Nations has debate the issue. No, they're also going
[25:03] to debate the issue. So the United Nations Human Rights Council will be holding
[25:07] an urgent meeting on the burning of this this Quran burning incident, and the
[25:14] debate apparently will be taking place later this week, which was announced on Tuesday,
[25:21] which is when our podcast was to be recorded. But they are going
[25:26] to hold an emergency meeting, so it is a matter of grave concern.
[25:30] And while with the entire West Asian, you know, a lot what they
[25:37] call Middle East have come together and not only put out statements, but I've
[25:42] also called the UN to hold a debate. Clearly shows that there is global
[25:48] momentum and mobilization to put this entire thing in its place. So one immigrant
[25:56] doing it or a politician doing it country should realize that this is not an
[26:03] acceptable behavior. If you want to question, question, if you want to
[26:07] argue, argue, if you do not like something about a religion, please
[26:11] go ahead. But if you go and step into the boundary of those who
[26:17] practice the religion and desecrate what they consider holy, then that becomes a problem.
[26:23] Yeah, no, I understand, And you know, I like you
[26:26] when you were saying I just recounted earlier conversations and when you said that the
[26:33] UN would be debating on this, but it's I don't think it would be
[26:37] tone deaf for me to say this that such a thing that of course it's
[26:41] very serious, has you know, garnered a lot of condemnation and the the
[26:45] OYC is deeply offended and I'm not against it, but like we have discussed
[26:51] so much of the plight of you know, the weager Muslims, the refugees,
[26:56] the anti immigrant sentiment that has been very palpable in Europe, but that
[27:02] has not seen so much of attraction that this has, which clearly, like
[27:07] you said, you know that this is a global village and the kind of
[27:11] the urgency that we give to certain things, certain incidents, that also says
[27:17] a lot of things. So coming back to your like when you are explaining,
[27:22] you know how this is self forefeitting, like you are protesting outside a
[27:26] Turkish embassy, so it's kind of like you're just sabotaging your you know,
[27:33] chances of getting through the native bit and everything. But I was also trying
[27:37] to understand, like to add to what you said, and like, why
[27:41] does you know Sweden, a country whose native bid is being held up by
[27:45] Turkey, engaging in such acts that could potentially further jeopardize as chances of joining
[27:52] NATO, Because you know, by propagating such extremist acts, what does it
[27:56] show about the Sweden's governments? You know, priority that they know that.
[28:02] Of course they're not familiar of the repercussions, but like you said, it's
[28:07] a scot mandated. The police is not intervening like it's willing to sabotage its
[28:11] NATO bid and compromise their safe chance of you know, entering into this alliance.
[28:18] But they need to be also outright on its islamophobic ideals. So what's
[28:23] the balance and what's the kind of priority that they are you know, kind
[28:26] of an envisaging through this so um, you know, this has this has
[28:32] to do not just with Sweden, but quite a few countries in Europe who
[28:36] took on immigrants, most of them seeking asylum, so on and so forth,
[28:40] into their country, gave them home and did not realize the repercussions.
[28:47] There shouldn't have been any actually in an ideal world, Anna, but we
[28:51] don't live in an ideal world. There are enemies. Anybody who questions a
[28:56] government an authoritarian regime is considered a militant or a rebel and has to flee
[29:03] for his or her life and go seek asylum. Unfortunately, in countries far
[29:08] far away from their motherland, it's not a happy situation. Nobody wants to
[29:12] be a refugee, nobody wants to be an immigrant, and they end up
[29:18] being that. And in this case also many of the Kurdish people and the
[29:25] Kurdish People's Democratic Party the HDP or the PKK sort asylum or moved to Sweden,
[29:33] and today they have become an important part, some of them quite influential
[29:37] as well, and very close to the to some of the Swedish lawmakers as
[29:42] well. It becomes impossible then for the country to then suddenly throw these people
[29:48] out or extradite them without grounds when they know that that there is a threat
[29:55] to the life of the people who would be extradited or who who are being
[30:00] demanded to be extradited by a third country or their own parent country that's the
[30:07] motherland in this case, Turkey wants extradition of these leaders. But yes,
[30:11] look at the end of the day, Sweden is looking at its own interests
[30:15] as well. And they are not Sweden born or Swedish nationals per se.
[30:22] Originally they were all immigrants who came quite a few of them now naturalized citizens
[30:27] or second generation third generation right. But look at what the Swedish courts have
[30:33] done. On the one hand, while they allowed under the fear thing of
[30:37] freedom of expression and freedom of speech, allowed desperation of the Quran. On
[30:42] the other hand, because the move to become a native member is continue.
[30:49] Turkey has continued to hold up and Sweden desperately wants to be a part of
[30:56] the military alliance. They went to the Supreme Court to ensure that there are
[31:00] no obstacles in the extradition and that you know, they wanted to see whether
[31:07] or whatever the court proceedings for extradition took place, where in the Swedish courts
[31:15] or Sweden decided that to extra extradite some of the self proclaimed PEKK supporters,
[31:25] which Turkey had demanded that they be extracited. So that certainly is quite interesting.
[31:30] On the one hand, you're talking about freedom of expression, freedom of
[31:33] speech, but on the other hand you're okay extraditing people who's freedom of speech,
[31:40] freedom of expression, freedom to live could be curtailed. So each to
[31:45] his own self interest is quite evident in quite a few places. But yes,
[31:51] Sweden still has did take a very strong stand for the longest. They
[31:53] said that it will have to go by the books and the laws of the
[31:59] land. And while Aunkara has accused Stockholm of not doing enough to crack down
[32:05] on these members of the you know, Koordistan Workers Party or what they call
[32:08] it PKK and are those whom Turkey considers as extremists. Uh, there there
[32:15] is a desperation or in terms of Sweden wanting to really be admitted in the
[32:22] military alliance before the Lithuania summit, and so they are looking and then the
[32:28] Swedish Justice Ministry um is did take their time matter to court and ensuring that
[32:36] there is endorsement. And so the ruling by Sweden's High Court to extradite this
[32:43] individual that Turkey wants is something that clearly shows that asper demand and you know
[32:52] individual demand or demand of individuals or convicted persons. Unkara will keep sending a
[32:59] list and then they will have to keep looking at it and then maybe approving
[33:02] or not clearing. But if they keep approving because their entire membership is now
[33:08] being held hostage by Turkey, yeah, there could be severe and a series
[33:16] of extradition from Sweden to Turkey. And that's only one part of the story.
[33:22] At the end of the day, we are talking about a country that
[33:25] is facing problems. But this Quran desperation will I think to a certain extent
[33:31] ensure that that the bid is held up for longer than than Sweden would have
[33:39] wanted. Longer or like what never happened because when you mentioned Turkey, sorry,
[33:45] when you mentioned was never in foreign policy? Okay, how can I
[33:52] forget? But you know, when you mentioned the NATO bid and we're talking
[33:55] about Finland and Sweden boats both of their bids were you know, at hold
[34:02] by Turkey and Hungary. But then Finland has now joined NATO. But I
[34:07] remember that Turkey accused the two Nordic no nations, like Finland and Sweden,
[34:13] both of harboring members of the PKK. Now Finland has joined NATO, but
[34:19] one you know, he has made clear that Swedish delegations should not bother,
[34:23] you know, going to Ankara, the Turkey's capital, to convince them,
[34:28] you know, to approve for Sweden's NATO bid. So as a matter of
[34:32] fact, like Sweden has criticized Turkey for human rights abuses and over democratic standards
[34:38] and everything, and this is of course urged Ankara. But if Finland,
[34:44] Finland's bid was approved, you said Hungry had approved it. So if like
[34:50] you really think that harboring cod I'm not saying Hungary, no, no,
[34:52] no, I'm not saying Hungry approved it. Hungary has not. But the
[34:57] fact that Hungary was okay with Finland, Turkey did not have a problem with
[35:01] and it's sailed through. If you see where is Hungry holding their bids hostage?
[35:07] Hungary is holding the bids hostage for Russia because the victor of barn is
[35:13] close to Putin. So if Hungary had to hold the bids, the country
[35:20] would have held both the bids, not Finland and Sweden, not just Sweden.
[35:24] How did Finland go through and not Sweden is because Sweden is being held
[35:29] by Turkey. So now it is Hungry and Turkey for now it makes sense
[35:34] for them. But if it was only Russia was the factor and Hungary was
[35:37] the only factor, then Hungary would have then Sweden or Finland also would have
[35:43] been left out in the lurch too. Oh no, no, I got
[35:46] that, but I correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just thinking if Turkey,
[35:51] you know, has accused both the Nordic nations, Finland and Sweden of
[35:54] harboring members of the PKK, then if this is the reason, then you
[36:00] know that Turkey is citing that. You know with this logic, No,
[36:02] Turkey is not. Turkey has not named Finland. Turkey is only named Sweden
[36:07] for harboring antique Turkey elements and which is why they were They were reluctantly but
[36:15] nevertheless allowed Finland. But they're quite helpent on Sweden not getting entry. Okay,
[36:22] and uh guita. Regarding the NATO bid, uh you know, it
[36:27] was being speculated earlier that if Turkey's elections would not see either one again and
[36:34] like as in if the opposition one had if if it would have won,
[36:38] it would have you know, boost Sweden's chances of a quick accession into the
[36:43] NATO. But now that's out of the picture. You said that yes,
[36:47] NATO's bid is to be kept that whole, but never say never, that's
[36:52] what you said. Uh So lastly, you know, um, you know,
[36:55] to conclude this conversation, I want to us this that in relation to
[37:01] the incident when Rasmus Fellerran was involved in burning a copy of Quran after he
[37:09] delivered you know, lendy sermon attacking Islam and Swedish immigration, I wanted to
[37:15] understand the broader context of you know, like immigration in Sweden. The country
[37:22] has you know, witnessed a significant influx of asylum seekers, particularly Muslim migrants,
[37:28] who were forced to you know, leave their homes their home countries due
[37:31] to conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War and within you know, within Sweden,
[37:39] Muslim immigrants have often been treated as a marginalized group, with the prevailing
[37:45] sentiment categorizing them as the universal out group. And this current coalition government,
[37:52] which is formed by three Swedish center right parties with the support of the Social
[37:59] Democrats, which just like which is a very populist radical right party, they
[38:04] view multiculturalism as a potential threat to the shared values that define Swedish cultural identity.
[38:15] So I want to understand that given this combination of anti immigration sentiment,
[38:21] the presence of far right groups, and the influence of PKK supporters with you
[38:27] know, autocratic tendency, I want to understand whether this cocktail poses an imminent
[38:34] danger to Swedish as a society. If you could explain that, well,
[38:37] Anna, all countries, if you see today, have become slightly immigrant phobic,
[38:45] so to say, all countries have started saying why should we taken immigrants,
[38:52] especially if they're not from your dominating or dominant religion, And that certainly
[38:58] has become a problem. So all countries, Anna, have increasingly become anti
[39:02] immigrant. Not my problem not my country, not my concern, And this
[39:09] attitude doesn't help if you want to be a very important leader or want to
[39:14] be a part of an important flock in a developing or a developed world.
[39:20] And I'm talking from home point of view outwards to outward, you know,
[39:25] the outside world looking inwards both ways. If you see this immigration and anti
[39:31] immigration, or the far right taking a very strong stand against immigrants within their
[39:37] own country is certainly a problem now with Sweden. Sweden is known to be
[39:44] a country in Europe that welcomed refugees and today with the far right party influencing
[39:52] and increasing its influence, becoming a part of a right wing conservative government coalition,
[40:00] certainly impacted Sweden's migration policy. And if you see the kind of statements
[40:06] that are coming from the leadership of Sweden, including you know, the far
[40:12] right Sweden Democrats, you would realize that the space for immigrants within Sweden is
[40:20] shrinking and it'll shrink further. It's not just Sweden we're looking at, you
[40:24] know, far right wing parties in Denmark and Austria, in Finland, all
[40:34] of these Nordic nations. Is also you know European countries. You're seeing an
[40:40] increasing shrinking of space for immigrants, and you're also seeing an increase and conflagration
[40:47] of conflict in the conflict zones, whether if it is in West Asia or
[40:52] for that matter, in countries like Afghanistan. They are looking for and seeking
[40:58] asylum and the country fees that are willing to give asylum, that space has
[41:02] shrunk, that space is rather reduced today. So in a world where people
[41:08] are not looking at welcoming refugees anymore. Sweden was certainly a country that still
[41:15] allowed it, but now we are seeing a major increase in the anti immigration
[41:22] tendency in Sweden. And you the Paludan and the and politicians like him clearly
[41:30] spell out what the future holds for Sweden. And that's why I that's why
[41:35] I gave the example of this one individual that Turkey wanted and courts have allowed.
[41:42] So will his freedom of expression and freedom of speech, of freedom to
[41:45] live and life, will that be honored and respective? I mean, that's
[41:51] a question that needs to be asked. But this is a this is a
[41:54] topical issue that we will be discussing in times to come as well, because
[41:59] this is something that and you can keep comparing it to various other countries.
[42:04] How is Sweden doing or not doing the fact is that all countries are moving
[42:07] in this direction. It's not just Sweden. So leaving one country because they
[42:13] have a situation right now in their hands, I will do nobody any good.
[42:16] There needs to be a policy stand internationally that countries should take and honor
[42:24] and a tear with regards to how nations should come forward and help those in
[42:30] distress irrespectable religion. You know, when you speak about this, the wave
[42:37] of far right governments and coalitions forming the governments and these Nordic nations and European
[42:45] countries, I just you know, as an asside, I wanted to ask
[42:50] that you know, can we anticipate any because this is a in Sweden.
[42:53] This is this this far right coalition as a newly formed government I think nine
[42:59] or ten months ago. But can we anticipate a shift in the political landscape
[43:05] of Sweden if Turkey the Sweden's bid to NATO is delayed by Turkey? The
[43:12] bid is delayed by Turkey because like when I read it was quite evident and
[43:17] palpable that a significant number of Swedish citizens want Sweden to join NATO. And
[43:24] why I asked this because I remember, you know, we were discussing Brazil
[43:29] and it's a different country altogether, but I remember when we discussed Brazil,
[43:31] you know, where Bold Snaro, a far right authority Asian leader with autocratic,
[43:37] you know tendencies, he ruled the country. And it took considerable effort
[43:42] for Brazil, with its history of military rule, to you know, resist
[43:46] such tendencies and allow the democratic process to unfold. And despite you know,
[43:52] riots and rampant polarization, Brazil managed to save guards to its democracy and prevent
[44:00] a coup. So we saw all that happen, and then Lula was elected,
[44:04] so this was possible, although there's there was an aftermath of when Lula
[44:09] was elected. But and they're saying that owing to the nation's democratic framework,
[44:15] the Sweden's democratic framework, we can we expect a similar political shift in Sweden
[44:20] too or is it too early to say? Um, I think that shift
[44:23] has already happened towards far right wing Sweden. Democrats have gained a lot of
[44:30] grounds since since their inception and today they are a part of the coalition.
[44:39] The anti immigration far right has twenty percent of the vote from general elections and
[44:46] therefore is a very important part of decision making, which clearly shows that they
[44:53] really were part of formulating the anti immigration you know, so to say,
[45:00] policies where they're dissuading people from moving to to do Sweden. In fact,
[45:07] in twenty twenty two, the then Prime minister had actually said that Sweden failed
[45:14] to integrate vast number of migrants or or the immigrants because of the riots that
[45:23] had taken place back then. And now we're talking about shift from a very
[45:30] liberal, open welcoming Sweden to a more stringent, closed, anti immigrant society
[45:39] and the interests now aligned with with far right policy, interests now aligned with
[45:49] the interests of the country. When national interests are at place, Anna and
[45:54] your security could these policies liberal policy could cost your security, then the country
[46:01] starts looking the other way to the atrocities. They do not question or they
[46:07] look at Sweden even after the Quran burning, while their government condemned, they've
[46:13] not done anything to anybody, because that's why the gods, because it came
[46:19] to the courts. And but on the other hand, they're doing whatever they
[46:22] have to and whatever it takes to be a part of the NATO. Why
[46:25] owing to the Russia, Ukraine, World there's a realization that these countries could
[46:30] be next. They border Russia, their stones throw away from Russia when it
[46:36] comes to the waters, and so they see the real threat in the real
[46:40] field. In fact, Finland and Russia share border is a very long border,
[46:45] so they knew and they realized that they could very well be next.
[46:49] So for Sweden to get into NATO as top priority and it aligns with the
[46:57] far right wing idea of being Western, being a certain time, being in
[47:06] a certain block and where national security is paramount. So playing into that I
[47:12] don't see a change, not in the near future is certainly not anna because
[47:16] the near future you will be seeing a long run conflict between Russia and Ukraine,
[47:22] and that will certainly play on the minds of people in Sweden because they
[47:25] are not going to be a part of NATO anytime soon with the Koran deserperation,
[47:30] certainly not so it will take a while and the Swedish administration. While
[47:37] the far right wing might have celebrated the Koran desiperation, a realization that this
[47:43] might not help their goals in the long run. Might stop such incidents from
[47:49] happening, but it is also going to stop people who come to this country
[47:53] and then this entire for the cause of the entire incident itself they want to
[47:59] do away with, and that is having Muslims or people from Islamic nations take
[48:05] asylum in Sweden. So I don't see it moved towards a more liberal structure.
[48:09] I actually see if this war continues, Sweden move towards becoming more conservative,
[48:16] more far right. And while they're twenty percent right now, if security
[48:23] is threatened, then people will or might start moving to vote for these parties
[48:30] that advocate nature membership and anything that is required to be a part of the
[48:36] nature. Well. Yeah, having very interestingly, very interestingly of put because
[48:40] when you say that, you know, Sweden in times to tell because they
[48:45] want to pry. I mean they prioritize the NATO bit so much that they
[48:50] will not take stringent actions in terms of the acts that people are committing,
[48:54] but in terms of the influx of immigrants they want to take a control on
[48:59] that. Let these acts uh never happened, and their need to bid is
[49:05] you know secured. Um. So fun chat, very informative, very interesting.
[49:10] Also, I suppose it was maybe a little delayed. I don't know.
[49:15] I don't know how to see it because we focused a lot of the
[49:19] US visits and this was happening around the same time. Actually, actually,
[49:24] I mean we can't. Yeah, Gita, I think your fear is very
[49:29] well. Thing is that, uh, you know, it's a weekly podcast,
[49:31] so we anyway have to like take one topic at a time. Otherwise,
[49:37] like one topic stretches onto like forty forty five minutes, even if you
[49:39] want to like in thanks to you and your research. Thanks to you,
[49:45] I would I would have confined the conversation maybe to twenty minutes, but you
[49:52] have so many you know, questions and insights sometimes on you know, what
[49:59] you throw up in terms of research. It keeps its time, but it's
[50:04] always interesting and at least our viewers get Those who want to listen to a
[50:09] shorter version can listen to it for twenty minutes, and yet we'll understand where
[50:14] we come from and what we're trying to u inform our listeners of, and
[50:19] those who want to maybe get a more more detailed background and then you know,
[50:23] stay tuned in. I'd say the latter works better for us, but
[50:28] for those who don't have time or or feel the need to listen in only
[50:35] for a shorter period that also works at least it needs minutes remain tuned in
[50:45] for twenty minutes, no, of course and the better. Actually, I
[50:49] what I do with my long version podcast, a long duration one is that
[50:54] I just like increases speed to one point two five x I can you know,
[51:00] listen to the whole conversation. And my time is also a safe So
[51:04] that's what people like me who speak so slowly point two five or one point
[51:12] five, because then with speed you can understand what we're trying to say.
[51:16] And yet you know, not waste time in all my long pauses. I
[51:21] mean, I will not compare myself to will Be Harry watched five, But
[51:23] I'm no less a long pause. Long pauses. What an example you're setting
[51:36] times to say. But thanks so much and to the listeners if you stayed
[51:43] to till the very end with us, let us know what you thought of
[51:45] the of the episode. Was it really you know, dated or was it
[51:51] informative? Let us know. The number is eight five, double eight nine,
[51:53] double six, double line six, and the email id is spots at
[51:58] the rate in there today dot com. So reach out to us and let
[52:01] Kita know if her fear is well founded or not okay, Thank you guys,
[52:09] thank you, thanks Gita, Bye, see you.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.