A footnote on Sweden to keep in mind is that there is a rather disorderly row afoot regarding its portrayal. The kingdom's position on matters political makes it a focal point of a vaster system of debate – and an object of much shouting. There are interests at work, here. So, while reading the newspaper, keep in mind:
Do not immediately assume that a piece on Swedish politics is true. However, do not dismiss it as a falsehood.
The kingdom is neither a failing state on the brink, where crime and violence is all-encompassing and the only thing that now matters is to revoke everything for the sake of a woke revenge upon the present.
Nor is it a shining exemplar of progress where all is well and splendid, smeared and calumniated by servants of dark forces within and beyond.
There are problems in legio, and many different interests lies in enlarging or diminishing these, depending on the reflexion they may cast on the parties involved. The image of the nation, and what must be done to preserve or expose it, will undoubtedly become a rather ugly question in the coming years.
As an example, I believe that a cinema once wished to include things such as the Bechel test in their general rating system, presumably to premier pictures that were better at representing their women characters. That, however, was presented here in the aether as a sort of state mandate, that all pictures were to be officially rated by feminist standards.
Mind you, my battered memory is unreliable, but I recall that misunderstanding to be most vexing. Then again, many who simply read the loud head-lines at the time did not seem to care much for a correction. It complemented their picture of the situation, and the correction was rather less snappy.
It is what happens.
As for the rest, I am still chomping the cud. For now, I shall say that I must agree; it cannot be forbidden to criticise or raise a grievance. It may well include a motion to ban or forbid the object in question, which can be met on its own, but a critique on its own? I disagree.
Of course, that is also a part of the reason why it should not be an immediate call for a ban, because it must also be possible to disagree with a criticism raised. Such as a critique should not be read as a demand for a ban, nor should an objection be read as a demand for silence.
One could say that there is an 'implicit' effort of a ban or redaction within a critique, but the terms are sufficiently vague to not build a premise thereupon, for where shall we go, if we thresh out implied wheat and throw assumed chaff? It is a dreary thing, and we have quite enough of it, I shall say.
