In a recent article in the Swedish left leaning daily Aftonblandet, Jan Guillou, a wellknown famous left-wing Swedish author who in the 60 and 70s was involved in Palestinian terror activities, spoke out against freedom of speech. This was done by criticizing the Swedish artist Lars Vilks who recently was attacked by a Muslim mob in Uppsala University when he was trying to promote freedom of expression in art.
According to Guillou, Vilks is not defending Swedish freedom of expression but is rather “systematically out to target those who are easiest to violate, a small minority of hysteric people, loons and unemployed teenagers who are found amongst the half a million immigrants or wog’s that the Swedish democrats and liberal culture debate authors are calling Muslims." These people are vulnerable in Sweden Guillou argues as they don’t have the means to verbally protect themselves, therefore their discontent can [justly] take form in physical violence.
According to Guillou the majority of Muslims would never even think the thought to attack Vilks (he has clearly not seen the angry mobs in Malmö chanting for the death of the Jews, nor the video of Vilks attack were seemingly secular Muslims were throwing curse words and threats against the Swedish police). Vilks attempts to show the public that Sweden upholds freedom of expression was rather, according to Guillou’s conspiracy theory, yet another way to unjustly target the “vulnerable” Muslim community in Sweden.
Instead of going on a political hunting trip against Muslims, Vilks should according to Guillou try to use the same tactic against gays or for example other cultural debate authors.
This has in fact been done in Sweden, there have been caricatures of Jews as well as Christians yet no death threats or violent attacks occurred then. No Swedish flags were burned in Israel nor in the Vatican State. I am more than confident that if Lars Vilks would make a caricature of a gay man, homosexuals around the world would not gather in violently enraged groups and neither try to blow up Swedish embassies nor attempt murder on Vilks.
What Guillou does not seem to understand is that this small fraction of anti-democratic supporters is contributing to dangerous influences in the Swedish society. Vilks does not need to make caricatures of gays and Jews, these are groups which lives peacefully in the Swedish society. A small fraction amongst the Muslims in Sweden the size of which we do not know, on the other hand (clearly emphasizing not all of them) are recruiting members for terrorist organizations and seeks to impose the highly un-secular sharia law in Sweden.
Therefore there is some justification to argue for the necessity of that people such as Vilks do push the boundaries of freedom of expression. This, as it is important for immigrants in Sweden, no matter their religious belonging, to understand that ones in Sweden, one needs to live by the laws of the Swedish state. This of course incorporated perhaps not practicing but accepting freedom of expression as well as secular values.
Vilks is allowed to say and think whatever he wants without being attacked by a mob or having his house subjected to arson. This is something that a political author like Guillou should agree with, instead he chooses to side not only with those that speaks against it, but indirectly also with those who are violent.