Ingrid and Maria: Neither of Us Will Ever Be Silenced!

Ingrid Carlqvist and Maria Celander are Swedish journalists who have become virtual outcasts for their politically incorrect opinions, especially those concerning Islam. They are now considered unacceptable “extremists” by mainstream outlets, so they collaborate on a website, “Ingrid and Maria” (Ingrid och Maria). I posted one of their reports in August of 2019.

Full disclosure: I know both of these estimable ladies. I’ve met Ingrid several times, most notably when she gave the country report on Sweden at the second Counterjihad Brussels conference back in 2012. I’ve never met Maria in person, but we have worked together on a number of virtual transatlantic projects over the years.

Ingrid and Maria were notified recently that they have been indicted for “hate speech” — hets mot folkgrupp, which translates roughly as “incitement against a group of people”. Their “crime” was to publish an op-ed about concerns over the employment of large numbers of Muslims who fill prescriptions in Swedish pharmacies.

Below is an interview with Ingrid and Maria about their upcoming court appearance. Many thanks to Tania Groth for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:08   The Swedish journalists Ingrid Carlqvist and Maria Celander are political commentators
00:11   and opinion journalists and run their own website
00:14   This spring they were reported to the police for a “hate crime”,
00:17   known in Sweden as “incitement against an ethnic group,” after they published a story about Islam.
00:21   We talked to them about the indictment, and the situation with free speech in Sweden.
00:25   I started my career in 1996 when I got into the school of journalism,
00:30   and then I went on to the newspaper Kvällsposten, where I met Ingrid.
00:33   So we have worked together since 1997-1998.
00:39   We worked at Aftonbladet, Punkt SE,
00:44   freelanced for Metro, Svenska Dagbladet and so on.
00:49   I got into the school of journalism in 1979,
00:54   when I was 18 years old, and have worked for several newspapers.
00:59   So together we have 60 years of experience in journalism.
01:03   How would you say that the professional role of the journalist
01:07   has changed during the last five years?
01:10   We started to notice that already ten years ago, and that’s why we left the mainstream media.
01:15   I was working the night shift at Aftonbladet and discovered that
01:18   they were not interested in the truth anymore.
01:21   The editors decided every angle, and the reporters had to work until they found that angle.
01:27   That was not at all the case when I started as a reporter.
01:30   Back then, my boss would send me out on a job, and when I came back I could tell him:
01:33   “You were totally wrong, it was completely different from what you said.” And he would say:
01:36   “OK, then write that!” And now that [attitude] is totally gone.
01:41   How do you think the public trust in journalists has changed?
01:47   Oh, very much. Around 2010 we both started to notice
01:54   that the reporting wasn’t fair anymore.
02:02   I was working at the news agency TT then, and the angle was given to me in advance.
02:10   Reality didn’t seem to matter as much.
02:13   It was more about hiding things than telling the truth.
02:17   Was this in any specific area?
02:20   Especially the news reporting.
02:24   It is supposed to be objective and mirror reality, unpleasant as that might be.
02:32   You are supposed to find the relevant facts,
02:35   but both Ingrid and I noticed that many facts were concealed because they were uncomfortable.
02:43   So at that point it was more of an editorial problem,
02:48   but what has happened in recent years is that it has become a societal problem,
02:53   where people share their opinions on the internet, and are then indicted for “hate crimes” —
02:57   and now this has happened to you? Can you tell me a bit about what has happened
03:00   that you have been indicted on the charge of “incitement against a minority group”?
03:04   Yes. We have warned about Islam for many years,
03:10   because it is a new force in our country and politicians and journalists bow to it.
03:18   We know a lot about Islam, and we have talked about it from different angles for ten years,
03:22   because it is a new force in our country and politicians and journalists bow to it.
03:26   And then we were sent this op-ed from a person who is ill,
03:33   and who had thought a lot about what will happen
03:36   now that so many Muslims work in pharmacies. You see hijabs everywhere.
03:40   And this woman had thought about what might happen if there is a shortage of medicine in the pharmacies.
03:45   The fact is that Muslims have a duty to put
03:50   their Muslim brothers and sisters before the kafirs.
03:55   She speculated about what might happen if they hoard medicine for their own,
04:00   and she therefore might not be able to obtain the medicines she and other Swedes need.
04:05   And we think this a totally reasonable dilemma that we must be allowed to discuss.
04:12   You thought it was for the good of society that this discussion was put on the table?
04:16   Of course! There are so many things about Islam that nobody wants to discuss.
04:21   Just look at the Quran burning that the Dane, Rasmus Paludan, was planning.
04:25   There are so many things about Islam that Swedes don’t understand and don’t want to understand,
04:30   because they don’t want to realize that there is an ideology
04:34   worse than Nazism that already affects our society in a very negative way.
04:39   We Swedes are always told that we are so racist,
04:44   but has anybody been indicted for saying that WE are racist?
04:49   No! There is one group that has this extra protection and that is the Muslims.
04:55   So you published this op-ed on your website and then what happened?
05:02   Quite some time passed, half a year I think,
05:09   and then suddenly we were informed that someone had reported it as a possible hate crime.
05:18   Then Ingrid was questioned by the police,
05:24   but we did not really think they were going to pursue it.
05:30   We thought it was on very loose grounds.
05:34   But after a few months I was also summoned by the police,
05:39   and a week ago we were informed that we have been indicted.
05:44   The trial will be held in Helsingborg on November 2.
05:50   Normally when people write [prosecutable] things
05:56   on social media, it is the writer that gets indicted.
06:02   But in your case, you didn’t write this op-ed, you just published it.
06:07   Why are the authorities focusing on you and not the person who wrote it?
06:15   If that’s the norm, then for example Facebook ought to be indicted
06:19   for what people write on their platform!
06:22   Yes, one would think so.
06:25   However, the Swedish law about incitement against an ethnic group
06:31   says that the person who distributes the message is responsible.
06:37   So basically that’s why they are coming after us.
06:43   Another very sinister wording in this law, is that you don’t actually have to
06:49   incite actively against a group; all that is required is that you have shown contempt.
06:55   And what is that? It’s a very wide concept, and in the long run
07:02   this means that if someone feels offended by something, then it’s illegal/criminal.
07:09   And that means you can never know what’s legal to write about, and what isn’t.
07:14   And we believe this is a serious journalistic dilemma because the whole point of journalism
07:22   is to problematize and provoke and put the spotlight on problems and phenomena.
07:30   Of course that means someone might get offended; that goes for all journalism.
07:36   So, if this development is allowed to continue,
07:40   we are in deep trouble concerning free speech in Sweden.
07:45   Have they told you in what way you have shown contempt?
07:51   No. They have not shown us which part of the article it is.
07:56   And I want to say, we are journalists, we know this job.
08:00   We scrutinized the article and removed some wording because we thought it was too harsh.
08:06   And when that was done we came to the conclusion that this is a dilemma
08:10   that we need to be able to shed light on and discuss.
08:14   And the reason they are coming after us, as you say, why aren’t Facebook responsible
08:21   for what people write on their platform, even though they are the ones
08:26   spreading the messages, is that they want to send a signal:
08:30   If they can come after two journalists, even though we are now non grata
08:35   in the mainstream media because we are doing the job they stopped doing,
08:40   they can shut others up.
08:43   They think we are a nuisance because we know so much about Islam, we talk about it,
08:48   we understand what is going on, and we see how the media is distorting reality.
08:54   We can see through it, we were there, we know how they do it. That’s why they want to silence us.
08:59   But I can promise you that they have come after the wrong journalists!
09:03   Neither of us will ever be silenced!
09:06   What has also happened is that Swedish authorities are coming after journalists
09:12   who get donations from their audience, and tax them. Will you be affected by this?
09:19   That threat is always hanging over our heads. But we maintain that the donations we get
09:23   are not taxable because it’s political work, and that is tax-exempt in Sweden.
09:32   We don’t do conventional news journalism, we only do op-eds.
09:41   Are you worried that free speech is threatened in Sweden?
09:48   Absolutely! Just look at the latest incident with
09:54   the [purportedly illegal] Quran burning in Malmö; that shows that the noose is tightening.
10:02   The groups who shout the loudest, and that are violent,
10:06   can get anything they want just by threatening violence.
10:10   It’s a major problem, as we see it.
10:13   The Swedish constitution says that everyone has a right to organize public meetings,
10:17   but we now see that demonstrations against Islam will be forbidden everywhere
10:23   in Scania [Southern Sweden]. What do you think about that?
10:28   It’s horrible. You might say that we already have Sharia law in Sweden,
10:33   or at least parts of Sharia, the Islamic Law.
10:37   Because according to Sharia it is forbidden to criticize Islam,
10:42   to mock Muslims or laugh at them. The penalty is death.
10:47   I don’t think we will start executing people, but you could say that Sweden
10:52   is already following Sharia in the sense that it is forbidden to criticize Islam.
10:57   This prosecutor who is dragging you to court,
11:01   has she done things like this before?
11:09   She has. Her name is Linda Seger, and she is the one
11:13   who put the street artist Dan Park in prison for his art.
11:17   It is the special hate crime section of the police that’s been coming after us…
11:26   and that is the department that gets the most resources nowadays.
11:33   They have a bunch of police officers hunting down people
11:38   who commit thought crimes, while rapists and murderers are running free.
11:43   How will you prepare for the trial?
11:48   We will build a solid defense with the help of our lawyers,
11:53   and insist that we can’t throw away our free speech
11:58   because someone might feel offended.
12:03   That’s not reasonable in a democracy. We have great confidence
12:10   in our lawyers and will specifically argue just that.
12:19   What would you like to say to the prosecutor
12:22   and the justice system in Sweden?
12:29   Now it’s for real. If you don’t stand up for the things you are supposed to,
12:37   which is to ensure that justice is served, and that we have a legal system
12:42   that upholds the rule of law, then democracy in Sweden will soon evaporate.
12:48   If police officers, prosecutors and judges bow down to Islam,
12:52   and go after people like us who try to warn people about Islam,
12:57   then we are moving towards a totalitarian society. It is really serious now.

4 thoughts on “Ingrid and Maria: Neither of Us Will Ever Be Silenced!

  1. It is good to see Swedes who are standing up to the corrupt authorities, but sad because they will be destroyed in the end.

    Rule of law is already long dead, else this pile of ordure would have never been taken seriously. But the Swedish government (and most Western ones by extension) do not desire rule of law or law-abiding citizens. To quote Ayn Rand,

    “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.”

    Since the organs of the state cannot be ignored with impunity, then that leaves two options. Either depart to another country less far along the path to technocratic neo-feudalism or just stay and meekly comply, or take the fight to them personally. Since the rule of law has been subverted and is no help to the accused, I see the time fast approaching when the rule of the lawless will be required to take the fight to those bureaucrats, judges, political leaders, media personalities, editors, etc and visit upon them physically tit-for-tat what harm they do to innocents caught in their webs.

    I wish those brave women luck, but I wouldn’t put much faith or hope in lawyers and laws.

    • The physical visits are best left to the enemy. You can trust that they will happen — while treason is loved, the traitor is not. Going it alone amounts to sacrifice in most cases and advising others to take extreme risks, i.m.o. is even morally objectionable even if most often done skipping second thought.

      Crucial will be the timing when a large-scale uprising occurs, which will lend support to individual bravery. It needs to happen before the enemy does the same thing and moves to the final takeover, the closer just-in-time, the stronger the argument in subsequent historical review. In the case of Sweden, it doesn’t look too good right now on superficial examination, but I’ve seen them perform radical turnarounds within the short few years I’ve spent here. As naive as their approach, they are capable of re-inventing themselves when they recognize the need. Unlike my dear Germans who will only ever learn after all is lost.

      • »In the case of Sweden, it doesn’t look too good right now on superficial examination, but I’ve seen them perform radical turnarounds within the short few years I’ve spent here. «

        (Me also from Germany BTW). Did you follow the public discussion in Sweden this year; do you read Swedish? Me thinks, things look better there than at any time in the last 10 years. Segregation, criminality by immigrants are now openly discussed. Of course there is the “deep state” with it’s inertia. But if there were elections now, SD, M, KD — what has got to be called the “conservative block” — would probably get a clear majority and form a new government. Jimmie Åkesson — head of Swedendemocrats — recently said this case he would strive to become minister of justice.

        • Hallo 🙂

          Yes, I read Swedish. To their credit, nowhere else have I experienced such wide differences between public opinion and published opinion. This is one of the things I considered in the assessment that I find them capable of turning this unhealthy trend around.

Comments are closed.