The Sweden Democrats are xenophobic, racist, and anti-immigration
This debate is a re-match from a previously unfinished debate
This will be a debate on whether the Sweden Democrats are a xenophobic, racist, and anti-immigration group as claimed by the mainstream Swedish media.
Round 1: Pro's arguments
Round 2: Con's arguments and Pro's rebuttals
Round 3: More arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals and briefely describing why you did better than the opponent, and deserve the vote.
Sweden Democrats: A right-wing political party in Sweden lead by Jimmie Åkesson
Racism: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
Anti-immigration: Opposition to immigration as believing immigration is inheretly bad
Xenophobia: Fear of people from other countries
Round 1: Pro's arguments
Round 2: Con's arguments and Pro's rebuttals
Round 3: More arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals and briefely describing why you did better than the opponent, and deserve the vote.
In this debate, I, the Pro, shall contend that the Sweden Democrats are a xenophobia & anti-immigrant party. As xenophobia encompasses racism, I shall merge these two arguments into one.
Some sources used in this debate will be in Swedish &information was obtained via google translate.
The Sweden Democrats are a nationalist & social conservative party in Sweden. It was founded in 1988 as part of the White Supremacy movement and had close ties with the British National Front, which is why the party used the same logo as the NF until 2006. In the 21st Century, the party has reformed its image and moderated its tone, to the point of expelling Neo-Nazis from the party. They are now the third largest party in the Swedish Parliament.
Contention 1: Xenophobia
Despite the attempts to moderate the party's tone, the Sweden Democrats remain a nationalist party. This is not to say that all nationalists are xenophobes, as Civic nationalists embrace all peoples within a nation regardless of race, culture religion or national origin. The Sweden Democrats, however, are not a civic nationalist party, but an exclusionary nationalist party.
The Sweden Democrats have long used the slogan "keep Sweden Swedish". This slogan is a prime example of xenophobia, as it is clearly expressing opposition to foreign immigrants and cultures. This is used as a major justification for why the party is opposed to integrating immigrants into Sweden, as it would “threaten Swedish tradition”.
The party also believes that all immigrants must adopt Swedish culture, & they must meet a certain level of “Swedishness”. Such an arbitrary requirement is clearly meant to discriminate against foreigners.
This xenophobia does not only apply to foreign immigrants, but also to Swedish Citizens. Party secretary Björn Söder, speaking on behalf of the party, has stated that while Jews & Sámis can be citizens of Sweden, they cannot be considered Swedes, because a person cannot be a Swede and something else.
A more specific form of this xenophobia is the party’s Islamophobia. The party platform & rhetoric casts Muslims as invaders, and party officials regularly invoke Islamophobic conspiracy theories. Party leader Jimmie Åkesson has even gone as far as to call Muslims “our greatest foreign threat since World War II.”
Contention 2: Anti-Immigrant
The Sweden Democrats make no secret about the opposition to immigration, making this a focal point of their campaigns. The Party calls for strict controls on immigration & state funding for repatriation of immigrants. Åkesson, the Party leader, has said he wants to ban asylum immigration, a major draw of immigration to Sweden & has even called on immigrants not to come to Sweden, stating “Stay away...Sweden is full.”
The party claims that immigrants bring crime &harm the economy, despite that there is no evidence to support these claims & a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
While the Sweden Democrats have questionable roots and have stemmed from fascism, they have changed to be very different over the past several years.
Since 1995, Mikael Jansson (former member of the Centre Party) had joined the Sweden Democrats and had helped to make the party more "moderate" and respectable. After a few members had wore Nazi uniforms, the party officially banned wearing any sort of uniform in 1996. The party had also gained influence from other nationalist parties and had begun its path of moderation.
An extreme faction consisting of racists/xenophobes had been expelled from the party in 2001, leading to the formation of the National Democrats (disbanded in 2014). Later on, Jimmie Akesson (with help from Björn Söder, Mattias Karlsson, and Richard Jomshof) had helped to make the party more moderate. Part of the policies to moderate the party have involved banning many far-right or xenophobic members. In 2005, Akesson took control of the Sweden Democrats and continued Jansson's efforts to make the Sweden Democrats more respectable and moderate.
In addition to this, Sten Christer Andersson (former member of the Moderate Party) had defected to the Sweden Democrats in the 2002 Swedish elections. He had claimed that the Sweden Democrats had worked to expel it's far-right elements.
Furthermore, the party had declared the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be part of its policies in 2003.
2. Multiculturalism has lead to increased ethnic tensions
Multicultralism in Sweden has not done anything positive, and has only led to increased racial tensions. There have been an estimated 55 no go zones in Sweden, where police fail to enforce Swedish law. Instead, these areas are unofficially governed by Shariah law. Such no go zones are only possible when a majority of the population there refuses to comply with the nation's official laws. It is quite evident from journalist attacks that many Muslim migrants have not assimilated into Swedish society. As a result, ethnic tensions between Muslim migrants and Christian/irreligious Swedes have been on the rise. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Furthermore, there have been cases of violent crime of migrants attacking Swedes. Last year, there were over 30 gernade explosions in the city of Malmo, which is infamous for its high foreign population. There were also 75,000 sex crimes reported yearly, which is staggering for a country with such a low population. 
Furthermore, there has been a violent backlash of extremists attacking people with a muslim/migrant background. Many schools were attacked, and some buildings were set on fire. 
Much of this rise in hate crime and ethnic neighborhoods have led to an increase in ethnic tensions. Since the Sweden Democrats aim to tackle this problem, they would likely bring down racial/ethnic tensions in Sweden. It is not necessarily racist or xenophobic to acknowledge the problem that Sweden has been having with mass migration.
3. Immigrant/non-white Sweden Democrats
According to the Aftonbladet newspaper, 14% of members in the Sweden Democrats are from an immigrant background. This is almost on par with the immigrant/foreign-born population in Sweden.  Furthermore, the Sweden Democrats were the only party in the 2010 elections to have a majority of immigrants on the electoral list.
If there are several members of the Sweden Democrats whom are immigrants, or come from a background of immigrants, it is quite evident that the Sweden Democrats are not opposed to all immigration.
4. The Sweden Democrats are not fully opposed to immigration
The Sweden Democrats have not expressed absolute opposition to immigration, rather they have supported limitation of immigration due to it becoming extreme. Jimmie Akesson has stated that "immigration is extreme" in an interview, and has stated that the immigraiton problem in Sweden is that the amount of immigration is too much. He has not implied that all immigrants are bad, but that immigration is out of control.
Due to a lack of time, I will end my arguments here
The Con notes that the Sweden Democrats have become more moderate in recent years. I have not challenged this, and in fact, I also noted this in the background I provided on the Sweden Democrats. However despite this moderation, the Sweden Democrats are still a Xenophobic and anti-immigrant party.
The Pro claims that multiculturalism has increased ethnic tensions in Sweden. He cites so called "No go Zones" as evidence of this, however this claim is faulty at best, and outright false at worst. The articles he uses to support this claim at all however. The first article comes from SPEISA, however according to EditIndia, an Indian media watchdog, Speisa publishes fake reports, and a MyWOT review found them to be untrustworthy. Because of this, the article should be disregarded. The second article makes no mention "no go zones", attacks on journalists or even crime. The third article from the Daily Caller cites two other web reports. The first, from Swedish police, states Page not found, and the second, actually addresses the claims of the Con directly. According to the article, from which the Con's source derives its information,
"To clarify, the term “no-go zones” is how the Swedish media referred to the report when it was released. It is also what the police officers call it (direct quote in English found here) However, the report itself does not use that wording; it talks about “…the regular justice system being disabled,” “…police being unable to perform it’s duties” and “…local residents considering the criminals to be the ones running the area,” with police being subjected to violence and harassment when entering. The net effect is the same, but in light of the Fox News controversy it seems prudent to point this out. It should also be made clear that this report refers to criminal gangs seizing control; the kind of shariah-ruled, muslim-only enclaves Steve Emerson was talking about in Britain and France do not exist in Sweden"
The final article discusses a 60 Minutes film crew which was attacked in a city with a large migrant population, however no where in that article was the attack blamed on immigrants and was never related to immigrants and thus does not support the claim by the pro.
The con also cites grenade explosions in Malmo, however he cite the website jihad watch, which publishes anti-Islamic propaganda and should not be considered a reliable source, and the citations that Jihad watch links to never say that the grenade attacks were the fault of migrants.
The Con cites crime and sexual assault in Sweden and claims they are on the rise. However both Sexual assault and crime overall are down in Sweden, according to the articles cited by the pro, crime in down 1% and sexual assault is down 5%.
The Con also cites attacks on migrants as evidence to support this claim, however the article he cites from the spectator actually lays blame on the Sweden Democrats for the rise in attacks on migrants.
The claims by the pro do not hold the weight of scrutiny and does not support his contention. Furthermore it does not in anyway contradict my claim that the Sweden Democrats are a xenophobic and anti-immigrant party
3. Immigrant Sweden Democrats
The pro claims that because there are members of the Sweden Democrats who are immigrants the party cannot be anti-immigrant. This claim is as logical as "I can't be racist, I have black friends". Even if you have black friends, this does not change the fact that you hold racist views. The same applies to the Sweden Democrats. Even if they have members who are immigrants, this does not change their anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies.
Furthermore, the 2010 elections that the Con refers to were not the national elections, but rather one single local election in a city with a large migrant population.
4. The Sweden Democrats are not "fully opposed to immigration"
No where in my argument did I claim that the Sweden Democrats are opposed to all immigration. My argument is that "The Party calls for strict controls on immigration & state funding for repatriation of immigrants." This policy is clearly meant to reduce immigration, and is thus Anti-immigration. The claim by the con does not refute my argument at all.
Contention 1: Xenophobia
Seeing as the Con has not addressed this issue at all, I can only assume he concedes this argument, and thus I shall extend this contention to the next round.
Contention 2: Anti-Immigration
As I have already addressed the response by the con to this argument, I shall extend all my points from round 1.
In this round, I will address my opponent's initial arguments and defend my arguments/rebuttals in the next round.
As the definition of Xenophobia was provided at the start of this debate, I shall not be arguing on the definition of Xenophobia.
While my opponent claims that the slogan "Keep Sweden Swedish" is not xenophobic, however, it is a blatant statement of opposition to foreigners in Sweden. My opponent also claims that the slogan is no longer used, however, the phrase, which in Swedish is "bevara sverige svenskt", can be heard at campaign rallies and events and in speeches by members of the Sweden Democrats. While not as common as it once was, to say the phrase is no longer used is simply false.
In round one, I noted that the Sweden Democrats believe all immigrants must adopt Swedish culture upon immigrating and must meet certain levels of "Swedishness". Integration into a new society takes time, but the policy supported by the Sweden Democrats of requiring immediate assimilation, as opposed to integration, and requiring that all immigrants must meet a certain level of "Swedishness" before being allowed to immigrate is clearly discriminatory to foreigners. The argument given by the con as to why this is not xenophobic is that multiculturalism would be bad for Sweden. This does not, however, address the issue at hand, which is that the policy proposals by the Sweden Democrats are xenophobic. This debate is not about multiculturalism, but about whether or not the Sweden Democrats are xenophobic.
The con then goes on to claim that Sweden is being "invaded by immigrants" and cites supposed examples of "Middle Eastern Islamic culture influencing Sweden". However these examples do not show how the Sweden Democrats are not Xenophobic, and some do not even support his claim of "Islamic influence watering down Swedish culture" or that these things are necessarily bad. Swimming pools are privately owned or owned by the community and are not being required to have these women only sessions, and the relationship between swimming pools and Swedish culture is non-existent. The issue of schools removing pork products from the school lunch menu, and making rules so that the meat is Halal, as cited by the Con's article, only took place at two schools. At these schools, 20% of the students are Muslim, which is a rather significant percentage the Student body. The school has a duty to provide affordable or free lunches to students, and if 20% of the students cannot eat the food, then the school is failing this mission. Removing pork from the menu does not in any way harm anyone and allows the school to fulfil this mission. The example of a library in Arvika offering Arabic courses is not so much an example of "Islamic influence", but rather an example of local residents being interested in learning a new language.
The con argues that Islamophobia is not a form of xenophobia, however, given the definition the Con provided, this argument falls flat. The Con says that Islam is not a country and Muslims are not a nationality, however, Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of foreigners. Islam is not a religion which is native to Sweden, it is not a part of Traditional Swedish culture and the overwhelming majority of Swedish Muslims are immigrants or are directly related to immigrants, and is therefore considered to be foreign. Because of this, Islamophobia is, therefore, a form of Xenophobia.
The con's defense of Bjorn Soder's comments states that these comments are out of context, however, the Con does not actually provide the context which he claimed was lacking, and does not address the statements made against the Sami people. The article cited by the Con actually only gives greater credence to the argument that Soder, and by extension the Sweden Democrats, are anti-Semitic, as the article notes that Soder proposed legislation to ban early male circumcision, an important practice in Judaism.
Similar to the Con's response to the Xenophobia contention, much of the argument is based on a general defense of the Sweden Democrat's policies, rather than contending that these policies are not anti-immigrant.
The fact of the matter is that the Sweden Democrats want strict controls on immigration, and blame immigration for problems like crime and economic problem. The Con attempts to support the claims made by the Sweden Democrats but does not actually answer the contention.
Furthermore, he claims that Immigrants and immigration are to blame for crime, namely rape, however, the evidence does not support this claim. A 2013 analysis found that the majority of the difference in crime rates between foreign-born and native Swedes is accounted for by Income and neighborhood, both of which are indicators of poverty. Therefore the issue at hand is not that the criminals in question are immigrants, but that they are poor. It also must be noted that the majority of the victims are also immigrants. Thus the claims that immigration is the problem is false.
The con does not actually show any credible way how immigration is harmful to Sweden, other than crime statistics which are 100% attributable to class, and fails to actually address the issue at hand.
Certain Sources carried over from previous rounds were used and shall be re-posted.
Before starting this debate, I would like to apologize for any issues with the sources in previous arguments as they have been glitching for both of us. I will post the sources I meant to post previously in the comments section.
My opponent has seemed to attack my sources to disvalidate my claims, rather than addressing some of my claims directly. Furthermore, a bias to an article does not mean the original story they are telling is false, but my opponent has immeditely assumed everything stated in the articles were false based on the source. The article that was not found due to glitches in posting sources has been posted in my link above.
Furthermore, I had used the second source (which pro is addresing to refute my claims) only for part of it's statements on no go zones existing. Furthermore, the source does describe these no go zones where the Swedish government and police fail to enforce their law. In addition to tihs, many of these areas are in migrant/muslim-majority areas, and many criminal gangs turning areas into "no go zones" are predominately Muslim gangs. Based on the radicalization of many Muslims in Sweden particularly, it is likely that many of these criminal gangs are attempting to enforce Sharia law.
Furthermore, Pro points out that another source I used to where a 60 minutes film crew were attacked, did not state that it was from immigrants. However, the reporters described the people as masked African men, and they were reporting on the refugee crisis. Based on the fact that most African Swedes are of an Islamic migrant background and the topic of the film they were producing, it is reasonable to conclude that the attack was in fact by migrants angered at them addressing the issue.
Furthermore, Pro attacks my argument by saying the source I used blamed the Sweden Democrats. None the less, I have only used the source as evidence of these attacks. I had never stated to agree with their conclusion that the Sweden Democrats could have been blamed for this.
Immigrant Sweden Democrats
My opponent seems to disvalidate my statement by comparing it to someone stating one can't be racist if they not black and have black friends. None the less, the original argument only shows that the party is not neccessarily hateful of immigrants and against immigration if it attracts many immigrants, almost on par with the immigrant percentage in Sweden.
The fact that the party calls for controls on immigration does not necessarily make it against immigration. Supporting immigration reformed and keeping immigration in check is not neccessarily an anti-immigrant position. This would be similair to arguing that supporting protectionist trade policies means one is against the idea of multi-national trade.
Jimmie Akesson and the Sweden Democrats have never stated anything about fearing or not fearing foreigners, thus there is nothing to refute and only arguments claiming they are xenophobic to refute. I have addressed Pro's claims about Sweden Democrat policies that can be attributed to xenophobia, and have proved that the policies are not xenophobic by explaining how.
Now on to Pro's arguments in his next round, he has stated that the slogan "Keep Sweden Swedish" is xenophobic. And while this statement is sometimes used by the Sweden Democrats, it is not necessarily xenophobic because it's only a statement to support cultural unity of Sweden and to reduce foreign influence. This does not always imply a fear or dislike of foreigners, but it can be attributed to wanting their own country to remain Swedish, but may not neccessarily dislike other cultures existing elsewhere.
Furthermore, the Sweden Democrats have never wanted absolute assimilation of immigrants right before entering. But none the less, immigrants wanting to enter Sweden can still show some respect and knowledge of Swedish culture through visiting and research.
My statements have not shown that the Sweden Democrats are xenophobic, but that they want cultural unity and assimilation of foreigners. This again does not imply that they dislike foreigners who may visit Sweden or have an interest in foreign culture(s) as long as they exist outside of Sweden.
Furthermore, Pro claims that supporting swimming pools with gender segregation has nothing to do with Swedish culture. However, I have explained that it is proof of "Islamic invasion" and generally Islamic culture goes against classical Liberal ideas. And furthermore, pork does not have to be banned from a school menu just because of a small minority. Rather, other options can be offered.
Due to a lack of time, I will end my arguments here and continue them in the next round.
The Con claims that I have only attempted to invalidate his sources, however, if you go back and read my argument you will find I only invalidated one of his sources, which came from an unreliable source, this being the Speisa. This source releases fake reports and has been determined by media watchdogs to be untrustworthy, as I noted in Round 2. As for my comments on his other sources, I did not attempt to invalidate the sources, but rather point out that they do not support the conclusion by the Con. His second source never mentioned “no go zones", attacks on journalists or even crime, and thus does not support his conclusion. The Con claims the source does, in fact, mention these things, however, having searched the article for any mention of those phrases several times, I have yet to find these mentions.
While the third source, the Daily Caller, does link to two other articles which support the claim that there are “No Go Zones”, the source that the Daily Caller references (which was also written by the author of the Daily Caller article) states
“It should also be made clear that this report refers to criminal gangs seizing control; the kind of shariah-ruled, Muslim-only enclaves Steve Emerson was talking about...do not exist in Sweden"
This statement alone should make it clear that the allegations of Sharia zones made by the Con do not hold weight. This is only furthered by the fact that the Daily Caller article itself only describes high levels of criminal activity, and never once mentions sharia law or radicalization. The article even mentions that these areas also suffer from low levels of education and high levels of unemployment. To say that these “No Go Zones” are the result of multiculturalism simply does not align with the claims of the Con’s own sources.
As for the issue of the Australian 60 Minutes crew that was attacked, regardless of whether or not the attackers were of migrant background, to claim that the crew was attacked because the perpetrators were migrants who were upset about the topic the crew was filming about simply does not add up. Given the description pin both sources provided by the pro on this issue, and all the other articles about the high levels of gang violence in these neighborhoods, it is far more likely that the crew was attacked because they did not want a camera crew filming gang members or illegal activities they were committing.
Regardless, none of this is relevant to the debate which we are having. This debate is about whether or not the Sweden Democrats are Xenophobic and Anti-Immigrant. It is not about whether or not multiculturalism is good for Sweden, or even if the policies of the Sweden Democrats are good or bad, it is about whether or not they are Xenophobic and Anti-Immigrant. Thus the contention by the Pro concerning multiculturalism is not in any way relevant to this debate.
Immigrant Sweden Democrats
The Con again claims that because the Sweden Democrats are supported by some immigrants the party is therefore not opposed to immigration. However, it does not matter if they Sweden Democrats are supported by some immigrants, because their policies, as I have argued, are Anti-Immigration and Anti-Immigrant.
The con also downplays the immigration policies of the Sweden Democrats. While the Sweden Democrats do advocate controls on immigration, these are not minor controls simply to limit the overall number of immigrants, they want extremely strict controls and limits on immigration, and want to add new cultural requirements for immigrants, as I have already discussed and shown in previous rounds.
These requirements include ensuring that all immigrants meet a certain level of Swedishness before being granted their visa. These requirements and controls would significantly curtail the number of immigrants allowed to come to Sweden. The party also supports state funding for repatriation of Immigrants already living in Sweden who fail to meet the required level of “Swedishness” or fail to assimilate in a timely manner. This would mean the mass deportation of thousands of immigrants from Sweden. To use the Con’s Trade analogy, these policies are not protectionism, but complete mercantilism.
The Con states that “Jimmie Akesson and the Sweden Democrats have never stated anything about fearing or not fearing foreigners”, however, given the Con’s own definition, Xenophobia does not only have to do with fear but also dislike or hatred. He then claims that “there is nothing to refute and only arguments claiming they are xenophobic to refute. I have addressed Pro's claims about Sweden Democrat policies that can be attributed to xenophobia, and have proved that the policies are not xenophobic by explaining how.” This is simply a description of how a debate works, however sadly, this claim has not shown itself to be the case as much of the Con’s arguments have been arguments supporting the policies of the Sweden Democrats and attacks on multiculturalism, however none of these arguments actually show how the Sweden Democrats are not Xenophobic.
The Con claims that the slogan “Keep Sweden Swedish” is not xenophobic, it only is an expression of not wanting foreign cultures to exist in Sweden. This is first and foremost a contradiction of the Con’s previous argument, which stated that the slogan is no longer used. The con further contradicts himself by saying the slogan is not xenophobic because “...it's only a statement to support cultural unity of Sweden and to reduce foreign influence.” This is the exact reason I gave, only in different words, as to why the slogan is xenophobic: It expresses a desire to rid Sweden of foreigners.
The Con then claims that the Sweden Democrats do not support assimilation prior to immigrating to Sweden, however, this is a contraction of the argument the Con made in round 3, in which he stated that assimilation does not imply xenophobia. Furthermore, the Con does not provide any evidence to support his claim, and thus my contention, which I have given sources for, notably Jacobin and the Sweden Democrats own platform, stands.
He then contradicts himself again in the next paragraph, saying the Sweden Democrats DO support assimilation. He then claims they are not Xenophobic because they are fine with foreign cultures as long as they remain foreign and do not come to Sweden. This is yet another contradiction.
As to his final argument, I have already addressed these arguments in the previous rounds, and thus shall not address them further. And regardless of whether or not these examples are proof of an “Islamic invasion”, they simply do not have any relevance in this debate, as I have previously stated.
Before writing this argument, I would like to say that my sources will be posted in the comments due to errors/glitches with me posting them here.
While Islam may be foreign, it is not necessarily xenophobic to dislike something that isn't native or common one's own country. By the logic of equating a dislike of Islam with xenophobia, this could be applied to saying that disliking anything from foreign nations are xenophobic. For example, it could be said that it is xenophobic to dislike sharia law, or disliking the death penalty. Both of these are foreign concepts to Sweden, but the vast majority of Swedes do not support these types of things. Xenophobia can generally be attributed to disliking foreign things in general, not a specific "thing" that is foreign. Almost everyone dislikes something foreign that is not common in their country.
Strict controls on immigration are not necessarily "anti-immigrant" consdering Sweden's immigration problem. My opponent claims crime from immigrant Swedes is directly related with wealth, but it is important to note that immigrants in some other countries such as the United States are on average wealthier than the native population. Because Sweden is accepting too many immigrants, lowering the number to the most qualiified to enter would solve this problem and even reduce a personal bias that some people may have against immigrants since the immigrants unable to make a decent wage would be excluded. In addition as stated previously, Sweden has a very high amount of immigrants being accepted in and the fact that Sweden has the second highest refugee population in Europe. It is not necessarily "anti-immigrant" to reduce the number of immigrants when it has gotten to extreme.
Futhermore, Bjorn Soder's context (which my opponent is attacking) was simply stating that Jews and Samis quite frequently have a "dual identity" in Sweden. It was never intended xenophobically or discirminatory that Jews and Samis can't be Swedish people. Also, it is noted that some more "liberal" interpretations of Judaism have called for circumcision not being mandatory. The view of banning circumcision usually comes from the perspective that circumsision is immoral and can lead to negative health effects on a young male's genitals.
Immigrant Sweden Democrats
Pro has stated that the Sweden Democrats require strict controls on immigration, but I have stated by past arguments that this is necessary due to Sweden's immigration problem (that the number of immigrants is too extreme). Whether immigration is just right, too much, or too little is all open to debate. The Sweden Democrats' strict controls on immigration do not imply they are discriminatory towards immigrants or dislike the idea in general, but that it has gotten too extreme in Sweden. Cultural requirements for immigration is not xenophobic, but is just promoting the idea of cultural unity.
My opponent also is stating that with my analogy of trade policies with immigration, that complete mercantileism would be equal to the Democrats' immigration policy. However, this is a false analogy considering that complete mercantilism would mean no reliance on the global market. So the proper analogy would be that a total ban on immigration (which is far from what the Sweden Democrats are suggesting) is equal to complete mercantilism. So as stated before, the Sweden Democrats do not come to dislike the idea of immigration, rather they just want to limit it to a desirable amount.
My opponent is falsely insisting that a desire cultural unity can be attributed with xenophobia. This is not necessarily true, as I gave an example that one can support cultural unity and assimilation without necessarily disliking other cultures. Rather, they could argue from a position that many countries should support their own cultural identity instead of having it watered down by multiculturalism.
My opponent then insists that "keep Sweden Swedish" means to rid Sweden of foreigners. This is quite an extreme conclusion, and it is simply just a statement of patriotism. A Swede can support keeping their cultural identity while at the same time, supporting that other countries should do the same. My opponent falsely concludes that this is a xenophobic statement, but it is simply just 3 words that are open to vast interpretations and can have many meanings attributed to it.
Overall, my opponent has been claiming that the Sweden Democrats are xenophobic and against immigration because they are a patriotic political party that wants to control immigration. In the view of the Sweden Democrats, immigration is extreme and they simply want to control it to make sure it doesn't become a problem. The party is not opposed to the idea of immigration in general, but they just feel as if it has been overdone. As the old saying goes, "too much of a good thing can be bad." Furthermore, cultural unity is not necessarily xenophobic, which is what my opponent has been trying to prove. Overall, my opponent is attempting to broaden the hard dictionary meaning of xenophobia and anti-immigration to paint this party as such.
Due to glitches with links in debates I have been having recently, I will be posting my sources in the comments.
While the con does concede that Islam may be foreign to Sweden, he then claims that it is not xenophobic to dislike something that isn't native (ie something that is foreign) to one's own country. However, the definition provided by the con in round three would actually contradict this notion. What the con has effectively argued is that it is not xenophobic to be xenophobic. While it is not necessarily xenophobic to dislike Sharia law, if you dislike it specifically because it is foreign, that is xenophobic. Disliking sharia law because of aspects of the system, such as the lack of separation of church and state, the use of the death penalty, the repression of the rights of minorities, is not xenophobic, it is a legalistic point of view. A good comparison would be disliking Mexican food. If you dislike Mexican food because it tends to be spicy, and you don't like spicy foods, then this is not xenophobic. However, disliking Mexican food specifically because it is foreign, that is xenophobic. The con's comparison of disliking the death penalty to xenophobia is plainly nonsensical, as the death penalty is not a concept that is bound by cultural or national barriers and has been used by nearly every nation which has ever existed, and is again a legal concept.
The con again claims that it is not anti-immigrant to want strict controls on immigration, and then goes on to claim that Sweden has an immigration "problem". He does not, however, show any evidence or give any reasons as to his claims. He then responds to my argument in round 3, where I pointed out that crime in Sweden is related to poverty, not national origin, by first claiming immigrants in the US are "wealthier than the native population." This claim is plainly false, as the poverty rate among immigrants in the US is 22%, while among native-born citizens it is 13% and the median household income is lower for immigrants than native-born citizens. He then claims that reducing the number of immigrants would solve the problem of poverty among immigrants as it would mean "only the most qualified would get in", because "the immigrants unable to make a decent wage would be excluded". This, however, does not make any logical sense as the Sweden Democrats are not basing their immigration policy on qualifications or skills, but on the level of "Swedishness" of the immigrants, and the fact that reducing immigration in no way means only the most qualified will be allowed to immigrate. The link simply does not exist
The Con then claims that the Sweden Democrats are not anti-immigrant because the number of immigrants in Sweden is "extreme", however, there is no definition which says when immigration is "extreme" or not, and thus this argument is effectively meaningless. Furthermore, the Con does not address the other policies of the Sweden Democrats such as state funding for repatriation and the cultural requirements which would block most immigrants, and he does not address the rhetoric used by the party against immigrants.
He then addresses the statements by Bjorn Soder, however, this was part of my xenophobia contention. Regardless, while the con does provide context, the articles cited earlier do not address this context and still lacks and evidence. He then claims the ban on early male circumscion proposed by Soder is not anti-Semitic because Reform Judaism does not require it, yet the article he cites from the Jewish Journal states that while circumcision is no needed for ADULT converts, it is still appropriate for babies, which Soder's legislation would have banned. The con has yey again been betrayed by his own sources.
Additionally, the con only references reform Judaism, despite the fact that there are several other branches of Judaism, such as Conservative and Orthodox, which place much greater emphasis on the ritual.
Immigrant Sweden Democrats
The con again defends the policy of strict immigration controls as necessary, however, this does not actually address the resolution, as I have stated in previous rounds. He then says that the cultural requirements are not xenophobic, however, they are clearly meant to discriminate against cultures which are perceived as being extremely foreign, ie from Africa and Asia, and would really only allow in Europeans and North Americans. This is clearly xenophobia.
The con claims that if the immigration policy of the Sweden Democrats were more like Mercantilism in trade, that would mean that they would not allow any immigrants. However such a policy would not be Protectionism or Mercantilism, but Autarky. Mercantilism promotes "profitable trade", and for the Sweden Democrats, profitable trade means assimilation and monoculturalism.
The con says the Sweden Democrats are not xenophobic because they want to encourage cultural unity, and that they have no problem with foreign cultures existing in other countries. This is the equivalent of saying "we do not dislike foreign cultures as long as they remain foreign and do not come here".
The con then proceeds to attack multiculturalism but does not actually address any of the other issues that I have noted, with the exception of Bjorn Soder's comments and Islamophobia, which he mentioned in earlier responses.
The con then yet again responds to the slogan "Keep Sweden Swedish", and yet again he changes his argument. This time, the Con claims that it is a "patriotic statement", and the claim that it is xenophobic is a false conclusion and an extreme interpretation. The con then yet again claims that "someone can support their cultural identity while supporting that other countries do that same". As I stated in the previous paragraph, this is the equivalent of saying "we do not dislike foreign cultures as long as they remain foreign and do not come here". While one can be proud of their culture, shouting "Keep Sweden Swedish" clearly implies that they do not want those from other cultures coming to Sweden, something the Con acknowledged in the last round. Shouting "God Save the Queen" or "Erin Go Bragh" or "Bharat Mata ki Jai" to express that they are proud of being British or Irish or Indian, however, these slogans do not in any way suggesting that if you are not Irish, or British or Indian you do not belong there. Saying Keep Sweden Swedish implies that if you are not Swedish, you should leave.
In this debate, I have shown that the policies and rhetoric of the Sweden Democrats are clearly xenophobic and anti-immigrant. I have provided clear examples of policies supported by the Sweden Democrats, of statements made by their leaders and members which indicate a clear opposition to foreigners and immigrants.
While the Con has argued that they are not opposed to immigration because they do not oppose the general concept, and that cultural unity is not necessarily xenophobic, he has made numerous contradictions in his arguments, including denying his own definitions of xenophobia, he has changed his arguments multiple times, dropped contentions after they were refuted, and relied on evidence which not only disagrees with his statements, but fully contradicts them. He has spent much of this debate arguing for the policies of the Sweden Democrats and against Multiculturalism and mass immigration, yet he has spent very little time attacking the premise of the resolution. He has dropped his argument about immigrant members of the Sweden Democrats, his argument about multiculturalism and Islamic influence and various other arguments, thread and contentions from throughout this debate.
Throughout this debate, I have demonstrated with evidence that the Sweden Democrats are a party which is plainly and obviously xenophobic, and supports policies which are directed at blocking and deporting immigrants who do not meet their arbitrary definition of "Swedish". The Resolution is therefore affirmed.