Nils Funcke challenges the prevailing view of the “Quisling” controversy. The well-known expert on freedom of speech now offers his perspective on the war of words between Richard Jomshof and Anders Lindberg—and his conclusions are likely to attract a great deal of attention.
The journalist and freedom of speech expert Nils Funcke analyzes the much-discussed Quisling controversy in a culture article in Expressen. He notes that the word ”Quisling” risks losing its meaning if it is used too casually, but at the same time highlights how the current conflict arose.
According to Funcke, the exchange began when Aftonbladet’s political editor-in-chief, Anders Lindberg, compared Ulf Kristersson’s collaboration with the Sweden Democrats to Franz von Papen’s role leading up to Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.
”Lindberg will just have to put up with it”
Funcke believes that anyone who draws on historical parallels must also accept that they will be met with the same kind of rhetoric.
”You reap what you sow. If you resort to historical parallels—no matter how tenuous they may be—you have to accept that the person under attack will respond in kind. Lindberg will just have to put up with it.”, he writes.
This assessment thus contradicts the view put forward by several of Jomshof’s critics, who have focused primarily on his choice of words rather than on the preceding exchange.
Warns of a continued escalation
At the same time, Funcke believes that the debate later went a step further when Richard Jomshof also referred to the Social Democrats’ party leader Magdalena Andersson for ”Quisling.”.
He describes this development as the ”sloping rhetorical plane subsequently turning into a precipice” and points out that generally derogatory comments are normally permissible, but that in certain cases, statements can border on defamation.
A New Dimension in the Debate
Funcke’s post thus adds a new dimension to the heated debate. While he warns against the overly casual use of historically charged terms, he asserts that anyone who chooses to draw such parallels must also be prepared to face the same kind of rhetoric in return.
