Search

"to shatter the entire Ukrainian economy and break the population's morale by terrorizing urban centers. The goal is to make life in the cities so unbearable that residents and businesses flee, as well as to disrupt the logistical connections between metropolitan areas" I read Ukraine's former Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, who explains that Vladimir Putin seems to have given up on winning the war meter by meter on the battlefield and is betting on "shattering the entire Ukrainian economy and breaking the population's morale by terrorizing urban centers. The goal is to make life in the cities so unbearable that residents and businesses flee, as well as to disrupt the logistical connections between metropolitan areas" (Foreign Affairs 30/9). (translated)

Letschert in a tight spot! The Jewish and Israeli students in Maastricht are stating it clearly. They are no longer carried away by the dialogue merry-go-round of the D66 Minister of Education, after spending years in her merry-go-round when she led the university. Result: an antisemitic climate and the import of hate rallies. Letschert's reward: the plush of The Hague. Read the letter below. Support these brave students who let their voice, and only their voice, be heard. Who do not bow to the established order and do not allow themselves to be exploited and misled by them. Bravo! To the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, IJAR Maastricht has learned that Minister of Education Rianne Letschert intends to organize a meeting about Jewish students, following the recent developments at Maastricht University. As the representative organization of Jewish and Israeli students at Maastricht University, we have received no formal invitation from the minister or her ministry. Nor have we been informed about the purpose, the mandate, the intended participants, or the measures that may be considered. If the subject concerns the position and experiences of Jewish and Israeli students at Maastricht University, consultations should begin with the organization that represents these students and within the university environment where the relevant events take place. During Ms. Letschert's previous term at Maastricht University, Jewish and Israeli students and their representatives spoke with her and other members of the university administration on numerous occasions. They repeatedly expressed concerns about safety, intimidation, the campus climate, institutional decisions, and the implications of those decisions for Jewish and Israeli students. From those discussions, it appeared that consultations were taking place, but in our experience, they did not lead to measures that corresponded to the issues raised. Clear lines of accountability were also not established for what followed. This history means that the mere fact that there is again a meeting cannot be considered an achievement in itself. Other Jewish organizations and individuals elsewhere in the Netherlands may have legitimate perspectives on broader issues concerning Jewish life, antisemitism, or national policy. However, they do not represent the Jewish and Israeli students at Maastricht University and cannot replace the representative organization of the students whose campus, lecture halls, and daily living environment are directly at stake. A meeting held elsewhere, with discussion partners who do not represent these students, can be viewed as discussions with Jewish organizations, but cannot reasonably be presented as a consultation with the representative organization of Jewish and Israeli students studying at Maastricht University. For that reason, we believe that if the minister wishes to address what is happening at Maastricht University, she should come to Maastricht and engage directly in conversation with the representative organization of Jewish and Israeli students here. The location is important, as responsibility must be aligned with where the issue occurs and not be disconnected from it: the issues being discussed involve this university, the decisions being made here, and the students who experience the consequences of those decisions. Thus, consultations regarding Maastricht should take place in Maastricht and begin with those who are institutionally responsible for representing the involved students. Before such a meeting takes place, we also demand clarity about what the minister aims to achieve with it. We expect to know what questions are being investigated, what decisions or measures remain open, what responsibility the ministry will take on itself, what responsibility it expects from Maastricht University, what concrete follow-up steps are foreseen, and how the outcomes of the meeting will be recorded and communicated. Without that information, participation threatens to serve mainly as proof that consultations have taken place, rather than as a means by which those consultations can actually have an impact. Our concern, therefore, is not about whether there will be a meeting, but about the relationship between consultation and responsibility. We have previously participated in discussions, we have laid out the problems before, and our presence has previously shown that a dialogue existed. What too often has remained unclear, however, is who was responsible for acting on what was raised during those discussions and what actually changed as a result of those discussions. A representative consultation should not end once the participants leave the room, but should record who is responsible for the issues raised, what actions follow from that, and how those actions will be assessed. We remain willing to engage seriously with the minister in Maastricht. However, that consultation must take place with the representative organization of the Jewish and Israeli students whose situation is at stake, with a clear purpose, with well-defined responsibilities, and with an explicit connection between listening and acting. Anything less than that threatens only to reproduce the form of consultation, while the substance — and the responsibility for it — remains unresolved. Signed, The Board of IJAR Maastricht *link to the original letter in the tweet below (translated)

At the same time, the rules for family immigration are being tightened, among other things through higher requirements for self-sufficiency and a waiting period of two years before one can bring their family members here. Children who come to Sweden should have good conditions to fulfill their dreams here, not grow up in (translated)

Henrik Vinge is, as usual, completely off the mark here. The idea that people in the suburbs would start voting for the Tidö parties just because they adjust their language use is so detached from reality that one wonders what planet Vinge is on. The only way for Tidö to win votes in the suburbs is by becoming more left: more benefits, more immigration, more cultural relativism, more Somalis on your parliamentary lists. If that is the path SD wants to take, I wish them all the luck. But then I find it hard to see what the point of the party really is. (translated)

Prosecutors have filed charges against a 16-year-old for murder and other crimes related to the fatal shooting of a 19-year-old man in Uppsala, where it has emerged that the perpetrator sought out his intended victim and was directed to the location to carry out drug-related test purchases. (translated)

A brief Swedish economic history that seems to have fallen out of the curriculum: Ruben Rausing left Sweden in 1969. Ingvar Kamprad left in 1973. Hans and Gad Rausing shipped out in 1982. H&M founder Erling Persson emigrated the same year. Reason: tax. The Left thought it was just an empty threat and implemented a series of tax increases. In the 90s, Stefan Persson also threatened to leave. Then the tax rules changed. He stayed and later paid 1.7 billion in income tax in just three years. It is totally irrelevant how high the tax rate is on paper if the wealthy flee. 100% of 0 kronor is unfortunately 0 kronor. What is relevant is, of course, how much tax actually comes in when people adjust to it. An honest question: is Sweden so incredibly wrong as it is? Thriving startup culture, very generous welfare, a good country to live and reside in. Do we have to challenge this with EVEN. MORE. TAX? (translated)

The Västerbotten Region and the Västernorrland Region, in collaboration with SOS Alarm, are launching a system to quickly alert volunteer rescuers via an app in suspected cardiac arrests, with the goal of increasing the chances of survival through early cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (translated)

Anders Ygeman and I were on Aktuellt. C did not want to come. Those of us who were there agreed that we must move forward now, even though we did not have quite the same view on how. But the alleged V and M bloc seems to have no one arguing for it for long. Good! Four parties have won the election, and therefore we should govern together. V has erased our stance towards C, now it's time for C to do the same job. Without V in the government, agreements on policy will not hold; it will just be nice words on paper. Before we negotiate policy, we must of course agree on who will implement the policy and in what way; otherwise, the negotiations will be blind. S and MP now need to put pressure on C so that they also erase their stance. It's not about bickering but about making sure that all four are respected equally. That V should solve this by themselves when C even declines the invitation for coffee does not feel reasonable. Mutual trust can only be built if all parties’ voters are respected. I sent this to S, and I also think that MP needs to step up. Otherwise, nothing will happen if C is just allowed to remain in their own room. That MP claims during the election campaign that they want V involved is good, also for MP, whose voters have that perception. But talking about something is not the same as working for it, and more than V needs to do that if there is going to be a new government. So far, all pressure has been directed at V, even though V does not say no to any party in Magdalena Andersson's support and that our "stance" only pertains to our own party's right to influence. To be "neutral" in a situation where one party does not respect another is not being a good "friend." And without pressure on C to accept V equally, we will get no government negotiations where we can start to give and take in the actual policy. I believe that is what the voters want to see and expect from us! (translated)

„Unter dem Strich ist die ‚Rente mit 63‘ eine Umverteilung von unten nach oben und deswegen auch nicht sozial gerecht“, sagt Johannes Winkel (@JohWinkel, @CDU). Sie werde vor allem von „mittleren und hohen Einkommensgruppen in Anspruch genommen“. #maischberger https://t.co/pl6bN1W8F9 #Rente #SozialeGerechtigkeit #Umverteilung