The ”immigrant critical” and so called ”Sweden friendly” have 3 main issues right now that they try to get into every debate they have. As usual they think the answers is easy and that ayone who says otherveis is stupid. This is standard procedure for those who vote for The Sweden Democrats but in these issues a lot of people across the political landscape believe in easy answers. When we talk about human beings and our behaviours there´s never an easy answer. Human interaction is not an easy subject to analyse. I will give my thoughts on these 3 issues: 1. Make all immigrants that commitet a crime to leave Sweden. 2. Do not allow seperate bath times for women/transpeople and men in public bath houses. 3. Do not allow married minors to live with their husbands.

1. Make all immigrants who commited crimes in Sweden to leave the country.

The debate about how immigrants who commits crimes should be banned från Sweden started around christmas. In part started by the journalist Joakim Lamotte who wrote an (mildy put)undifferentiated text on his Facebook wall about 4 young men from northern Africa who cant get banned from Sweden since there is no proof on what country is their original one. Lamotte and a lot of his follower base thought that it doesnt matter if we dont know what country someone is from, they schould get banned anyway. Just send the ”garbage” away and be done with it. If they end up tortured, killed or left of in a country they have no connection with is nothing to take in consideration. Out they go and thats the only thing thats matter.

It´s a short road to easy answers when emotions run high after 4 guys has made an horrific rape, to ask for the guys to be bannes from Sweden no matter the consequences is not hard to do. On the other hand, we are supposed to be an justice safe country (inser ironic laugh) and that means it doesnt work to just kick people out of the contry when we dont know where they came from, or when we know where they from and that they will be tortured or killed if we send them back. In Swedish law we already have room to bann people from Sweden if they commits heavy crimes like rape or murder, if they dont have a swedish citizenship. However, this is restricted by the international human rights which means its not ok to send people to a country where they will be tortured or killed.

To start to overlook the human rights is easy when it comes to people who has done so heavy crimes that people think they have lost their human worth. The problem is that if we start to neglect the human rights or ignore them completley in some matters is it not hard to start to neglect them in other issues too. When we start to ignore the human right to seek asylum and escape from war we are on a dangerous path for all of us. The countrys who has gone furthest to reject the asylum rights is also those who has started to make big restrictions in things like freedom of speach by making demonstrations and protest illigal. Is that the road we want to walk down?

2. Dont allow seperate bathing times.

This issue has divided more than one feministic group but for most people it seems to have one easy answer: That seperated bathing times is a big step backwards in an society that works for equality and for the islamophobic bunch its an neon sign for the radical islamisation of western societies.

Separated bath-times is not a new invention. A lot of bath houses have had this for ages where 2-3 hours a week has been dedicated to women, and another 2-3 hours for men. There is also dedicated time for light exercise swimming and time where exercise swim is not allowed. No one protest about the exercise swiming times but a lot of people loses their minds when it comes to have seperate bath times based on gender. But, to be correct, the genderbased bath-times has not been a problem before it was labeled as a ”muslim comand”. I believe it was not viewed as an problem earlier bacause 1. people understood why mostly women found it nice to be able to take a swim without men present. 2. There has not been an racist aspekt of the discussion to the subject before. A lot of those who oppose seperated bath-times know the profit from it but just dont want any muslim woman to have an easier time in Sweden.

It is easy to see seperated bath-times as an step back in the equality process, on the other hand we hav´nt made an backward progress in all these years seperated bath-times has existed. We do not live in a perfect society, there are a lot of genderbased problems left and some of them includes men harrasing women or transpeople in public bath houses. No matter how wrong it seems at a first glance that women and transpeople are afraid to bath with men we cant solve it but telling them to suck it up and swim with men anyway. We must be able to work on this issue in more than one way at the same time. It must be possible for women and transpeople to swim without the fear of men and in the same time work so that men will stop harrasing others in the bath-houses.

In my opinion is seperated bath-times an temporary solution so enable women and transpeople who are not allowed, or dont dare to, bathe with men to still have an oportunity to go to the bath-house. This is not an soultion for these problems that can stick forever, but as long as we have an problem with men missbihaving in the bath-houses this is an solution to minimize the symtom of an unequal society.

3. Dont allow married minors to stay with their husbands.  

With war and unsafe living around the globe the ammount of refugees coming to Sweden has rappidly increased. This also means that more minors (girls) that has been forced into child marriage comes to Sweden. Most of the time they arrive with their (often much older) husbands. Child marriages is nothing we ever should allowe, of course, but how we are supposed to act when married minors enter Sweden is not an easy question.

We know that a normalization process is the main thing when it comes to abusive relationships. Its the same way with child marriages. Those who get married as a child knows thats what is expected of her and her life. After a long time as a refugee, fleeing war and terror and everything else it means, her husband becomes the one she feels safe with. Even if the base of the marriage is forced and the relationships is abusive the normalization process can make the husband the only saftey the gilr has. As humans we can find security and support even in the most horrible situations if it get to become our normal, everyday life.

If the girl and her husband are allowed to live together after they arrive to Sweden we give the girl her security and an opportunity to have an eye on their relationship to see if theres abuse in it. Girls the age of 16-17 living with older partners in Sweden is not that unusual, but most of the times its not forced upon them. This still means that a minor living with an adult partner is not by default an abusive relationship. When it comes to child marriages the incitament for abusive relationships is greater so its an good idea to not let the couple be without supervision. If we force the couple apart the oportunity to see if theres an abusive relationship gets lost, while we increase the risk of the girl going back to her husband the day she turns 18.

To let minors live with their husbands can be a way to help the girl out of an bad relationship on her terms which has a much greater chans of success, instead of acting the way that feels most moraly correct to us.

To summon it up: There is never any easy answers, and we do not win in the political and social fight by pretending that there is.