Men ID-kontrollerna i tunnelbanan var, tyvärr, endast en aspekt av många i det upptrappade kriget mot papperslösa migranter. REVA plågade icke-vita människor i hela Sverige, i synnerhet dem utan papper. I Skåne hade antalet deportationer stigit med 25 % efter att projektet varit aktivt ett par månader. Många berättelser – exempelvis den om barnen som var för rädda för att gå till den psykolog som höll på att behandla dem för post-traumatisk stress, eftersom att polisen spanade på psykologmottagningen – orsakade häftiga protester bland allmänheten.  Men polisens talespersoner, närhelst de konfronterades med dessa skrämseltaktikers barbari, fortsatte hänvisa till samma trötta mantran – ”Sverige är en rättstat”, ”vi följer bara order från politikerna”, ”demokratiskt uppdrag”.  Budskapet till aktivister och medborgare var klart – ”om du inte gillar det, rösta på en annan härskare vid nästa val”.

I september 2013 kom så avslöjandet att polisen I Skåne hade ett utförligt register av 4 029 romska personer. Dokumentet bar namnet ”resande”; det innehöll inte någon information om de listade personernas kriminella aktivitet; det hade formen av ett stort familjeträd; det inkluderade både personer som länge hade varit döda och över tusen barn; och läckan inom Skåne-polisen bekräftade att registret internt var känt som ”zigenar-registret”. Men trots allt överväldigande bevis för att polisen sysslade med storskalig registrering på etnisk grund avfärdade polisen dessa anklagelser och sa att dokumentet inte var något annat än register av kriminella i Skåne och deras bekanta, med funktionen att bekämpa brott i Skåne. Trots det faktum att många på listan inte hade någon koppling till Skåne, bodde på andra sidan landet, och inte hade något samröre med personer som dömts för brott.  Den enda gemensamma nämnaren för personer på listan var att de var, eller var gifta med, personer med romsk bakgrund.

Filosofen Karim Jebari argumenterar, med stöd I empirisk forskning, att för marginaliserade grupper I Sverige – de fattiga, de hemlösa, icke-vita, brukare av illegala droger, personer med mentalsjukdomar – är Sverige en polisstat, eftersom att vilka dessa gruppers formella demokratiska rättigheter än må vara så har de inga rättigheter i mötet med polisen. Och visst är det slående hur statens representanter i sitt hyckleri hänvisar till ”den demokratiska processen” och ”rättstaten” som de enda legitima medlen för att bekämpa rasism, auktoritära lagar, deportationer, institutionaliserat våld och maktmissbruk, när de samtidigt bryter mot statens egna lagar genom ren och skär etnisk profilering och registrering – överträdelser som sen undantagslöst trollas bort i polisens utredningar av sig själv. Utslaget är alltid detsamma: ”Vi gjorde inget fel”.

Gång på gång anklagas polisen för rasism, brutalitet och maktmissbruk. Och gång på gång blir vi tillsagda att vara tålmodiga och lugna, och att vi ska rösta bort problemen. Som anarkist anser jag att vi bör tillbakavisa idén att staten är den enda legitima kanalen för social påverkan och framsteg. Stater har så länge de existerat visat att de är oförmögna, och saknar incitament, att bekämpa dessa brutala yttringar som går emot allt det vi fått höra att ”demokrati” ska innebära. Vi måste sluta ge dem nya chanser.

Betyder detta att alla reformer är meningslösa? Nej. Ibland sker framsteg, som resultat av starkt socialt tryck och opportunistiska – eller genuint välmenande – politiker, Men alla dessa små steg är försumbara jämfört med de oerhörda fördelar som skulle vinnas på en utveckling mot en kultur där att ringa polisen inte är den självklara lösningen vid en konflikt, där människor själva tar säkerhet och solidaritet i sina egna händer, och där att rösta på en härskare inte ses som det centrala ansvaret vi har mot andra människor; en utveckling, det vill säga, mot anarki.

Det är därför det är så uppfriskande att se de sätt på vilka vanliga människor i Sverige har reagerat på de rasistiska ID-kontrollerna och deportationerna. Otaliga användare på Facebook och Twitter började uppdatera andra om var poliskontrollerna fanns.  Och organisationer som Ingen Människa är Illegal, Aktion mot Deportation, och det feministiska och antirasistiska Ain’t I a Woman? jobbade på i sin aktivism och sitt praktiska arbete, genom att förse papperslösa med bostad och förnödenheter, genom att gömma dem från staten, och genom att föra fram deras berättelser till allmänheten. Som ett resultat av den enorma negativa reaktionen från allmänheten beslutade polisen att tunnelbanans ID-kontroller skulle upphöra.  Men andra aspekter av REVA är fortfarande aktiva. Barn och vuxna blir fortfarande deporterade, ofta till farliga omständigheter. Ibland till länder de aldrig ens besökt. Och poliserna som var ansvariga för registreringen av romer bär fortfarande sina uniformer. Kampen fortsätter.

Notering: vid tiden för den här översättningen tycks stockholmspolisen återupptagit ID-kontrollerna i tunnelbanan, men det är oklart om det sker på samma skala som förut.

Originalartikeln publicerades från början av David Grobgeld.

Översatt från engelska av David Grobgeld.

Reports of inner border controls in the Stockholm public transportation system have caused anger, fear and outrage. This inner border controls campaign, bearinng the Orwellian designation REVA (“Rättssäkert och effektivt verkställighetsarbete,” meaning “Legally Certain and Efficient Enforcement”), uses disguised police officers to perform ID checks of people they think might be in Sweden “illegally.” This “might,” based on little more than apparent ethnicity, has severely curtailed the freedom of movement of Stockholm’s people of color.

The ID checks in the Stockholm subway are only one aspect of an intensified war on undocumented immigrants. REVA plagues people of color all over the country, especially those without documentation. In the Skåne region, deportations have risen 25% after only a few months of the project being active. Many of the stories — for example one about children too scared to go see the psychologist trying treating their PTSD, because police were staking out the psychologist’s office — have caused public outcry. Police spokespeople, confronted with the barbarity of these scare tactics, keep to the same tired mantras of “rule of law,” “following orders,” and “democratic mission.” The message to activists and citizens is clear: “If you don’t like it, vote for another ruler in the next election.”

Now comes the revelation that the in Skåne have an extensive register of 4,029 Romani people. The document titled “Travelers,” makes no reference to criminal activities, has the shape of a huge family tree and includes not only people long dead but over one thousand children.

Additionally a whistle-blower from within the Skåne police department confirms that the document was known internally as a “Gypsy Register.” Despite the overwhelming evidence that police are engaging in large scale registration on grounds of ethnicity, that many of those listed have no connection with Skåne, live across the country or have no association with people who have criminal records, the police dismiss the allegations and insist the document was nothing more than a register of criminal people and their associates used for fighting crime in Skåne. The only common denominator for people on the list is being or being married to a Romani person.

Philosopher Karim Jebari argues, backed up by empirical research, that for marginalized people in Sweden — the poor, the homeless, people of color, users of illicit drugs, the mentally ill — Sweden is a police state since whatever their formal democratic rights, they have no de facto rights in their encounters with police.

Indeed it is striking how agents of the state hypocritically refer to the “democratic process” and “legal procedure” as the only legitimate means of fighting racism, authoritarianism, deportations, institutionalized violence and power abuses, while breaking the state’s own laws through blatant racial profiling and registration — infractions that then invariably disappear in the police’s investigations of itself. The verdict is always the same: “We did nothing wrong.”

Again and again, the police face allegations of racism, brutality and misconduct. And, again and again, we are told to be patient, to be complacent and to vote the problem away. As an anarchist, I believe we should reject the notion that the state is the only legitimate means of social agency and progress. States have shown from their inception that they are unable and have little incentive to combat these manifestations of brutality that fly in the face what “democracy” is supposed to stand for. We need to stop giving them second chances.

Does this mean that all reforms are pointless? No. There is sometimes progress as a result of social pressure and opportunist or actually caring politicians. But all these small steps are negligible compared to the unparalleled benefits that would come from a move toward a culture where calling the police is not the go-to solution when faced with a conflict, where communities started taking safety and solidarity in their own hands and where voting is not seen as the central responsibility we have towards other people. A move, in short, toward anarchy.

This is why it is invigorating to see some of the ways ordinary people in Sweden have responded to the racist ID checks and deportations. Countless users on Facebook and Twitter are updating others on the whereabouts of police. Organizations such as No Human is Illegal, Action Against Deportations and the feminist and anti-racist Ain’t I a Woman? have pushed on in their practical and activist work providing undocumented immigrants with housing and subsidence, hiding them from the state and bringing their stories to the eyes of the public. As a result of the huge negative public reaction, the police announced that the subway ID controls would cease. But other aspects of REVA are still active. Children and adults are still being deported, often to dangerous circumstances and sometimes to countries they’ve never even visited. And the police responsible for the registration of Romani people are still wearing their uniforms — the struggle continues.

Translations for this article:

• Swedish, Svensk polis, rasism och motstånd.

On September 13th, 2013, C4SS’s student activist network, Students for a Stateless Society (S4SS), published a letter dissociating from the S4SS UGent chapter for violating and activating the third S4SS design principle by using racist language, affirming racist conspiracy theories and even advocating violence as a justified or viable response to said theories in a S4SS identified and organizing forum. The third S4SS design principle states:

3. S4SS spaces are safe and valued spaces. We are dedicated to not only identifying agents of aggression, but dissolving institutions of oppression. [emphasis added]

Around 10 days later, the C4SS and S4SS websites were taken down by “not your typical DMCA letter.” In response, we chose to defend our site — not by a legal fight, but by doubling down on our free speech. Rather than being isolated or intimidated into silence by the legal censorship, we spoke out on social media and our websites. We spoke out about the legal threat against us and we re-published copies of the censored exposé on our other websites (here, here, here, here, here and here). We reached out to anarchist, anti-fascist, and information-freedom activists on the web and called on them to swarm against this censorious abuse of copy-power. And to our immense gratitude, we got a lot of help from the web, including, but not limited to: Jad Davis at the jVerse, and wonderful stories in online media by Jesse Walker at Reason, Mike Masnick at techdirt. The social response to legal intimidation made it clear that bigotry could not count on copy-fascism to protect and hide it. We owe all of you all a great debt of gratitude for what came next.

On September 26th, C4SS, regained access and redirected its domain back to its main site. That afternoon we received an anonymous 100 Bitcoin donation to our “Support the Center in this Fight” wallet – 129pipr12a5UUZ447bLYjx1paRnCXqG5vi. (Needless to say, “Some of us laughed, some cried, some screamed, but we were all in shock, until…”)

Later that evening we received an email from Olivier Janssens, the individual that had retained the lawyer, J.D. Obenberger, to draft and submit the DMCA takedown of the S4SS dissociation letter. In this email he identifies himself as the anonymous Bitcoin donor:

First of all, thanks for accepting my defeat. Lesson learned, for sure.

Even if it doesn’t matter to you, I’ve also learned a whole deal about getting ‘aroused’ by a group of guys and joining in bashing Islam. I have a whole other story to tell about that, but I guess thats for another time.

This escalated so far out of control, not just Streisand-wise, but for everything I stand for (intellectual property being evil is one of them). The choice was to pursue this further in court and fight for pro-censorship copyright, which I couldn’t even begin to imagine doing cause it would kill my principles. I am glad you guys were reasonable enough to accept my apologies. I can’t say this enough. I am grateful for the mature response on your blog.

In regards to the lawyer, I’ve been trying to get him to issue a takedown request all day. It seems this might be a first so I think he’s thinking on how to do it. He says that if I don’t counterfile, the site should go up again within 10 days ‘automatically’. I am still trying to push for him to send a letter asking for an earlier restoration, and will try to get you guys in CC or notify you as soon as it goes out.

As another token of good faith, and to make up for what happened, and to protect you from this in the future, I am going to send you 100 BTC.

That’s the story so far, but before you go C4SS would like to respond to a number points in this email and our reactions to it – so that our Supporters understand where we stand and everything else is crystal clear.

1. We did not accept anyone’s defeat. So long as IP and bigotry still exist as the damage holding back the vibrant social cooperation without aggression, oppression, or centralized authority that we desire, this fight is still very much on.

Does this mean we are pursuing state sanctioned legal action against Janssens, his Copyfascist lawyer or the cowardly Bluehost that thought it safer to pull a longtime customer’s site rather than look twice at a DMCA takedown notice that Mike Masnick said, “On my first read, I wondered if it was fake, because not only is it completely over the top, in it, Obenberger more or less admits that the takedown has little to do with copyright…,” no it does not. We are anarchists. We have other means of solving, resolving and dissolving situations.

Does acting like anarchists and not pursuing state sanctioned legal action count as “accepting defeat?” Again, no it does not.

2. Do we believe that he has “learned a whole deal” about this “group of guys and joining in bashing Islam”? We have no idea, but we like to think the best of people.

Philip K. Dick once apologized for “preaching” that “The devil has a metal face,” when what he finally realized was that “[it] was in fact not a face; it was a mask over a face. … You do not place fierce, cold metal over fierce, cold metal. You place it over soft flesh…”

We do not know if behind Janssens’s “fierce, cold metal” mask of IP and bigotry is another “fierce, cold metal” mask covering some other drive for control or intolerance. We do know that under all masks there is, finally, a human face.

We also know that S4SS UGent is still active, they have not reached out to the rest of the network, nor have they taken steps toward following the S4SS design principles. They have not changed their name signaling their change in status or orientation. They have switched their Facebook group, now, to “private,” they have set up a “like” page, and they are planning events and scheduling speakers, still, titled as a S4SS chapter.

In order to protect the S4SS network and prospective members the dissociation letter, “S4SS’ UGent Not Anarchists (or Comrades),” will remain up as a warning until they decide to render it irrelevant through their actions.

3. Are we reasonable enough to accept his apology? We can only accept an apology for actions done to us – the use of the state to take down our site for almost three full days. We cannot and will not accept an apology from him on behalf of any other group or individual that have been harmed by him, specifically the Muslim community. We have neither the right nor inclination. That is for him to do and for that community to consider. This is his moment of reflection and reconciliation.

We would even be happy to encourage and facilitate a conversation with members of the Muslim community for him, if he so desires. It would be a good learning experience for all of us.

4. Good faith, making up and further protection. We are in the process of making sure our writers get paid for their work and moving our site to a more secure and civil liberty conscious host. After all of that is taken care of we will be actively donating, supporting and promoting, anarchist, anti-racist and solidarity economy projects around the world. So it is true that with this donation we will be “making up” for the damage done and protecting ourselves better for the next fight, but good faith is something that is earned everyday with everyone individually.

We wish him all the best and we will try to help him along his way the best we can. But never mistake our best wishes and noblest intentions for passivity or leniency. We want that world of vibrant social cooperation and we are – teeth bared – ready to fight for it.

“Evil is real like cement. … I thought I hated those guys [Nazis] before I did the research [for The Man in the High Castle]. After I did the research, then I had created for myself an enemy that I would hate the rest of my life. Fascism – wherever it appears, whether it is Germany, United States, Soviet Union or anywhere – fascism, wherever it appears, is the enemy.” –Philip K. Dick

I go to school at Arizona State University in Tempe, which is a few miles east of central Phoenix. A sizable handful of libertarians including myself have been very active in the protests against SB1070 at the state capitol and elsewhere. In my observations, there have been very few non-Latinos who care enough about the bill’s passing to show up in protest. By virtue of our being present, us mostly white libertarians were racially profiled and asked many sincere questions by Latino individuals regarding who we were and why we cared about the bill’s passing, as we would not be directly impacted or negatively profiled.

We outlined the nonaggression principle for those we spoke to and summarized the idea that as long as one is being peaceful one should be left alone. We stated that it doesn’t matter what color, ethnicity, region of origin, or any other secondary characteristic one possesses, but that purely by being nonaggressive, individuals should be free to make choices for themselves on where to live and who to voluntarily associate with. We handed out thousands of fliers on this message and generally received a very pleasant welcome.

It was not all lovely and earnest welcoming though. I flew my Free State Project Gadsden flag and occasionally donned a Guy Fawkes mask, which created a mixture of genuine intrigue and warrantless scorn. Many people assumed I was there in support of SB1070 because protestors who supported restrictive immigration policies showed up with Gadsden flags earlier in the week to demonstrate before loud crowds with megaphones scared them off to the indictment of “white supremacist!”

One lady called me a teabagger, and one gentleman told me to go fuck myself. I kindly alerted him that I was there in opposition to the bill, to which he replied, “Oh, let me grab a flier then!”

This really bummed me out. Any individual who flies a Gadsden flag against peaceful immigration and freedom of movement is so terribly confused that it breaks my heart. It is the equivalent of flying a black flag for statism. What else could “Don’t Tread on Me” mean besides “I want to be left in peace?” The deradicalization of this flag as symbolized by its vulgar use in the Tea Party Movement (when not flown by principled libertarians who sporadically pepper the Tea Parties) means another radical symbol has been moderated; another element in the language of revolution has come to stand for blasé reformism and some vague idea of what a ‘just’ government should be.

Personal Gadsden-flying experience aside, the great bulk of the rhetoric opposing this bill at the rallies and through the media has come to focus on racialized enforcement of the law and racial profiling. Despite reassurances from SB1070 sponsor and state senator from Mesa Russell Pearce that “Illegal is not a race, it is a crime,” law enforcement is given quite a long reach to determine what is reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. This will realistically mean that day laborers soliciting their agorist services, individuals speaking Spanish in public in an English speaking country, and eating at Filiberto’s could be construed as reasonable suspicion of undocumented immigration status. Brown individuals in Arizona have already been detained and arrested for not having proof of their citizenship while ‘in’ the country. My friend was asked for his documents while out drinking at Tempe’s local hot spot Mill Avenue by a cop on a Segway in a goofy but intimidating display of force.

This racialized enforcement will be short-lived however. By focusing on the racial profiling aspects of this bill, activists neglect to address the fact that in its benevolent spirit of fairness the state will agree to treat us all as equals under the 14th Amendment and will soon be arbitrarily asking for the documents of all citizens. Yes, the old familiar libertarian fear of “Papers, please,” will soon be coming to Arizona.

Obsessing over racial profiling is a good way to scare up support. A solid chunk of Americans instinctively recoil from what is presented as a racist policy and oppose it on those words alone, but this is but one small nibble of the immigration chimichanga. This focus obscures larger menaces that loom ahead.

I am far from the first to note that the state created an immigration problem through the welfare state. When Arizona utilized its 10th Amendment rights to enforce immigration restrictions to protect their racket from becoming overburdened, the country at large responded in outrage. Democrats in full Hegelian majesty are now swooping in to save the country and undocumented immigrants through biometric national ID cards and equal enforcement of mandatory identification statutes in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The ability to remain anonymous in what is still a relatively open society is drying up. Aw, shucks. Look at the feds protecting our privacy and well-being. Their concern is really quite touching.

This being primarily a racial issue illustrates the ways in which the debate has been framed to exclude from public discourse the sovereign nature of the individual, the downfall of welfare statism, and the irrationality of closed border policies. Without tackling these core problems, repealing SB1070 will be just another example of politics as rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

If you are an activist regarding this issue, please join me in attempting to steer the debate away from the focus on racialized enforcement and to rally people against closed border policies and statist invasions of privacy. Otherwise the 14th Amendment is going to back us straight up against the fence of the equal opportunity cattle yard.