You haven’t seen me writing much about daily life in Sweden on this blog for some time, but that’s just because I tend to blog what’s new to me. Currently, most of my daily blogging allowance is spent on Ogle Earth.

Fortunately, there are many English-language bloggers that are connected to Sweden in some way, so I thought I might take you on a guided tour of the anglo-Swedish blogosphereDefined as blogs where a majority of the writing is in English, and thus accessible to outsiders.

First, three blogs that come with enormous helpings of “voice”“Voice”, as defined in the latter half of this New Yorker article., and which you can count among my absolute favorites:Looking over these three favorites, I seems to me that one reason their authors give such good blog is that they’ve found a clever literary device and stuck with it. Emi writes letters, Francis has his word of the day and Femina sends us intelligence reports. Lesson #1 for better blogging: Choose a genre and exploit all its possibilities.

Kommissarie F. Curiosa: Feminine curiosity can be deadly (“An ‘under-the-covers’ investigation of the strong, silent, nordic type”): An American girl in Sweden artfully navigates the Stockholm dating scene, and then reports back. She’s the real thing, her existence vouched for at Bloggforum. Femina has an ear for conversations worthy of Overheard in New York, and packages these in heart-on-sleeve writing that never overshares.

Letters to Marc Jacobs (“A diary of sorts, chronicling the failures of my efforts to create a perfect life.”): Emi’s found a great literary ploy for her particular kind of stories. On the surface, what she writes look like dear-diary entries, but there is always a bigger idea lurking — a moral, if you will — which betrays planning and talent. (Great recent post)

How to learn Swedish in 1000 difficult lessons by Francis Strand: This 2005 Bloggie winnerNominations are now open for the 2006 Bloggies, BTW needs no introduction. Every word Francis writes is there for a reason, just as with my favorite authors. And his entries are short. (I suspect that’s because he is an editor.)

CultureLesson #2: Blog what you’re passionate about
Karin’s style blog (“Looking at the world with a designer’s eye.”): Style and design pointers infused with Swedish sense and sensibility.

kokblog: Gorgeous-looking food blog by Johanna Kindvall, often about Swedish food.

Giornale Nuovo: Mr. H.’s dedication to blogging the illustrated arts is humbling. As is his knowledge of esoterica.

Noisedfisk (“Upnorth culture”): Nordic cultural trends viewed, reviewed and interviewed.

Red Volume: Mikael Jergefelt is addicted to new music, and reports his latest discoveries.

Sounds like Funday: Once a week, annotated music downloads to get you in the mood for the weekend.

MediaLesson #3: Find a niche and dominate it.
Media Culpa (“Two Swedish eyes on media and public relations”): Hans Kullin is among the best in his niche.

Adland (“Disadformation”): Åsk Dabitch is another Swede who dominates a niche globally with her blog.

Markmedia: A lecturer at Stockholm university, Mark posts plenty of journalism resources as he finds them.

PoliticsWith the exception of Margot, who really blogs from an international perspective, I’ve found no English-language Swedish blog that covers politics from left-of-center. Am I missing any?
Johan Norberg (“Liberalism — Capitalism — Globalisation”): Well-informed one-man ideological juggernaut in defence of free trade and liberalism.

Margot Wallström: Europe’s vice president blogs up a comment storm with every post.

Stambord: Group blog by Anglo-saxons doing their best to be a thorn in the side of Swedish media.

Bildt Comments (“A European in Sweden on European and International Developments.”): Swedish ex-PM Carl Bildt ruminates on international politics as he roams the world.

Technology
456 Berea Street: When it comes to web design, Roger Johansson is an altruistic genius — the proof is his bloggie-nominated blog full of web-design tips.

Suburbia: Patrick Strang keeps tabs on new trends that interest him. He spots them quite early.

Em-brof (“Emmanuel Frécon’s Professional Blog, i.e. personal things about my work.”): Tech watch by a pro.

Ogle Earth (“A blog about the wonderful things being done with Google Earth.”): Sure, it’s written in Sweden, but a shameless plug nonetheless.

Karl Jonsson’s Weblog: Karl blogs law and technology, keeping an eye on events in Sweden as well.

Smart stuff (“The world’s smartest stuff”): A blog about cleverly designed things — where clever does not necessarily mean high-tech.

Robert’s talk: Robert Nyman riffs on web design and standards.

Expat
Tracey Marshall knows Swedish

Notes from Sweden

How I learned to stop worrying and love herring

Lizardek’s obiter dictum

ShazzerSpeak

Accepting the Stockholm Syndrome…

Give us this day our knäckebröd

Unclassifiable, occasional and/or personalApologies in advance for all those English language blogs I have forgotten or don’t know about. Feel free to complete the lists in the comments.
Andreas Viklund

The many faces of L (Lotta Holmström)

Tesugen (Peter Lindberg, sometimes in English)

Erik Wahlforss (“Thoughts, Links and Portfolio”)

The sum of my parts (stephanie Hendrick)

In Broken English (Steffanie Müller)

Workers dojo (Rosemarie Södergren)

Trams! (Niklas Dahlin)

Medoue

Annicapannika

Ann-Charlotte

Battleangel

Europundit

Soul Sphincter

Néablog

Different Opinion

Euroblog

Cinema Volta

Where is my mind?

Finally, The Local is not a blog, but it is Swedish news in English. You can also find news and reference material at Sweden.se.

Last week, Sweden’s highest court (Högsta Domstolen, HD) upheld an acquittal won on appeal by Pentecostal pastor Åke Green in February this year.A potted history: Åke Green preached a virulently homophobic sermon in 2003 — in which he called homosexuality a cancer tumor on society, among other things — and this led to an indictment in a local court under a Swedish law that criminalizes hets mot folkgrupp, agitation against certain protected groups, including homosexuals. The verdict went against Green, and carried with it a month in prison, but Green appealed, and a regional court overturned the ruling. Prosecutors in turn appealed the regional court’s acquittal, but Sweden’s highest court has now upheld Green’s right to make sermons of the kind he gave to his Pentecostal flock in Sweden’s Bible belt.

What’s interesting about HD’s ruling [PDF, 40K] is that it is based on an entirely different rationale from the ones used by the previous two courts. We have now heard three arguments for where the legal limits of free speech ought to lie in Sweden, though this latest ruling by HD is the binding opinion. I didn’t think much of the first two. What about this one?

HD has turned to a body of law entirely ignored in the previous two rulings — The European Convention on Human Rights. The court points out not only that the convention is a source of law in Sweden, but that it takes precedence. In the case of Åke Green, it is specifically the parts concerned with freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression, in Section I, Articles 9 and 10, that are relevant. I thought I might reproduce them here verbatim, so that we all know our rights now:-)

ARTICLE 9

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
 

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 10

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
 

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

My problem with the first two rulings by lower courts was that they subscribed to a bizarre notion of what freedom of religion means under Swedish law. The original ruling maintained that while some of the things Green said in his sermon were indeed derived from a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and hence protected “absolutely” under Swedish law,I blogged the original ruling here, with a follow-up here. other sentences in his sermon could find no direct backing in the Bible (he maintained, for example, that bestiality and pedophilia are predominantly committed by homosexuals) and hence enjoyed no protection as religious belief. It was for these “unscientific” passages in his sermon that he was condemned for agitating against homosexuals.

The second ruling cleared Green with the argument that his sermon’s interpretations of Biblical verse were protected as religious speech, in part because the Bible itself carries a categorical denunciation of homosexual relations as sin.I blogged this ruling here. Green’s embellishments are “hardly more far-reaching than the bible texts he refers to,” according to the regional court’s ruling.

I find it amazing that these two courts would consider it within their jurisdiction to interpret “sacred”My scare quotes in this case, because, to paraphrase Salman Rushdie, I believe nothing is sacred. texts with a view to deciding what constitutes reasonable religious belief. In part, the problem lies with Swedish law itself, which provides extra protection to religious beliefs and speech vis-á-vis sincerely held secular beliefs and speech. The upshot is that before speech can be given the protection afforded to religious expression, Swedish courts need to first decide if a certain text is religious in nature, and then decide whether speech based on such a text conforms sufficiently with the “sacred” ideas contained therein — a very silly pursuit indeed for a court. How to decide, for example, which beliefs are religious, which are cults, which are superstitions, which are philosophies, and which are ideologies? And once that hurdle has been cleared, what hope does such a court have of splitting fine theological hairs regarding textual interpretation if all the bishops and ayatollahs of the world have never managed to come to an agreement? It’s a folly to even begin going down this road.

How does HD’s ruling fare? It begins by noting that “Enligt 16 kap. 8 fl brottsbalken döms för brottet hets mot folkgrupp den som i uttalande eller i annat meddelande som sprids hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för folkgrupp”the Swedish law against hets mot folkrupp prohibits threatening speech or speech which expresses disrespect against protected groups. It then spends some time on what it means to “express disrespect,” and how that phrase has been interpreted in past rulings in Swedish courts. HD decides that Green’s speech clearly is disrespectful of homosexuals“Enligt den innebörd av 16 kap. 8 fl brottsbalken som kommit till uttryck i motiven får uttalandena därför anses ha gett uttryck för missaktning av gruppen homosexuella.”, but that the law which would make this a punishable offense in Sweden “Högsta domstolen måste emellertid nu pröva om en tillämpning av 16 kap. 8 fl brottsbalken i ÅGs fall bör underlåtas därför att en sådan tillämpning skulle strida mot grundlag (jfr NJA 2000 s. 132 och 2005 s. 33) eller mot Europakonventionen (jfr prop. 1993/94:117 s. 37 f. och bet. 1993/94:KU24 s. 17 ff.).”is subordinate to both the Swedish constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

HD then spends some time on whether the law against hets mot folkgrupp contravenes Sweden’s constitution, concluding that it would not.“Det är inte uppenbart att grundlagsskyddet för yttrandefriheten lägger hinder i vägen för att döma ÅG enligt åtalet (jfr 11 kap. 14 fl RF). Inte heller i övrigt hindrar grundlagen att han döms enligt ansvarsbestämmelsen om hets mot folkgrupp.”

Next, HD turns to the European Convention on Human Rights, and looks at how that law has been applied to free speech cases by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), where Åke Green’s case would presumably end up were he to be found guilty by HD of hets mot folkgrupp and were he to appeal against this ruling.

Here is where it gets interesting: HD finds the legal praxis based on the Convention to tilt far more in favor of protecting freedom of speech, even when this speech is shocking or offensive. In particular, it quotes from a 1976 ECHR ruling, Handyside vs. The United Kingdom:

The Court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a “democratic society”. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”. This means, amongst other things, that every “formality”, “condition”, “restriction” or “penalty” imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

Based on this and other examples, HD concludes that the ECHR would likely overturn any ruling that would find Green guilty“Under sådana omständigheter är det sannolikt att Europadomstolen, vid en prövning av den inskränkning i ÅGs rättighet att förkunna sin i bibeln grundade uppfattning som en fällande dom skulle utgöra, skulle finna att inskränkningen inte är proportionerlig och därmed skulle utgöra en kränkning av Europakonventionen.”, as the law against hets mot folkgrupp imposes constraints on speech that are disproportionate to the aim of the law, and that in doing so it contravenes the Convention. Åke Green’s original appeal is therefore upheld. In the process, the Swedish law against hets mot folkgrupp is quite deftly de-fanged.

I think the ruling is correct, though I do have problems with some of the reasoning behind it. I can think of three specific criticisms:

1) HD conflates “hate speech” with “incitement to violence”. I think that these two kinds of speech are different. The latter should be banned, while the former should not be, for reasons I’ve outlined in previous posts on this topic. HD frees Green on the grounds that his speech is not “hate speech”“Vid en samlad bedömning av omständigheterna — mot bakgrund av Europa-domstolens praxis — i ÅGs fall är det till en början klart att det inte är fråga om sådana hatfulla uttalanden som brukar kallas hate speech.”, but it first defines hate speech as something I would regard to be incitement to violence. I think Green’s sermon is clearly hateful towards homosexuals, though he does not call for violence, nor intends for his speech to be construed as a call to violence. Such speech should therefore not be banned, even though I regard it to be hate speech. Simply put, you can hate someone or some group and yet not want to harm them physically. The expression of such a belief should be protected.

2) HD’s ruling does not attempt to set straight the confused mess of the previous two rulings. Article 9 offers an obvious solution to the slippery slope of trying to define the bounds of protected religious belief — avoid the issue entirely by referring to “religion or belief”. This places secular foundations for ethics or political action on a level footing with religious foundations. The only thing these beliefs need have in common is that they are sincerely held. In Green’s case, his beliefs about homosexuals are no doubt sincere, as is his belief that they are grounded on a religious text. The application of Article 9 thus makes a mockery of the previous two rulings by Swedish courts. It would have been nice for HD to point this out.

3) When looking at the legal praxis of the Convention, HD twice notes the notion of a “margin of appreciation““Vid bedömningen av en sådan fråga anses konventionsstaten åtnjuta en viss frihet (“margin of appreciation”).”
…
“Vidare har staten i allmänhet ett visst utrymme (margin of appreciation) vid reglering av yttrandefriheten beträffande sådant som kan kränka djupt personliga uppfattningar i moralfrågor eller religionsfrågor.” that national legal systems are given when interpreting the Convention, to suit the specific moral standards and diverse cultural traditions of individual states. What HD does not do, however, is explain why it couldn’t use this “margin of appreciation” to rule that in Sweden, arguments and debates are to be had in a respectful, saklig (business-like) manner, as that is the cultural tradition of the country. Frothing-at-the-mouth sermons promising hellfire and damnation for homosexual behaviour would thus be beyond the pale, legally.

Some have made the case that the notion of a margin of appreciation can and is used to justify a wide range of local laws that would normally contravene the Convention. I would have liked to have heard HD’s opinion as to how wide it considers this margin of appreciation to be, and why it is not wide enough to allow the application of Swedish constitutional law in Green’s case, which would likely have found him guilty of hets mot folkgrupp. Without such a discussion, I feel that it is too easy to argue that the court could have gone the other way, had it had the inclination to do so. Green would then have appealed to the ECHR, and it would have been up to that court to decide whether HD had been too enthusiastic in its application of the notion of a margin of appreciation in interpreting the Convention.

I happen to think that when it comes to a freedom as fundamental as the freedom of speech, there should be very little or no margin of appreciation for national legal systems to wiggle around in. It would have been nice to hear Sweden’s highest court state that explicitly, however.

The Swedish blogosphere is insulated by language, as most of its constituents blog in Swedish. That’s how it goes in most European countries, large and small, and the upshot is that for Europe’s blog-fueled social networks, the transmission of ideas between them takes more effort than in a monoglot US.

What to do? You compensate. You bring in Europe’s big-picture guys and get them to give you a dose of perspective, a sense of the larger front that Swedish bloggers are part of. You compare notes (How do French papers use blogs? Do Swedish CEOs blog?), and call out the similarities and differences. Each European linguistic zone’s blogosphere is a microclimate, and hence a de facto testbed for ideas. Having a continent full of mini-Darwinian social networking laboratories can be a source of strength, though it is then up to the likes of Ben, Jyri, Lo‘c (and Moz further afield with Asia) to crosspollinate. And I think there are some Swedish bloggers who’d be very adept at taking on a similar role.

That’s what I saw happen at Bloggforum 3. But something similar happened at a personal level. Swedish bloggers weren’t just getting to know the social technologists through their presentations — Jyri, Moz, Lo‘c and Ben in turn faced an audience of representative blogging Swedes, mingled with them during the breaks, and made their own impressions. Several volunteered that they were impressed with the quality of the debate that ended their talks. Crosspollination is a two-way process — Bloggforum 3, in its own small way, signals to the rest of Europe that in Sweden here be bloggers.

Thanks to everyone for attending, and to everyone who participated on panel discussions or made a presentation, and thanks also to Erik and Rebecca for being such seamless organizational partners. The whole thing was a blast, and worth every minute of preparation.

Now, what do you want for Bloggforum 4?

Dear Social Democrats, LO umbrella union members, Byggnad union construction workers:

Eleven months ago, at the height of the Byggnads blockade of Latvian construction company Laval in Vaxholm, I told youIt was a three-part series:
The obstruction industry, parts I, II, III. that “your leaders are either being demagogues or dumb.” Now we know the answerFor non-Swedish speakers: It turns out that Byggnads union leaders lied when they denied Laval’s claims they had presented a highly cynical ultimatum to the Latvian company: Pay some of the country’s highest construction wages, or face a blockade. At the time, much of the country chose to believe Byggnad’s denial over the Latvians’ claims, and the story subsided. The people’s trust turns out to have been misplaced..

Hopefully, Byggnads will prove to have been dumb as well. The European Court of Justice awaits.

It’s that time of the year again: Bloggforum 3 is upon us. This time round you can enjoy it even if you don’t speak a word of Swedish, as half the talks are in English, and by ‘net luminaries to boot. If you’ve ever toyed with the idea of getting on a cheap flight to Stockholm for a weekend when the city is at its coziest, then this might be the time to finally take that plan off the backburner and just do it.

All this is a partial explanation for why it’s been so damn slow around here. It’s just a phase, I promise: Nieces getting born, friends getting married, apartments to move to, new blogs to launch, Bloggforums to organize… This can’t last. I need some sleep.

It’s time to move again, this time to the burbs, to Telefonplan, “a stone’s throw from trendy restaurant“By way of context, the link refers to an article (in Swedish) that has real estate agents advertising homes in the area thusly. and club Landet, which won a Gulddraken award off Dagens Nyheter this yearThis is what restaurants and bars aspire to do in Stockholm..

Konstfack, Sweden’s best art school (or so I’m told), has just moved nextdoor, into the old Ericsson headquarters, whose architectural style is a very clean modernism that nevertheless affords some subtle flourishes.I really like it, and might have to illustrate what I mean with a photo essay, soon.

Artists repopulating old industrial landscapes, cool new restaurants and clubs, design exhibitions at my doorstep — does that sound familiar? Indeed, I am moving to the Williamsburg of Stockholm. In fact, I ran into some of my hipper workmates while exploring the neighborhood by bike today — they were househunting.

Sorry, your browser doesn’t support iframes.

My apartment, my eighth in three years, will be available on Oct 15. Before then I am spending a week at a friend’s place, then a week in New York, attending Felix and Michelle’s wedding.Take that as a forecast for further sporadic posting in the coming weeks. As with my last post about moving, this post is actually about how atrocious the UPC cable company is. I won’t need UPC in my new place, so I called them up today to cancel the service. Fine, the UPC man tells me, we can do that at the end of November. WTF? I moved out 2 days ago, I tell him, I don’t need it anymore, and certainly not until December. And besides, I know they can turn service on and off within minutes, as I’ve seen them do it while on the phone with them trying to help them restore one of their numerous service outages.

There was no budging him. All he did was refer to the avtal, the “agreement” that I signed with them: They require a calendar month to turn off the service. As today is October 3, the calendar month becomes November.

I can see two reasons why they might do this: Until recently, they were the only provider of cable and broadband internet services to many places in Stockholm, and as is the case with any monopoly, they can and therefore will screw the customer. Second, it is in UPC’s interest to extend the revenue stream from departing customers for as long as possible, especially if they are losing market share to a newcomer.

None of this makes it right. I’d recommend the newcomer, Bredbandsbolaget, as they offer faster service at lower prices, but in fact most of Bredbandsbolaget’s terms of service require a three-month warning before cancelling the avtal.

Which goes to show that a duopoly is often just as bad as a monopoly. This market is ripe for an upstart that positions itself as a rebel, on the side of the customer, with an avtal that does not lock them in.

I’m beginning to instinctively recoil from that word, avtal. Like with kollektivavtalcollective bargaining, it is beginning to be a synonym in my mind for things you agree to against your best interests, or things you only pretend to agree to when in fact you have no choice. It’s newspeak, what it is.

Därför att måndag, 8 augusti är månadens första måndag, kommer Erik och jag att träffa varannan och dem bloggare som vill/kan på Storstad, som jag misstänker är väldigt nära Eriks bostad. Kl. 19.00. Det finns mycket att prata om.

Rhian Salmon paid Stockholm a visit this week in a futile quest to use up the vacation allowance she accrued during her 18 months on Halley, Antarctica. She and fellow Antarctician Liz had just gone on “holiday” by mistake: Crossing the Baltic in a 21-foot sloop without engine or GPS in one of that sea’s rainier weeks in living memory. They seemed to have enjoyed it, perhaps by channeling Shackleton, but were eager to hit Stockholm town.

Liz on the left, Rhian on the right.

There is definitely a circuit for showing Stockholm to visitors with time constraints. We went to Pelikan the first night, where I ran into my friend James the expat ER doctor, who was entertaining family friends in exactly the same manner. Pelikan has three things going for it: It serves great honest Swedish food, the locale is an old-school classic, and it shuns pretence. Ironically, in Stockholm, this can also mean there is room.

Over raw herring appetizers and Skåne snaps, Rhian told some flattering news: Beaver Me First, that masterpiece of a short film which Matthew and I had made back in 2002, turns out to have had a public showing in addition to the première — on Antarctica, no less, in front of 16 Halley base winterers. They had been enthusiastic, apparently — as would be anyone if the alternative is watching The Thing for the twelfth time, but why parse compliments overly?

The next night, nearer to home at Lokal, we discovered why it is unlikely the Kungsholmare cocktail will ever take off. The bartender couldn’t/wouldn’t make it for us, as it included vodka and pear cider, both of which are alcoholic, and this apparently presented a problem. He had fewer qualms selling us the ingredients separately, so we ordered pear cider with a dash of lime cordial and a shot of vodka on the side. It made for a rather expensive drink, however. Best to try this at home, then.

This is the last one, promise. Previously, BS1 and BS2. Is there any overlap at all in the stories the social democrats and the liberals tell themselves about what it means to be Swedish? Is there something that all Swedes can agree on as being at the core of the Swedish experience, suitable for foreign consumption, yet not just true on a trivial level, like schlager festivals, Santa Lucia, midsommar, surströmming, lumpen, winter sports… Yes, all those things define Sweden, but surely being Swedish is more than the sum of these parts? Isn’t there something more?

I think there is, but its at the end of this post.

First, some things that are not. We’ve already eliminated the social democratic utopian ideal as a Swedish universal (again, without having to pronounce on its merits or otherwise). What about the royals?

At the branding conference, Simon Anholt said something that perked my ears. He told the assembled Swedes that they are very lucky to have a royal family. “Royal families are the guardians of the national brand,” he said. What I understood him to mean is that for the Swedish royal family, Sweden is the family business, so when it comes to the country’s image, it’s personal for them, which puts them at a competitive advantage.

Anholt probably didn’t mean to be prescriptive, but what he said implies putting the cart in front of the horse. Surely, deciding on whether to dump the royal family should foremost depend on the justness of competing political systems, not whether royals make for good TV come Nobel time. If the removal of the monarchy were to damage Sweden’s standing in the eyes of Belgium or Brunei, should that really be a valid reason not to proceed? Instead, might there not be something positive to be said, brand-wise, about showing that Sweden’s commitment to meritocracy is reflected in its national symbols?

What about corporate national champions — can they teach us something about core Swedishness? Well, certainly not most of them. Volvo, Saab and Ericsson are supposed to be Swedish, except that Volvo is run by Ford (and its cars are designed by a Brit), Saab is owned by General Motors, and Ericcson is married to Sony. Corporate finance and modern production processes simply aren’t impressed by national borders anymore. It’s the same everywhere: Belgium’s Godiva Chocolatier is now owned by Campbell Soup. Brands lag reality, but in the cases where a corporate brand feeds off the national brand (Belgians as bon vivants, Swedes as innovative and safety minded), the marketeers desperately want to prolong this connection. Needless to say, it’s all a bit of a sham.

What’s left? A panel discussion at the end of the conference noted how Ingmar Bergman has helped shape an image of Swedes that borders on a caricature — the Swede as an earnest, moody introspective melancholic, playing chess with Death when not staring out of windows at stormy coastlines. And yet there is some truth to this. Proof was the panel itself, whose members managed to alternate between earnest, moody and introspective. Swedes can be painfully honest about themselves, and are often self-conscious near excessive displays of patriotic pride. The idea of branding raises the specter of immodesty. It’s somehow an unserious pursuit. Swedes are much happier if they can relate honestly to someone, do something useful, and then have a reputation bestowed upon them.

I think the branding of Sweden should incorporate this conflicted approach towards the branding of Sweden, because it is in this tension between reticence and pride that I see a core national trait — the one thing that most Swedes have in common. So let’s market this! How?

In professional marketing circles, apparently, you’re supposed to come up with an encapsulating tag line, like Nokia’s Connecting People or Avis’s We try harder. Other countries have them too — New Zealand New Thinking, Cool Britannia, Norway’s Peaceful NatureGet it? It was proposed, in any case. I’m not sure if the Norwegians went for it in the end., Malaysia Truly Asia. The best ones, like the British and Norwegian ones, are punny, and hint at a double entendre.

I’ve come up with some of my own candidates for Sweden’s tag line:While we’re at it, I also suggest:
Radiotjänst. We pry harder
Chello. Goodbye!

Sweden. Fair enough.

Sweden. Honestly.

Sweden. A little proud.

Sweden. If you like.

Sweden. Not that there’s anything wrong with Norway.

Sweden. For Life (4 to 8 with good behaviour).Let’s not market this one in Iraq.

But my favorite tag line draws from the fact that there is one Swedish national corporate champion that truly does embody core Swedish traits — not least via its founder — and which already has a globally recognized brand to die for. Sweden should just to try to ride this company’s blue-and-yellow coattails. Hence,

Sweden. Made in IKEA.