The terrorist group received millions in grants; you are tasked with examining yourself

Earlier this fall, Kvällsposten revealed that the state authority “Delegation against segregation” (Delmos) had awarded the Rosengård village house 903,625 SEK to “reduce and counteract segregation at the local level”. The application indicates that a main actor in the project is Group 194 Malmö.

The Pro-Palestinian Group 194, among other things, has published anti-Semitic and terrorism-promoting posts on Facebook, which Kvällposten previously reported on.

Anders Kessling, director of Delmos, did not know about the group’s terrorist positions at the time, but announced that he would “investigate” it and that the authority “takes it seriously.”

Reviewed by partners

Five weeks after Kvällposten was published, Anders Kessling says that an investigation of the 194 Malmö Group has been launched. Responsibility for the investigation has been assigned to Rosengård’s folkets spouses, that is, to the group partner who requested the money.

– We have requested a special report from the Rosengård village house where we asked them to describe their review of Malmö Group 194 democracy. In your response to us, you have certified that the group meets the conditions of democracy. We’ve asked them to review Group 194’s risks as well, and that’s the investigation we’re waiting for now.

In other words, the state commissioned Rosengård Folkets hus to carry out an independent review of its own partner. On review, they have concluded that your partner is democratic.

In their report to Delmos, they write that they have read the minutes of the annual meeting and the annual report of the 194 Malmö Group and that, based on that information I don’t see anything that goes against democratic values ​​”.

The information that appears on Kvällsposten is not mentioned in a word in the review, despite the fact that it is precisely the information that made the review relevant.

Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate if you, as an authority, had conducted the review yourself?

– Yes, if it were the 194 Malmö Group that asked us for money, we would have investigated them, but now it is the village house that requested the money and then we make our decision based on the information we receive from them. This is how the system is structured, says Anders Kessling.

Has your review been satisfactory so far?

– Yes, among other things, they looked at the annual report and spoke with the organization. They have done what is usually done in a democracy review. On the other hand, unlike them, we have assessed that Group 194 Malmö has a connection to Group 194 at the national level, so we asked them to supplement with a review of the national group as well.

Waiting for review

Currently, the state authority is awaiting another democracy review from the Rosengård people’s house. Based on this data, they will decide whether the Rosengård village house will be allowed to keep the million dollar grant or not.

Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher at the Swedish National Defense College, doesn’t think this sounds like a review. He thinks it sounds more like the Jönsson League.

– It’s absolutely horrible that it works this way. I don’t understand how the authorities think when they let the organizations examine themselves and each other. In all other aspects of public activity, business, and personal finance, every penny must be insured. But when it comes to contributions to civil society, they leave all the taps running and let public tax money spray uninhibited.

TV: The terrorist investigator: “ATM for dishonest actors”