The controversy began with an opinion piece written by Sofie Löwenmark, a long-time investigator of violent extremism, in the Expressen newspaper. Löwenmark alleged that the city of Gothenburg had allowed itself to be influenced by Muslim religious organizations, particularly regarding social services practices. This sparked a strong reaction from Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall, who publicly stated she would be “keeping an eye on Gothenburg.” The opposition in Gothenburg subsequently proposed a pause in the city’s collaboration with the implicated religious groups, namely the Muslim Cooperation Group.
The opposition’s call for a pause, spearheaded by Axel Josefson, stemmed from the seriousness of the allegations and their widespread dissemination on social media. Josefson emphasized the need for the city to investigate the veracity of the claims. Löwenmark’s article highlighted Bellevue Mosque, which she claimed had hosted Salafist preachers on multiple occasions, as a key player within the Muslim Cooperation Group. This group serves as a forum for Muslim congregations in Gothenburg to discuss societal issues. The article also referenced an unnamed social services manager who allegedly conceded to Muslim representatives during the LVU (Care of Young Persons) campaign, a period marked by disinformation concerning social services allegedly targeting Muslim families.
Ing-Marie Larsson, a long-serving department head within Gothenburg’s social services, identified herself as the likely subject of this allegation. She clarified that her words had been taken out of context. Larsson explained that she had met with representatives from the Interreligious Council in Nordost, including members of the Muslim Cooperation Group, to address misinformation spread during the LVU campaign. The meeting aimed to educate community members about how Swedish social services operate. Following the meeting, Larsson received requests for further information sessions, which she agreed to organize but admits were subsequently overlooked. Later, when contacted by a journalist, Larsson apologized for the delay and reiterated her commitment to arranging the sessions, leading to the “laying flat” comment that was later misconstrued. These sessions provided information about becoming foster parents and addressed community members’ questions. Larsson firmly denied that the Muslim Cooperation Group had exerted any undue influence over social services or that the department had yielded to any demands.
Löwenmark’s article also scrutinized a department within Gothenburg’s administration responsible for facilitating communication between the city and its residents. This department had been tasked with supporting social services in combating the spread of misinformation about the LVU campaign. In fulfilling this mandate, the department initiated contact with Gothenburg Mosque to arrange a meeting with the intent to gather input and listen to the mosque’s perspective on the disinformation campaign. Gothenburg Mosque subsequently involved the Muslim Cooperation Group to broaden outreach, resulting in a meeting attended by city officials and representatives from the Muslim Cooperation Group, including Bellevue Mosque. Minutes from this meeting, cited by Löwenmark, allegedly revealed a passive stance from the city while the Muslim groups took the offensive, purportedly demanding the replacement of ”Islamophobic caseworkers.”
Karim Zendegani, head of the city’s democracy and citizen services department, contested Löwenmark’s interpretation. He maintained that the meeting was primarily a dialogue characterized by questions and answers, aimed at facilitating communication between the city and the Muslim community. Zendegani emphasized the department’s proactive commitment to fostering democracy and upholding the equal value of all individuals, even those holding potentially problematic views. He explained that the meeting enabled social services to participate in a Friday prayer at Gothenburg Mosque to inform attendees about their work. Zendegani did not see the presence of Bellevue Mosque at the initial meeting as problematic, arguing that his department’s responsibility is to engage with all segments of society, including those with potentially controversial viewpoints.
Löwenmark stood by her account, citing a Swedish Radio segment featuring Ing-Marie Larsson, which opened with the line, ”Gothenburg City has betrayed Muslim representatives.” Löwenmark argued this demonstrated that Larsson’s apology went beyond a single missed meeting and addressed broader concerns of perceived betrayal by the Muslim Cooperation Group. Regarding the alleged demands to replace ”Islamophobic caseworkers,” Löwenmark referred to the meeting minutes, stating that the issue had been raised repeatedly, not just as a question but as a previously articulated concern by the mosque and the Cooperation Group, which the city had initially rejected. Furthermore, Löwenmark criticized the tone of the email exchange between the mosque and the city, pointing to the mosque’s use of “dear” in addressing city officials and suggesting that Gothenburg’s responses adopted an apologetic and submissive tone.
The Gothenburg City Council addressed the opposition’s motion to pause collaborations with religious organizations. The ruling red-green coalition voted down the motion. Daniel Bernmar, a council member from the Left Party, argued that the allegations were unfounded. He downplayed the significance of potentially unreasonable viewpoints expressed during meetings with citizens, emphasizing that such expressions do not necessarily translate into policy changes. Bernmar suggested that the criticism centered on a single instance of an unreasonable request made during a dialogue, a common occurrence in public forums, and did not warrant a suspension of collaboration with religious groups. The underlying tensions between the city’s commitment to dialogue and concerns about undue influence remain unresolved.
