TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Sweden's Muslims denied their own laws

Sweden's Muslims denied their own laws

quote:

'Separate laws for Muslims' idea slammed Sweden's largest Muslim organisation has demanded that Sweden introduce separate laws for Muslims, according to Swedish television. Sweden's equality minister Jens Orback called the proposals "completely unacceptable". The Swedish Muslim Association, which represents around 70,000 Muslims in Sweden, has sent a letter to all Sweden's main political parties suggesting a number of reforms, SVT's Rapport programme reported. The proposals include allowing imams into state (public) schools to give Muslim children separate lessons in Islam and their parents' native languages. The letter also said that boys and girls should have separate swimming lessons and that divorces between Muslims should be approved by an imam. The letter provoked an instant, and damning, response from integration and equality minister Jens Orback. "We will not have separate laws in Sweden. In Sweden, we are all equal before the law. In Sweden, we have fought for a long time to achieve gender-neutral laws, and to propose that certain groups should not be treated like others is completely unacceptable." Orback said he had spoken to representatives of the Swedish Muslim Council, and they did not support the association's position. "We have freedom of speech, we have the right to opinions and we have the right to make proposals - but if a law is going to be changed, it must be the same for everyone." Asked whether the proposal plays into the hands of racists, Orback said that it did. "I think it is very problematic and unfortunate that people who have been in Sweden for so long make proposals such as this that are so opposed to our intentions, when we are fighting for women's rights and the right to divorce," Orback replied. Liberal Party leader Lars Leijonborg also slammed the idea of separate laws. "Sweden has equality between men and women. To introduce exceptions for Muslims so that women can be oppressed with the support of the law is completely unacceptable to me," Liberal leader Lars Leijonborg wrote in a statement.

(Source)
Ignoring the poorly thought out hate propaganda of the quoted Swedish politicians, I think that there are three obvious lessons that we should all take to heart here:
1: The hostile rhetorics of right wing parties are clearly the main obstacle to successful integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe.
2: It is only a negligible minority of Muslims in Western Europe that are Islamists.
3: The Swedish model of bending over backwards to the whims of immigrants, while lashing out at partners in the EU handling immigration in other ways, is obviously an ideal to be followed.



Seriously, suggesting something like this is way beyond insane - and I'm shocked that people can be so out of touch with the society that they have chosen to live in. Flabbergasted, I guess...

Holy shit

I need some time to... regain my senses... after reading this

I read about this in the papers today, and.. what can I say?
It's a tragedy that someone can propose this at all, and be totally serious.
This is stupid, and for once my government is right.

But here's one thing you all should know, before you comment on this:
In Sweden people are extremly afraid to be called a racist. I mean, really afraid (at least in public, but we do have our fair share of actual racists too).
This fact, effects debates, and everyday-conversations, making it hard to have an open dialog about immigration, religion etc.
And it's not only the Swedes that know how easy it is to be considered a "racist" in Sweden, but also many of the young immigrants, grow up with the idea that anyone who speaks openly about the many problems concerning immigration, and cultural differences, is a racist.
It worries me, as the intigration-process is having quite a few worries here in Sweden. I hope it turns the other way soon.

btw: "Liberal" Lars Leijonborgs party isn't really liberal anymore. I consider them to be conservative.

Re: Sweden's Muslims denied their own laws

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic (Source) Ignoring the poorly thought out hate propaganda of the quoted Swedish politicians, I think that there are three obvious lessons that we should all take to heart here: 1: The hostile rhetorics of right wing parties are clearly the main obstacle to successful integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe. 2: It is only a negligible minority of Muslims in Western Europe that are Islamists. 3: The Swedish model of bending over backwards to the whims of immigrants, while lashing out at partners in the EU handling immigration in other ways, is obviously an ideal to be followed. Seriously, suggesting something like this is way beyond insane - and I'm shocked that people can be so out of touch with the society that they have chosen to live in. Flabbergasted, I guess...

What it shows is either a complete disregard or a complete incomprehension for everything Western ideals stand for. As well as a blatant unwillingness to want to understand or even care about them. Its also completely hypocritical and egocentric, telling everyone else to change without making changes themselves and placing their needs above the needs of their surrounding environment without so much as a thought of integration or adaptation.

Of course when I refer to "them" I mean this Muslim Association. There are a lot of extremist Muslims and Muslim groups that give the greater population a bad name. Though when the only people talking are your nut-bags and no one is actively voicing disagreement you can't blame anyone for assuming you agree with them. Especially when everyone has their ears towards you waiting for you to say you don't.

unbeliveable that someone could propose this. This type of thing really makes me mad I wonder what the response will be now that the Swedish government has rejected this with great agreement by me

Re: Re: Sweden's Muslims denied their own laws

quote:

Originally posted by InterMilan31 unbeliveable that someone could propose this. This type of thing really makes me mad I wonder what the response will be now that the Swedish government has rejected this with great agreement by me

I read an editorial that speculated that this was a deliberately extreme suggestion that was meant to pave the way for less radical ideas later on. E.g. if the same organization suggests something like enforced separation of men and women at state swimming pools in a month or two, they can claim that they are seeking a compromise, blame the government for being unwilling to enter a dialogue, and get something implemented that prior to this was totally out of the question.

quote:

Originally posted by hyped_Lp But here's one thing you all should know, before you comment on this: In Sweden people are extremly afraid to be called a racist. I mean, really afraid (at least in public, but we do have our fair share of actual racists too). This fact, effects debates, and everyday-conversations, making it hard to have an open dialog about immigration, religion etc. And it's not only the Swedes that know how easy it is to be considered a "racist" in Sweden, but also many of the young immigrants, grow up with the idea that anyone who speaks openly about the many problems concerning immigration, and cultural differences, is a racist. It worries me, as the intigration-process is having quite a few worries here in Sweden. I hope it turns the other way soon.

Well, it starts with you, the individual. If you harbour dissatisfaction with current integration or immigration policies you can voice it, and if you do not, you can defend the right of others to voice their reservations.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Of course when I refer to "them" I mean this Muslim Association. There are a lot of extremist Muslims and Muslim groups that give the greater population a bad name. Though when the only people talking are your nut-bags and no one is actively voicing disagreement you can't blame anyone for assuming you agree with them. Especially when everyone has their ears towards you waiting for you to say you don't.

My thoughts exactly.

Re: Re: Sweden's Muslims denied their own laws

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Of course when I refer to "them" I mean this Muslim Association. There are a lot of extremist Muslims and Muslim groups that give the greater population a bad name. Though when the only people talking are your nut-bags and no one is actively voicing disagreement you can't blame anyone for assuming you agree with them. Especially when everyone has their ears towards you waiting for you to say you don't.

That's perfectly understandable. But, this is what I disagree with:

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Though when the only people talking are your nut-bags and no one is actively voicing disagreement you can't blame anyone for assuming you agree with them.

Why are you assuming this? Just because no one is actively speaking out against it (or so it seems)? Did it ever occur to you that most moderates feel like they're targeted by "both parties" i.e. non-Muslims (not all of them ofcourse, but more than not) and extremists? And by targeted I mean, eigther directly targeted or having to face repressed distrust or/and hatred (which may seem very subtle to most but it very obvious if it's directed towards you, atleast it becomes obvious over time if you have to deal with it very frequently, sometimes on a daily basis).

To me, the only thing this reflects is a justification for a growing fear/prejudice. "We're just going to assume that you're all like this since a fraction of yall are."

And like I mentioned before (sort of, a while ago), "dissenting" voices don't get much publicity and are often silenced/not covered by the media. I don't understand why this is so fucking hard to believe.

EDIT: Another thing I don't like about this attitude is that it already assumes guilt of a cetain quality/whatever, not just for an individual, but an entire group of people, somehow need to clear their name for. That's FUCKING BULLSHIT!

Re: Re: Re: Sweden's Muslims denied their own laws

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's perfectly understandable. But, this is what I disagree with: Why are you assuming this? Just because no one is actively speaking out against it (or so it seems)? Did it ever occur to you that most moderates feel like they're targeted by "both parties" i.e. non-Muslims (not all of them ofcourse, but more than not) and extremists? And by targeted I mean, eigther directly targeted or having to face repressed distrust or/and hatred (which may seem very subtle to most but it very obvious if it's directed towards you, atleast it becomes obvious over time if you have to deal with it very frequently, sometimes on a daily basis). To me, the only thing this reflects is a justification for a growing fear/prejudice. "We're just going to assume that you're all like this since a fraction of yall are." And like I mentioned before (sort of, a while ago), "dissenting" voices don't get much publicity and are often silenced/not covered by the media. I don't understand why this is so fucking hard to believe. EDIT: Another thing I don't like about this attitude is that it already assumes guilt of a cetain quality/whatever, not just for an individual, but an entire group of people, somehow need to clear their name for. That's FUCKING BULLSHIT!

As you say, you've raised these points before. While I certainly empathize with your predicament, and would even concede your point that it is unfair to expect each and every Muslim to distance himself from radicals, I have a couple of reservations about the details of your argument. Primarily, I do think that the 70000 members of the Muslim organization refered to in the article have an obligation to speak out, or leave the organization. When you elect a board of people as representing your interests, and these turn out to be radicals, others will and can (justifiably) assume that you agree with these views - unless you distance yourself from them, that is.
Moreover, if you identify yourself as a Muslim, and you feel misrepresented by the "official" faces of Islam (such as CAIR and Hizbu-Tahrir), you must create your own face of Islam and display it to the world or failing that back existing vocal moderates. It doesn't suffice to say "well, Muslim X have already distanced himself from radical idea Y, so there's no point in reiterating it", when so many Muslims are being vocal about their support of radicalims (e.g. in Denmark more people are members of Abu Laban's organization than Democratic Muslims). An example from another world is back when the Cartoon crisis escalated beyond control. Quite a lot of Danes disagreed with the publication (finding it to be a childish provocation) and the handling of foreign protests by our government. This disagreement resulted in several campaigns where people signed reconciliatory statements apologizing to Muslims on behalf of Denmark. These people felt that they were being misrepresented and thus established a visible alternative representation. By doing so they obtained the right to feel offended by people lumping all Danes into one big group of Islamophobic cartoonists.
Finally, your statement that moderates are simply not allowed their time in the spotligth is highly debatable. At least in Europe large parts of the media is left-leaning and are just dying to disprove the negative image of Islam. (The Democratic Muslims organization in Denmark has been getting much attention in the media since being founded earlier this year for example.) However, I decided to test your thesis, and went through CAIR's web-site (assuming that CAIR are moderates?). Surprise surprise, not one of their numerous press releases from the last couple of months denounce radicalism. The closest call is condemnation of the violence directed against Christians by Muslims in some Islamic countries, and the call for release of the Afghani Christian. The far majority of press releases are about talks, shows, books, and other materials educating westerners about the life and time of Muhammed. As a convinced agnostic I don't care about this - I want to know if I can live side by side with Muslims in the same society. And to be convinced of that I need to know that in the case that Muslims constitute 51% of the population I'm still going to live in a secular liberal society.
Investigating further, I searched their site for their views on Sharia (lots of hits), but apparently all CAIR has to say about that is things like: "Sensationalism Shrouds Debate on Sharia" and "Muslim Leaders Liken Sharia To Canada's Arbitration System", conveniently sidestepping actually commiting themselves to either supporting or rejecting introduction of Sharia in the west. Contrast that with the Danish Democratic Muslims, which among their six founding principles have "separation of state and religion" and "opposition to capital punishment". You may also contrast it with the Muslim Canadian Congress' press releases, which include "Don't be silenced by extremists", "MCC questions motives behind demand to ban debate on religion", and "Using a cartoon crisis to promote a conservative Muslim agenda". These people are clearly distancing themselves from fundamentalist medieval thinking, and the press do carry the message forward.
So, in short, if you want me to be convinced that the media silences moderate voices, then you'll have to point me to some press statements that have been ignored by the media.

Re: Sweden's Muslims denied their own laws

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic (Source) Ignoring the poorly thought out hate propaganda of the quoted Swedish politicians, I think that there are three obvious lessons that we should all take to heart here: 1: The hostile rhetorics of right wing parties are clearly the main obstacle to successful integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe. 2: It is only a negligible minority of Muslims in Western Europe that are Islamists. 3: The Swedish model of bending over backwards to the whims of immigrants, while lashing out at partners in the EU handling immigration in other ways, is obviously an ideal to be followed.

Assuming you are being sarcastic here I still have to comment on the last one which I think is a huge problem for Sweden.

As hyped_Lp pointed out, Sweden got HUGE problems with their PC obsession, it is by no means okay to criticize the immigration policies, cause if you do you are a racist even though your intentions are the complete opposite (kind of like you are not allowed to criticize the welfare society either ). Naturally since the debate is very limited this has lead to even worse policies, and I would say we have a ticking bomb here waiting since a lot of swedes are seeing themselves as above every other "race", and also value their traditions/culture which they think is the only and best way which must be kept to every price.

Anyhow, to me it seems obvious that the only reason why the social democrats critized this is because they touched another holy cow here - the equality between men and women - something which is even more holy and not in any way up for discussion.

Hopefully the 17th of september we will see some change

quote:

Originally posted by hyped_Lp btw: "Liberal" Lars Leijonborgs party isn't really liberal anymore. I consider them to be conservative.

I wouldn't consider them liberal either, but they are even less conservative than they are liberal imo (except perhaps some of their school proposals and some of their immigration policies which are kind of conservative)! What makes you think they are conservative? I'd say they are more like the social democrats if anything...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweden's Muslims denied their own laws

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Primarily, I do think that the 70000 members of the Muslim organization refered to in the article have an obligation to speak out, or leave the organization. When you elect a board of people as representing your interests, and these turn out to be radicals, others will and can (justifiably) assume that you agree with these views - unless you distance yourself from them, that is.

While I do agree with your point I still think it is important to point out that the umbrella organisation for all the Muslim organisations in Sweden actually strongly condemmed this proposals and emphasized the need that everyone should have equal laws and saw the proposal as something deeply worrying, something that got wide media attention here in Sweden.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweden's Muslims denied their own laws

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew While I do agree with your point I still think it is important to point out that the umbrella organisation for all the Muslim organisations in Sweden actually strongly condemmed this proposals and emphasized the need that everyone should have equal laws and saw the proposal as something deeply worrying, something that got wide media attention here in Sweden.

I found the following, which I guess is what you're talking about?

quote:

Many Swedish Muslim leaders distanced themselves from Aldebe's demands, saying they had little support among Sweden's estimated 400,000 Muslims. "He is lucky if he speaks for 70 of his members," said Abd al Haqq Kielan, an imam who heads the Swedish Islamic Society, one of five national Islamic organizations. Kielan called the proposals "absurd," adding that they would lead to "a sort of Mullah-rule that people are scared of." "If you open the gate for separate laws for different minorities, where will it end?" he said. "We have to have one law for all citizens. That is so obvious that I don't understand how he can come up with such an idea."

(Source)
which can only be said to be a most positive thing (only question left is who really speaks on behalf of the Swedish Muslims?), but I'm a little puzzled by your statement that *the* umbrella organization has condemned this, as according to euro-islam.info the organization suggesting this strange change of law, the SMR, *is* the umbrella organization of umbrella organizations in Sweden:

quote:

There are three organizations on a national level that are supported by the government through the Commission for State Grants to Religious Communities. They are all umbrella organizations for local communities and they organize about 75 % of all Muslim communities in Sweden. They are not clearly divided by ethnicity nor by religious affiliation. There are also other national organizations that do not receive support from the government. Among these are a Bosnian organization, a Muslim youth organization and a strictly Shia organization. All co-ordinate local activities, form discussion groups or groups to deal with specific questions like adult education, marriage licenses, burial details or visiting the sick or imprisoned. The F�renade Islamiska F�rsamlingar i Sverige (FIFS, United Islamic Communities in Sweden) was formed in 1974 to fill the need among the Muslim communities for an umbrella organization. This need was engendered by the state support structure, which presupposes a national organization to distribute economic support to the different local communities. Thus FIFS organized all kinds of Muslim communities, including Shia and Sunni of multiple ethnicities. The only exceptions are the Ahmadiyyas, who maintain a separate organization. There is also the Sveriges F�renade Muslimska F�rsamlingar (SMuF, United Muslim Communities of Sweden) which split from FIFS over internal conflicts in 1982. This organization primarily represents Sunnis of Arabic language background, but also does serve some Shia communities. In 1990, another split occurred and IKUS was formed. The Islamiska Kulturcenterunionen (IKUS, Union of Islamic Centres of Culture) tends to represent the Suleymani, but also co-ordinates quite a few Somali communities. In IKUS there are no Shia communities. Also in 1990, the Sveriges Muslimska R�d (SMR - The Muslim Council of Sweden) was formed by FIFS and SMuF to help in their relations with the Swedish majority society. The most active person in SMR is Mahmoud Aldebe who has held the chairmanship of SMuF for quite a while. The SMR can be seen as his project. The specific missions of the SMR are the creation of mosques and Islamic schools, inform non-Muslims about Islam and to take an active part in public debate. From an ideological point of view, the leaders of FIFS, SMuF and SMR are considered close to the Muslim Brotherhood and some have been closely connected to Rabita. They reject the support of the Saudis. The leaders of IKUS tend to lean towards a revivalist Turkish Islam that accepts Sufism as a form of intellectual piety. Milli G�rus only has local groups and does not seem to have a strong influence.

I'm also a bit unsure of who the "Swedish Islamic Society" is. They're not listed in the above account, but the snippet in the start of my post still has their spokesman speaking on behalf of the Muslims of Sweden. Can anyone clarify this to me?
Anyway, if Aldebe spoke out of his ass with no backing from his members, one would expect him to be removed from his post shortly.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I found the following, which I guess is what you're talking about? (Source) which can only be said to be a most positive thing (only question left is who really speaks on behalf of the Swedish Muslims?), but I'm a little puzzled by your statement that *the* umbrella organization has condemned this, as according to euro-islam.info the organization suggesting this strange change of law, the SMR, *is* the umbrella organization of umbrella organizations in Sweden: I'm also a bit unsure of who the "Swedish Islamic Society" is. They're not listed in the above account, but the snippet in the start of my post still has their spokesman speaking on behalf of the Muslims of Sweden. Can anyone clarify this to me? Anyway, if Aldebe spoke out of his ass with no backing from his members, one would expect him to be removed from his post shortly.

Now I am having an aweful time trying to find an English article on the matter, but as you are Danish you would probably understand most of whats in this article. Amongst other things it says that the SMF (Sveriges muslimska f�rbund, the one Aldebe represents) is part of the umbrella organisation which is the Swedish Muslim Council, and the umbrella organisation's spokes person (Mehmet Kaplan) is condemming his letter. It also says that there has been lots of critique within his own organisation and that no one else from the board took part of his letter before he sent it out to the political parties. Further it seems like Aldebe is regretting his letter and is not really standing up for what he said there.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I wouldn't consider them liberal either, but they are even less conservative than they are liberal imo (except perhaps some of their school proposals and some of their immigration policies which are kind of conservative)! What makes you think they are conservative? I'd say they are more like the social democrats if anything...

well, there is the things you mentioned. They are very tough when it comes to school and immigration, and they remind me a bit about american conservative politicians. I guess I can't really say what exactly makes me think of them as conservative. I guess it's just the way they act and speak in certain matter. But I could be wrong, but again the social democrats, I think, is pretty conservative in a few matters. For an example their fight on filesharing and piracy.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Now I am having an aweful time trying to find an English article on the matter, but as you are Danish you would probably understand most of whats in this article.

I think I got most of it (except the part about Aldebe retracting his statements - I understood is as he still wanted to have separate laws). Thanks.

Thank GOD the Govt of Qu�bec rejected similar claims by the muslims here. Qu�bec and Sweden have about the same population and we have more muslims.

Maybe someone could tell me if Ontario rejected similar claims.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I think I got most of it (except the part about Aldebe retracting his statements - I understood is as he still wanted to have separate laws). Thanks.

Nah, according to that article he actually says he wants seperate "rules", not seperate laws (which I guess is just a different way of putting it). For examaple, he wants an exemption from the same sex marriage thing (which is understandable), and he wants to be able to approve divorces by imans, since this would help Swedish muslims in their home countries since their home countries wouldn't care about Swedish courts (although I see this as a way for the imans to be able to disaprove of divorces too, so this proposal doesn't make sense at all), and the statement about public pools isn't mentioned here...

Well, this is certainly not the way to encourage moderate Muslims to speak out:

quote:

HIRSI ALI, THE HUNTED Just to show how far Dutch tolerance goes: Ayaan Hirsi Ali�s neighbors have sued the Dutch state in order to get her to be removed from the apartment complex in which she is living under police protection. The request was initially rejected, but following an appeal a higher court has now ordered Hirsi Ali to leave her house within four months, I translate: The court considers in its ruling that the neighbors have been put into a situation that has contributed to them feeling less safe in their own house. That feeling is extended to the communal living spaces of the apartment complex, but also to their own apartments. The court argues that this is a severe violation of one�s private life (as per Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights). A few things. Firstly, it should be noted that Hirsi Ali is now booted out of her own house by virtue of the European Treaty for Human Rights which does indeed supersede Dutch law. Many cases are adjudicated by referring to this treaty, but given the subject matter here I would say: Euroskeptics, go knock yourselves out. Secondly, and this is the one that really bothers me, is that somehow Hirsi Ali�s neighbors self-interest runs so deep that they are prepared to use the court system to throw someone whose life is in danger out of her own house. It goes like this: we�re tolerant, we support free speech and a critical attitude, but if it comes too close to our front porch, sorry, we are no longer interested. On the contrary, self-interest is the deciding motivator. True, Hirsi Ali�s flatmates do have a reasonable point in arguing that the Dutch State has an obligation to ensure that their security measures benefit the entire complex. If the State has dropped the ball in that respect, they should be compelled by the courts to correct this, but to put the burden on Hirsi Ali is a very disturbing precedent. Yet, the plaintiffs are quite happy with the ruling: �We are relieved. We just didn�t feel safe any longer in our own homes. Of course, we consider it to be terrible for Hirsi Ali to have to leave her house. The case was not directed at her personally. The point was that the State should not open us to so much danger� The State may appeal this ruling, in which case it will go to the Dutch Supreme Court. The potential of a ruling that will favor Hirsi Ali and is able to address the upset neighbors may turn out to become a costly adventure for Dutch authorities as it is not just about one outspoken member of parliament. Beyond a number of politicians there is a growing constituency of writers, artists and cartoonists who may rightfully claim government protection. And in most cases their neighbors are equally likely to take a less than charitable view of their right to exercise free speech. This is once more evidence of how Europeans fail to understand the bigger picture and are more than willing to let some short term comfort prevail over the long term survival of core values that built their societies in the first place. So there are no winners here. The neighborhood is unmasked as a group whose shallow self interest is paramount, the State may have made a few mistakes and will have to spend yet more on security and Ayaan, well, she remains the hunted one. It seems that those responsible for threatening her will have the last laugh.

For some reason this reminded me of the quote in shaolin's signature...

I dont understand why someone of another nationality or religion should have their own laws in another country. If they can not live by Swedish law so leave and live where islamic laws are already formed by a government.

This isn't really related to the thread topic as such, but I do think there's a common movement underlying it, and I don't want to start a new thread about it.
In the third largest city/town in Denmark, last week a police patrol spotted a foreign car, with four men in it, in an area of the city which is mainly inhabited by immigrants. As the police is currently on fairly high alert, due to several threats of terror against Denmark, they stopped the car and asked the four men to identify themselves. They refused to do so, and the policemen tried to arrest them. After some pushing and shouting locals came running to the scene and attacked the police patrol, which had to flee the scene using small pathways. Throughout the night that part of the city were alive with unrest and bonfires in the street. The four men turned out to be some French Imams, which are currently touring Europe for some reason.
What kinds of reactions has this sparked, then? Well, the police chief of the city was of course quick to regret that the patrol had acted so soon, rather than work in collaboration with the local community leaders. I guess he's doing damage control, knowing that he has to keep up an illusion of control for that area for the foreseeable future. The local community leaders, on the other hand, has suggested, wait for it - an "ethnic" police for this particular city area. Anyone said parallel community? Anarchy? Wild wild west?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.