Sweden: Rape Was ‘Too Short’ for Deportation
How long must a 16-year-old Swedish girl be raped by an Eritrean asylum seeker before he can be deported? Five minutes, five hours, maybe five days? The Swedish justice system no longer has much to do with the rule of law.
A country that calls itself “humanist” seems to reserve its humanity only for imported perpetrators of violence. The case of 16-year-old Meya Åberg from Skellefteå is a slap in the face to anyone who truly believes in law and order in this Scandinavian country plagued by left-wing ideology. She was brutally raped on her way home from work – by a so-called “refugee” from Eritrea. But the Swedish authorities ruled that the assault “did not last long enough” to justify deportation, writes Heinz Steiner .
Meija Åberg, the Swedish girl raped by a migrant, is speaking out after her perpetrator was NOT deported because the rape didn’t last long enough.
“I feel sick just thinking about it… This will haunt me forever.”
A soul was murdered. It will never be the same again.
Remigration could have prevented this.
Remigration now.
Meya, a teenager who just wanted to go home after her late shift at McDonald’s, was attacked by Yazied Mohamed in September 2024. The young African man snatched her cell phone, held her down, raped her—and left her traumatized. “I hate him. He destroyed me,” she later said in an interview. Her words describe what the Swedish justice system has long forgotten: compassion for the victims of such brutal sex offenders.
While Meya was terrified of encountering her tormentor again, the state did nothing to protect her. On the contrary: after the crime, she had to see him multiple times—at school, on the street, even at work. He, the rapist, was allowed to roam freely. She, the victim, hid in restrooms out of fear, eventually left school, and lost her sense of security.
Sixteen-year-old Meya was raped by an Eritrean. The Swedish court spared him from deportation because the “rape had not lasted long enough.”
One of the lay judges who ruled on the verdict is Lena Berggren.
She is a member of a far-left party in Sweden and works as a “historian” critical of “racism” and nationalism.
Note: In Sweden, lay judges (nämndemän) participate in legal proceedings. They are non-professional judges who, along with professional judges, rule on many criminal and administrative cases. These lay judges are appointed on the recommendation of political parties in the municipal or regional council. This allows political parties to indirectly influence the judiciary, through whom lay judges are appointed.
You’d think that any sane country would at least deport the perpetrator after he’d served his sentence. But not in postmodern Sweden, where perpetrators are reinterpreted as victims once they receive “refugee status.” The judges of the Upper Norrland Court of Appeal (including lay judge Lena Berggren, a member of a far-left party) even declared that the act was “serious, but not serious enough” to warrant deportation. The reason: the rape hadn’t “lasted long enough.” As if the duration of a rape determines its severity. As if seconds determine trauma, fear, and lifelong psychological scars.
This incomprehensible reasoning illustrates the moral quagmire the Swedish legal system finds itself in. The perpetrator’s protected status outweighed the ruined life of a 16-year-old Swedish girl. The judges spoke of “individual assessment” and “refugee rights,” as if this were an administrative offense and not the rape of a minor. Only one judge, lay judge Sammy Lie (Sweden Democrats), showed any backbone. He stated aloud what any sensible person would think: this act is extremely serious, the perpetrator poses a threat to public safety and must be deported. But the majority of the judges decided otherwise.
Meya was not only physically raped, but also institutionally—by a system that prefers to indulge in legal acrobatics rather than bear the consequences of its own policies. The verdict is a signal to all perpetrators in this world: in Sweden, you can do almost anything—as long as you have the right background. The fact that Mohamed was convicted at all was only due to the appeal. The court of first instance had acquitted him due to a lack of “sufficient evidence.” Meya, on the other hand, had to seek psychiatric help and struggles with panic attacks, sleep disorders, and depression. But instead of protection and recognition, she receives the cold indifference of a system wallowing in its moral complacency.