The Number-One country in the World’s ranking of arms-exports per capita, is now pursuing to become World’s first in the export of an aggressive “gender-perspective” -proved deprived of Human Rights for All. For the promotion and export of the “Swedish model”, Swedish State “feminists” have collaborated in the creating, using and protracting of the case Assange, all along.
by Marcello Ferrada de Noli
[Previously in this series, INTRODUCTION, and “Duck pond in the Swedish legal system”]
”The amoebas think that the drop of water in which they live, is the whole universe”– Albert Einstein
The using of Assange as a symbol, one more factor among the constellation of causes
I have pointed out previously elsewhere that the official engagement of Sweden as proxy-Inquisitors in the US case against WikiLeaks results from a constellation of causes. In this article I will refer to one of them, namely the Swedish declared international promotion of the “gender perspective”, made in Sweden. See further below.
Certainly there are other reasons that also contribute to why this process has been artificially protracted. I have previously mentioned the time was needed for the US prosecution to gather what they possibly can as “incriminating material” in the Bradley Manning trial that can link to Julian Assange. I advanced this explanation with further details in the RT interview below [click on image for video].
The (apparently) inexplicable refusal of Prosecutor Ny from Sweden’ side to interview Assange in London through video link or in person, excellently serves the above mentioned strategy of protracting the case. Besides, the more Sweden prolongs the case over time, the more damage is inflicted to the organization WikiLeaks, who’s leader – after many months under arrest and restrictions – has now completed six month being further confined in an embassy located in London. Most analyses in these columns converge unequivocally to the same conclusion: the target is WikiLeaks; the case is political.
A brief comment. As I am primarily interested in the political aspects of this case, I had not previously focused as much on the legal aspects. However, during my recent break I had the opportunity to study more in depth the aspects of the Swedish legislation pertinent to this process. It is pristinely clear that the organization of an interrogation of Assange through what the law calls “Videokonference” [for the Swedish reader, see “Förordning (2000:704) om internationell rättslig hjälp i brottmål.” Here] is fully possible.
Further – through the government officials’ public presentation of the organization WikiLeaks as enemy of Sweden and as a threat for the Swedish national security – the government is rallying support among the public deriving help from a mob-sentiment against “Sweden’s enemy Nr 1 Julian Assange”. That he is also US enemy No 1 would have been enough, however.
Sweden’s efforts to regain a presence in the international scenario
Since the times of the late Olof Palme, Sweden has lost status in the international scenario, bit by bit. The main reason for this is the abandonment of the Neutrality policy together with a clearer (and absolutely admitted) alignment with NATO and the US. Because of its current ideological engagement that started with the government of the right-wing social democratic Göran Persson, Sweden cannot any longer be considered a neutral arbiter of international conflicts.
Sweden has also been impeded from exporting its socio-economic model, as the world now knows it is no longer in use in Sweden (most of the state-welfare institutions that were hallmarks of the Swedish society have been extinguished or sold to private capitalist management). What have the inventive Swedes now found that they could “sell” as their image to the world in order to regain their international presence?
Answer: a radical sex-related legislation and the proclaimed protection of women’s rights. This would be a lovable enterprise if it not were for some in the ultra “feminist” movement in Sweden, instead of a Human-Rights perspective and a truly egalitarian line in gender issues they have shown to have an agenda of gender-supremacy and a behaviour of fascistic rule – including racist approaches – in a variety of spheres in society. It should be noted that in Sweden many actual leading ‘feminists’ occupying themselves with state feminism working from positions of government and in the mainstream media are right-wing militants.
I have already advanced this thesis when I denounced the above strategy in the occasion of a little-known WikiLeaks cable on Sweden [See article Wikileaks cable on procedures at UN Women would help explain Sweden’s feminists campaign against Assange], referring a specific political alliance with the US Department of State in order to get Sweden in a UN strategic centre for the promotion of “gender perspective” in the world. That strategic centre is called UNIFE, and Head of the UNIFEM office in Sweden is Ms. Margareta Winberg
Source WikiLeaks.org. The cable in full here
Margareta Winberg is a former Minister in the government of Göran Person, the right-wing politician (Social Democratic) and a public admirer of President George W Bush. Margareta Winberg – who once declared publicly ”It is strange that not even more women hate men” – is probably the highest ranked representative of State feminism in Sweden; her role in making obligatory in the Swedish education system – including universities and academic research – the “gender-perspective” based in the supremacist theses of extremist professor Eva Lundgren is described in “Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television: ‘Men are animals’” and in “From demons exorcism to State-Feminism. Further background on the Swedish case against Assange“].
Some chauvinist Swedes – women and men in some positions of power – act as believing that Sweden is the perfect country and, having the “best and most advanced” sexual-crimes legislation, it should be exported together with the Swedish gender-supremacy model to the rest of the world and in particularly to “underdeveloped” countries. With such supremacist beliefs encouraged or reinforced by a clear “radical feminist”-oriented media, some ultra “feminists” also think why not make that legislation even more “radical”, more “modern”, more “unique”. However, what the world outside such chauvinistic reasoning have already understood, is that a radical sexual-crime legislation per se, or a radical characterization of crimes or the conceptual enhancing of criminal entities in order to allocate extra behaviours, is not to be praised as effective only because a new and extended crime-typology would serve women’s integrity better. It has to serve society better, and this entails also a democratic and fair administration of justice with regard to such legislation, including prosecutors’ and police investigations under the Human-Rights perspective of equal rights for All, women and men, natives and immigrants. Swedish legislation fails in this and is actually discriminatory both as it is written and as it is applied.
Some weeks ago Sweden was visited by the Minister in the French government. She came to examine more closely the applicability and actual feasibility of the Swedsh sexual-offences legislation. She was in a tour scheduled to visit other countries too, and with the aim to evaluate different legislations. However, the Swdish media hurried to publish informations along these lines “French minister comes to Sweden to learn our sexual-crime legislation and implement it in France”. No comments.
In actual fact, the world outside Swedish självgodhet-feminsm says NO to gender supremacy; and NO to ethnic supremacy (Sweden Prime Minister Reinfeldt has started to use the term “ethnic Swedes” in the context of distribution of wealth and social justice). And NO to medieval legal praxis Sweden-style such as ordering the ipso facto incommunicado of a male detainee even after a non-proven or sustained accusation has simply been put forward against him at a police station (or in which the police or prosecutor ‘determine’ a crime has been committed, whether the ‘victim’ agrees or not). Or to “preventive arresting” in such arbitrary style, as suggested by Prosecutor Marianne Ny (Ny wrote, “Only when the man is deprived of freedom – detained – and the woman quite and easy gets a perspective of her situation, can the woman discover how she has been really treated” Marianne Ny means that the preventive detention she suggests “has a good effect as protection for the woman even in the cases where the accused man is charged by acquitted in the court”.
No to verdicts as those obtained in Swedish courts by lawyer Thomas Bodström in which an immigrant man, a political refugee, is condemned to a long prison term, it being enough the accusation without proof or evidence (The verdict stated: “According to this court, we found the plaintiff’s story credible and that fully meets the requirements to form the basis for a conviction”). It was about a Swedish woman referring to an event that occurred nine years prior and to which she decided to make a police report – at the initiative of a Bodström associate, a former police that impersonated being a prosecutor in performing her private investigation). In sum, the notion of per default culpability of men – based in the idea that that the society we all live in has been patriarchal in the past or still carries some vestiges of that in the present – is preposterous, and shall be rejected. Changes are to be done at the core of a social system, the very system that exploits both women and men and even profit of the stupid gender-wars agitated by these, wrongly self-called “radical” or “feminists”.
Swedish fundamentalist “feminists” (and as we have mentioned, lawyer Claes Borgström) have stated that men bear a collective guilt, and they have to pay for it. The modern “radical” legislation, and other diverse sexual-behavioural models Sweden is marketing to the world bear more and more distinctly hallmarks of a gender-vendetta. Instead of fighting for Human Rights and true democracy for All, social economic equality, respect by the State rulers for the citizens integrity, and fairness in the administration of justice, the ultra “feminists” behind the Swedish crusade wish to export to the world their narrow and biased supremacist gender perspective. They may be popular among the opportunist politicians of Sweden, but they are utterly mistaken as to whether the world is willing to embrace an ideology which represent the negation of Human Rights for All.
The international promotion of the “advanced” legislation of “modern Swedes” as an opportunistic reason in the Swedish case against Assange
In my analysis, one potent factor that emerges amid the medial strategy on the part of the government is that the phony accusation against celebrity Assange has been considered pivotal, and continues being so, for the advertising and publicity for the new law which Sweden intends to export, as mentioned above, and to which the one-sided internal Swedish “debate” is now coming to an end.
Please do remember that Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has repeatedly engaged in public interferences in the case and taken a biased positions towards advocating unilaterally for the juridical well-being of the women-accusers in an eventual trial against Assange. And most relevant in the context of this anti-Assange campaign described above, Reinfeldt has himself acknowledged a connection that can hardly be interpreted in any other fashion than “Sweden’s fight in our case against Assange strengthens Sweden’s expectations regarding our sexual-offences legislation.”
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt at the National Swedish Radio studios 25 January 2012. Foto: Maria Aros / Sveriges Radio
On 25 January 2012, Reinfeldt declared the following (answering journalists’ questions as to whether it was a problem for Reinfeldt that – in the context of the Assange case –there is developing internationally the description of Sweden as a banana republic):
– “We have naturally to stand up for we have a functioning legal state and also we take very seriously prosecutions that have to do with rape because there are also ingredients aiming to diminish how we have developed, and stand for, a good legislation in this case.”
Previously, in February 2011, referring to the Swedish case against Assange, Reinfeldt declared publicly:
“I can only regret that women’s rights and status weighs that light regarding these types of issues, in comparison with other type of theories put forward.”
It is not by accident that the process against Assange has been protracted all along during the time this legislation was under study and referred to several instances for consultations.
For more details on this item I refer here the reader to my previous article Swedish radical “feminists” declared Julian Assange a symbolic issue.
The use of the fabricated case against Julian Assange. From “Talk-about it” to “Dare-to-report”
One of the activities deployed by ultra “feminists” was the infamous Prataomdet campaign.
“In connection to a discussion regarding the media coverage of the Assange case, Swedish journalist Johanna Koljonen started to tweet, openly and intimately, about her own experiences of drawing lines and negotiating gray [sic] areas in sexual situations. Hundreds followed Koljonen’s example on Twitter under the hashtag #prataomdet (”#talkaboutit”). As a result of this, several Swedish magazines, newspapers and other media outlets are publishing pieces on the subject. In a matter of days international media, such as The Guardian, Die Welt, BBC World Service, Norway’s Dagbladet, Finland’s Helsingin Sanomat, and others have followed.”
This is the public page called by Sweden Women’s Lobby for a “discussion on how to further work politically with the starting point of (Prataomdet Campaign) core issue”. The pamphlet start by clearly explaining what the core issue was about:
“#Prataomdet is a public discussion in conjunction with the trial (sic) against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange”.
As seen in the document below, the main prominent speaker at the Conference is Claes Borgström – the lawyer of the plaintiffs in “THE TRIAL (sic) against WL’s founder” – from the firm ”Bodström & Borgström” mentioned above, here presented as the Social Democratic Party Spokesperson for Gender Issues. He should know there is no such “trial” against Julian Assange. Assange has not even been charged by any Swedish prosecutor.
But also in the speakers list is noted journalist Maria Sveland, author of (translated from the Swedish) “The Bitter Cunt” or ”Bitter Bitch” and that, according to her Wikipedia article (Swedish), has been entrusted with several programs at the Swedish Radio. As well as Elin Grelsson, also journalist at the Swedish Radio in a variety of programs, now with a weekly audition in SR’s P4..
Recently a new campaign was launched in Sweden called “Våga Anmäla”, meaning do dare to police report sexual harassment, rape, etc. everything that can be considered a sexual offense by the victim.
In the process of working on this article and evaluating, among other aspects, the possible relationships between this new media campaign and the previous anti-Assange media campaign “Prataomdet” a new development took place. To my (not so much) surprise, this morning’s edition (7 December 2012) of the main Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter had a full one-page editorial starting with these lines – marked in red in the image below
What this development has to do with other new issues in both the campaign to promote the new legislative radicalized propositions of Marianne Ny et al with regards to sexual-offences, and the fate of the “symbol” Julian Assange in reference to these campaigns, in another article.
Next in this series, There is enough evidence, fact-based on the repeated and uniform political behaviour of Swedish rulers – both historically and during the present government – on that this government is fully prepared to extradite Julian Assange to U.S. The arguments put forward to the public by the Swedish EU Commissionaire Cecilia Malmström are not tenable.
Continue to the Third Part in this series: The Assange Extradition Case Revisited
I thank Traci Birge for valuable comments