Infatti, la vendetta svedese può essere semplicemente spiegata con questo piccolo pezzo di giornale, ma contenente una realtà enormemente spaventosa:
Wikileaks aveva rivelato di fronte al mondo:
a) la falsa neutralità svedese in questioni di politica estera e militare. La Svezia era in realtà agiscono sotto la NATO.
b) l’auto compromettente indipendenza politica della nazione. La Svezia è stata, infatti, a ricevere “istruzioni” sulla raccolta d’informazioni riguardante gli abitanti svedesi, e anche iniziative di legge per essere proposta al parlamento svedese (e qui in fatti venivano da una potenza straniera).
c) l’atteggiamento servile di funzionari governativi che hanno compromesso l’integrità dei loro connazionali. Tutto questo è stato fatto in segreto e nascoso deliberatamente dal Parlamento. Se trattava anche de una condotta illegale.
d) il fatto che dopo tutto l’affare è stato riportato pubblicamente da Wikileaks, non c’era in concreto nessuna reazione da parte dei politici, giornalisti, o del pubblico in generale, circa questi fatti scandalosi. Nulla almeno che ha portato qualcuno problema reale – o minaccia politica o pure legale – alle autorità coinvolte. Questo è stato uno scandalo è di per sé, perché in condizioni “normali”- secondo se considera standard in tutte le nazioni – qualsiasi proposta di collaborazione segreta con una potenza straniera (in materia de informazione o altro tema cosi “delicato”) deve essere prima approvata dell’autorità costituzionale – in questo caso il Parlamento svedese (Rikstad).
Fu allora quando la critica internazionale ha cominciato a scaricare sopra la Svezia. L’opinione pubblica internazionale reazionava con stupore. Invece, i funzionari svedesi o non ha capito qui si trattavano de una condotta illecita e grave, o non potevano accettare queste critiche. Hanno invece accusato Assange, e hanno fatto del fondatore della Wikilekas “il nemico” della Svezia. Così è stato ritratto in una serie di documentari alla televisione nazionale svedese e sulla stampa (queste analisi se possono vedere qui, da altri articoli in Profesors blogg)
In summa, il scandalo rivelato da Wikileaks riferisce principalmente
1) A una raccolta di intelligence in relazione ai dati personali del popolo svedese, richiesto da USA. Un programma di collaborazione di questo tipo dovrebbe per legge l’approvazione del Parlamento. Sorprendentemente, sono state i dirigenti svedesi stessi (e non i funzionari americani, che invece volevano un accordo formale e legale) qui hanno proposto quella formula segreta di collaborazione, per evitare il controllo del Parlamento e del pubblico.
2) il ministro della Giustizia svedese aveva ricevuto un’iniziativa da parte de quella potenza al fine di introdurre una legislazione qui proteggeranno gli interessi commerciali o aziendali del paese straniero.
E importante segnalare qui queste informazioni provengano da “Wikileaks cables”, e non ha mai stato confermato – neanche discutiti, dall’autorità svedese.
In altro, se ha anche scritto molto sull’episodio in qui il governo svedese anteriore (Göran Persson), ha collaborato anche in segreto – con il concorso del suo ministro de giustizia Tomas Bodström – con il servizio d’intellighenzia de gli stati Uniti in la opportunità de il famosi “renditions flights”. Cioè, CIA poteva prendere qualcuno prigioniero politico in Svezia per il trasporto a un altro paese con il fine the “interrogarlo”.
Questo Tomas Bodström, un avvocato, e il partner dell’avvocato qui ripresenta gli accusatori nominali de Assange in Svezia.
Di seguito l’intervista qui mi ha fatto una giornalista svedese, da sede a Londra, spiegando il resto (in sintesi). Dopo farò una traduzione.
Marcello Ferrada de Noli
Karin Wasteson is a Swedish journalist based in London. She took contact with me recently while working with an article on the Swedish media reporting of the Assange case, for which she had interviewed several sources.
These were her written questions, followed by my answers, in which I insert here some links for the readers of the Professors blog.
1. Why do you think there has been an overall negative reporting of the case by Swedish media?
A. The political aspects
In its turn, the political aspects determining or influencing the reporting appear being twofold:
On the one hand we have the change in the foreign policy and military-strategy main perspective of the Swedish government, namely, abandon of the neutrality-stand and identification with NATO and the geopolitical interests this organization represents. In this line, the government would demonstrate – as they have done in the Afghanistan and Libyan cases – that Sweden is a “loyal partner” and long away from the late Olof Palme’s policy of alignment with the Third World countries.
It is worth to note that changes in those regards started already by the times of the former social democratic government of Göran Persson. This can be illustrated with secret agreements on cooperation with USA services which otherwise had became known through the rendition-flight episodes (political refuges in Sweden handed over in secret to the American services to be transported to interrogation centres elsewhere, as in the case of the Egyptians refugees).
Sweden’s acting in the apprehension of a USA’s number-one enemy – as Julian Assange is characterized – might be a confirmation of the above.
For these ends, the government have naturally got the support of all the political parties favouring the NATO approach, including the “opposition” (mainly the social democratic party).
Although is natural and legitimate that a Swedish government – as the USA or any other sovereign country – decides the foreign policy they think it best would serve their national interests, the problem here is of another kind. It has to do with important decisions that have been adopted in secret by government officials and hidden to the Swedish Parliament and the public. It is about the transparency issue.
Yet another issue is whether that “double play” from the part of the Swedish government is really necessary in the interest of Sweden’s foreign policy (DN-debatt 10/12 2009).
On the other hand, the government has also got the support of the leftist parties and organizations in their case against Assange. This through highlight the “pro-feminist” aspects of the case, all which has served as a symbol for the radical feminism in Sweden in their campaign for moving forwards an even more advanced legislation in the gender-perspective. Assange is presented as the ultimate male-in-power-perpetrator and sexual abuser of Swedish women-victims, a construction that would mirror the “patriarchal” structures of the power constellation in Sweden and elsewhere, according to the radical feminists.
It is worth to mention that the Assange accusers, and notably members of the prosecution and police apparatus that have actively pursued or dealt with the Assange case are members of the same radical-feminist organizations or share their ideology.
In sum, the Swedish crusade against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has shown being compact and having the characteristic of a national cause.
The above have generated a strong populism-factor around the case, and hence also a profitable source for other political or cultural opportunists in the Swedish forum, in the blogosphere and others authors not previously known as embracing political correct positions. The critical voices on the Assange case in Sweden have became fewer, and had to pay a high price for their objective and ethical stand.
B. The Swedish journalist traditions
As I have previously developed in Newsmill, the “duck-pond” phenomenon in the Swedish journalism consists partly (there are yet other principal factors explained in the article, such as hegemonic nationalistic ideology or media monopoly) in that Swedish journalists, generally referred, do not exercise critical analysis of the wrongdoings of corporate power or government, particularly in cases of “national emergencies”. In these cases, their role has basically been to repeat communiqués released by the authorities. International correspondents have previously observed this phenomenon during past “national crisis” or where the Swedish “prestige” has been in focus, such as the riots of Gothenburg or the alleged Soviet submarine-incursions in Swedish waters.
2. Do you think it has altered the judiciary process of the case in Sweden and Britain?
3. Have you analysed British and foreign media as well?
I have not conducted such analyses myself, but others have done that, for instance regarding the biased reporting of the Guardian. Guardian had to recognize in a given moment it had censorship against references to articles published in Professors blog on the case Assange. These have been articles also authored by Naomi Wolf or Andrew Craig, not only those of my own.
4. Are you disappointed by the biased Swedish press, or was this to be expected?
I would have expected some repetition of the cultural and political nationalistic phenomena mentioned above, but not to the solid extend in which this have now shown in the Swedish case against Assange. For reasons I have otherwise a high identification with Swedish societal and cultural values, of course I feel disappointed, as very many other academics around the world regarding the Swedish managing of this case. And the attacks of the media have been such biased and also at times detrimental not only through vulgar personal attacks to Julian Assange but also to the few that have dared to criticize the main stream in the reporting of the case.
5. Do you think Assange can expect a fair trial in Sweden if he is extradited?
No, sadly. Both the PM and high officials in the juridical system have already profiled the case with their public declarations. Yet, the main reasons behind are partly the national or strategic interests in play – as explained introductorily – and partly the trial by the media, which have been exercised against Assange in Sweden. Further, as it has been demonstrated in the juridical tradition of Sweden, women accusing men can get along with hard sentences against the men even without the need of presenting evidence, as it is in most of the western countries.
One of these cases was the sentence to prison against the Chilean political refugee Tito Beltran  – also a worldwide celebrity as opera tenor – accused of rape on the basis of a Swedish woman’s declaration made nine years after the episode in reference. No evidence was needed. The lawyer of the woman-accuser who obtained the sentence was the social democratic politician and former minister of Justice Thomas Bordström, mentioned above. This politician is the partner of the law-firm Bordström & Borgström that nominally pursue the case against Julian Assange.
And above all, because it has became a matter of prestige. This, I would say, is a sacred item in Sweden.
 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”–
The lawyer defending the plaintiff was the social democratic politician and former minister of Justice Thomas Bordström. The “evidence” mentioned later in the verdict against Beltrán referred to declarations of two friends of the plaintiff which would “have heard” an account from the part of the plaintiff after the alleged happenings. Also in this case, it was not the plaintiff who have made a complaint to the police against Beltrán. It was another woman (Monica Dahlström-Lannes, known in Sweden as activist and campaigner concerning sexual-offence cases) who after her own private investigations and interviews on the case filed the complaint to the police – nine years after!
Dahlström-Lannes was a board-member of the same organization, ECPAC, in which the social democratic politician and former minister of Justice Thomas Bordström was also a board-member. However, Bordström denied in the court hearings that he knew Dahlström-Lannes.
At a later stage, journalist Karin Wasteson send to me the draft of her text in which she had summarized my statements. The text here below, added a minor update:
“Professor Marcello Ferrada-Noli provided a witness statement to the first court hearing. He has conducted an independent study of the media coverage of the Assange case and analysed all articles in Swedish from 11 January to 11 February 2011. According to his study, 56 per cent of the articles contained negative reporting. 38 per cent was about Julian Assange as a person.
He says: “In Sweden journalists follow a tradition of not questioning official policies, particularly on foreign-affairs issues. The mainstream media side with the government without being critical. As a results, most journalist-reporting in Sweden on those issues appear just politically correct or very naïve.”
Ferrada-Noli says: “Journalism is supposed to be a critical source of information of what the government is doing. It is supposed to observe, criticize and scrutinize power. This has not been done in this case because a constellation of political factors”, he says. His thesis being that the Swedish case against Assange is politically motivated and has primarily to do with Sweden’s new alignment in the geopolitical scenario and he Swedish main-stream media is constrained because of ownership interests. Another political factor influencing the media reporting of the case, he says, is that “it has being used by the radical feminist movement flagging a further legislation on rape.”
He continues: “It’s a Kamikaze attitude, and this is only hurting Sweden in the end. What happened with Assange was that the eyes of the world was turned to Sweden and everyone saw the flaws of the legal process regarding rape in this country.”
Other articles on the affair Assange in the Professors blogg
- 5 October 2011. From demon exorcism to State-feminism. Further background on the Swedish case against Assange
- 5 October 2011. Radical-feminism. What is scientific research and what it is not. End of story
- 3 October 2011. The Satanism-theses of Eva Lundgren and the psychiatric origins of Swedish State-Feminism. Part I
- 3 October 2011. Beaten lady (Slagen dam) in Stockholm’s Subway
- 30 September. Julian Assange as “symbolic issue” for the radical-feminists in Sweden
- 14 September 2011. Läkarkåren utpressar domstolen
- 14 September 2011. The Swedish case against Assange in Professors blogg. Updated links
- 8 September 2011 (22.14). Wikileaks cable on procedures at UN Women would help explain Sweden’s feminists campaign against Assange
- 8 September 2011 (08.21). A forensic scenario in the Swedish case against Assange
- 23 August 2011. The Case Assange and the Misuse of the PTSD Diagnosis in Swedish Rape Trials
- 3 August 2011. More on Feminism and State-Feminism. Strawman argumentation against critic to the state-feminism factor in the Assange case
- 29 July 2011. Pseudo-Science in Swedish Rape Trials. With an Introduction on the Origins of State-Feminism in Sweden
- 29 July 2011. Bloggers vs. Old Media: Who Wins and Why. By Andrew Kreig
- 6 July 2011. Name issues with their names. The Assange case and Swedish statsfeminism
- 5 July 2011. Julian Assange’s sex-crime accusers deserve to be named. By Naomi Wolf
- 3 July 2011. Swedish updates on the Assange case
- 18 April 2011. The affair Irmeli Krans in the case of Sweden against Assange
- 17 April 2011. Swedish authorities face yet another irregularity in their sex probe of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. By Andrew Kreig
- 15 April 2011. Sweden’s Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange’s Arrest. By Naomi Wolf
- 15 April 2011. Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. Part 3: “Men are animals”
- 15 April 2011. Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. Part 2: “Men that hate women”
- 15 April 2011. Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. PART 1: The Political Agenda and Dirty Tricks
- 14 April 2011. Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. CONTENTS
- 10 April 2011. Om Sverigedemokraternas utrikes politik är ”osvensk” vad är då Socialdemokraternas? Kampen för Assange och Mannings frihet fortsätter.
- 7 April 2011. The decreasing of Sweden’s credibility in the world. Why blame Julian Assange?
- 22 March 2011. NATO, Gaddafi and Assange
- 19 March 2011. Censorship of Assange-articles in the Guardian & Swedish press
- 12 March 2011. Opinions on Assange case and censorship in Swedish media
- 11 March 2011. Case Assange: Rights Activist Challenges Ethics of Swedish Courts, Media. By Andrew Kreig
- 10 March 2011. WikiLeaks aftermath. The Middle East Feminist Revolution, by Naomi Wolf
- 6 March 2011. Have Swedish Pirates Betrayed Assange?
- 3 March 2011. WikiLeaks, Revolution, and the Lost Cojones of American Journalism. By Naomi Wolf
- 28 Feb 2011. Mark Stephens: “Demand open justice for Julian Assange”
- 27 Feb 2011. Assange VS Pinochet
- 27 Feb 2011. Comments on Judge Riddle’s verdict & and lawyer Jennifer Robinson’s interview
- 26 Feb 2011. The Pirate Party should stand for their values. They should struggle for Assange and Wikileaks
- 24 Feb 2011, Assange’s case. Witness Statement of Professor Marcello Ferrada-Noli
- 22 Feb 2011, Swedish media’s censorship on Assange case
- 20 Feb 2011, Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?
- 18 Feb 2011. Anonymous Stop U.S. Business Plot Against, Bloggers, Unions, Rights Activists. Guest column by Andrew Kreig
- 13 Feb 2011. Karl Rove’s Swedish Connections: The Controversy And The Facts. Guest-article by Andrew Kreig
- 11 Feb 2011. Matching critic on Reindfelt’s involvement in the Assange case
- 11 Feb 2011. Partner At Firm Counseling Assange’s Accusers Helped In CIA Torture Rendition. Guest-article by Andrew Kreig
- 10 Feb 2011. Karl Rove, Sweden, and the Eight Major Aberrations in the Police Sex Crime Reporting Process in the Assange Case. Guest-article by Naomi Wolf
- 9 Feb 2011. Analysis: Assange’s lawyer’s error shouldn’t determine the case
- 9 Feb 2011. Strongest appeal to Swedish prosecutor – “Hamlet without princess”
- 9 Feb 2011. Hamlet utan prinsessan. Åklagaren Marianne Ny starkt utmanat av Asange’s advokat
- 8 Feb 2011. Objection to Sundberg-Weitman’s testimony irrelevant
- 6 Feb 2011. Q & A: The Assange case and Swedish extradition
- 4 Feb 2011. Key-witnesses severely contradict state-feminist Borgström & women-accusers in Sweden’s phony case against Assange
- 22 Jan 2011. Swedish PM Reindfelt lies in London on Assange extradition
- 13 Jan 2011. Bordström & Borgström VS. Wikileaks
- 11 Jan 2011. New analysis: Swedish political crusade against Assange and Wikileaks
- 29 Dec 2010. Assange’s message to Swedish journalists
- 29 Dec 2010. Asssange, criminal without a crime
- 26 Dec 2010. Sweden’s phony prosecution against Assange is POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL
- 14 Dec 2010. Attacks on Carl Bildt’s twittering absurd and erroneous
- 13 Dec 2010. Afghanistan, Vilks, bomb, Sweden
- 11 Dec 2010. Sveriges Assange-anklagelser i kriget mot Wikileaks OCH yttrandefrihet
- 9 Dec 2010. Is there a CIA connection in the Swedish Assange-plot?
- 7 Dec 2010. Analysis: Why Sweden revenge against Assange