Christer Christensen vs. WikiLeaks

Positions often directly or indirectly attributed to WikiLeaks are in fact misrepresentations. For instance, WikiLeaks do not have “anti-Sweden” or “misogynist” positions whatsoever, and neither have such postures authors that have been cited, linked, or tweeted by WikiLeaks or Sweden Versus Assange.
“To think free is great; but to think right is greater” (att tänka fritt är stort att tänka rätt är store) Inscription engraved at Uppsala University

“That a University calls on its scholars to think ‘right’ should trouble all who value academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, it harkens back to the old days when Universities were not independent centres of learning but were, indeed, constrained by the church and the Monarchy to “think right” or be shut down. Attacks on the scientific process and promotion of non-scientific dogma in some faculties in Uppsala University suggests that this old proclamation (still) reflects the University’s position in thinking according to cannons of political correctness imposed by an authority.” Professors blogg
By Marcello Ferrada de Noli
*Professor emeritus of Public-Health Epidemiology; former Professor of Psychosocial Methods. Submitted the Witness statement on the Swedish Trial by Media of Julian Assange upon the London court 2010.
Introduction
The purpose of this article – the first is a series of three – is to set the facts straight about some important topics regarding WikiLeaks and the media. One is how to properly assess the conflict between certain media hostile to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange; in my view, WikiLeaks and Assange have only tried to respond to such attacks; namely they are not the “aggressors”.
Another topic is about the different roles of WikiLeaks regarding the Internet publishing of whistleblowing material and the interacting in the social media. Professor Christian Christensen might have misunderstood these different roles, concepts he has not limited to academia but further spread in the Internet and the social media via his blog and Twitter.
A third item is the confounding Christensen indulges when referring to “Radical feminism” in Sweden as if this – in fact an ideology or an ideological concept – would be simply equated with the political organization “Feminist Initiative” 
Christensen has also publicly endorsed twittering criticizing Julian Assange’s talk show, “The World Tomorrow” for not including women in any of the first interviews with leading revolutionary or intellectually significant figures. But, would it not be more logical to wait for such assessments until the full schedule of interviews is completed? 
In sum, the interpretation errors here appear to be two-fold, in form and in content
Formally, because it is up to WikiLeaks editors to decide both what to make public in disseminating information at their official sites and with whom and how to interact in their Twitter account; and also because it is erroneous to equate different modes in the societal interaction of WikiLeaks.
In content, because positions directly or indirectly attributed to WikiLeaks by Professor Christensen in such issues as, for instance, “feminism”, “radical feminism” and the like, are in fact misrepresentations. In clear words: WikiLeaks do not have “misogynist” positions whatsoever, and neither have such postures – to the best of my knowledge – authors that have been cited, linked, or tweeted by WikiLeaks or Sweden Versus Assange.
In the core of the matter, what has been problematized here, or intended to be debated by such criticism, is an issue of consequence: Whether the different statements by WikiLeaks are or not consensual with basic Human Rights values implicit in their main whistleblowing endeavour: the contribution to justice, to equality (including of course gender equality as well as social and economic equal opportunities) and respect for human dignity; and the positioning of the integrity of individuals in societies as paramount to “secret” State interests, egoist interests of the rulers or corporate interests. In other words – in my interpretation – a political philosophy of liberation, democracy, and human rights development.
And in this core of the matter is where the equivocal interpretation spread, for instance, by Christensen shows itself emphatically. Namely, it is in any case incorrect or “straw man” fallacious to attribute to WikiLeaks (the organization), its founder and editor, or deputy editors and staff, etc., the opinion expressed by WikiLeaks supporters, irrespective of whether these opinions are or are not congruent with WikiLeaks fundamental principles. The one who wishes to establish what posture WikiLeaks has on issues, should be restricted to WikiLeaks own statements.
Christensen is professor of media and communication studies and in his personal presentation at the Uppsala University directory, he describes his primary special area being the “use of social media during times of war”. [1] In this war that NATO and their proxy, the conservative right-wing government of Sweden, wages against WikiLeaks, Professor Christensen has publicly requested WikiLeaks – without any argument whatsoever – to filter away in its twittering the linking to certain articles describing important actors in the Swedish political context of such attacks.
I

Christian Christensen is an American researcher who graduated from Texas University and who was drawn to my attention for his several twitters and critical articles he has published on WikiLeaks, notably his most recent piece “WikiLeaks vs. Sweden”. [2] Christensen was academically stationed in Turkey after 2002 where he wrote several pieces on Iran [3] and the role of social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs) in, among other areas “enabling the spread of state propaganda and surveillance”. [3b] Inferred from his CV, he has been also active in Finland or Norway [4] before moving to Sweden where he has resided since 2006. [5] In 2010 he received a professorship at Uppsala University. The Swedish government’s agency Council for Working Life and Social Research – a Swedish authority under the Ministry of Social Affairs – [6] currently finances Christensen’s research with the equivalent sum of 383,484 USD (2.7 million Swedish Kr, or 300,000 Euro) for the project “The Social Journalist: News Work and News Organizations in an Age of Networked Sociality.” [4]

Uppsala University and Swedish extreme “radical feminists”
Just to be sure the international reader understands the scope of some excesses sanctioned by the Swedish state at some Swedish universities, I reproduce here a text authored by a civil engineer of name Susanna Varis. In her report “Att tänka fritt är stort att tänka rätt är store” (“To think free is great; but to think right is greater”, the above quoted Uppsala University inscription), she says commenting on a text authored in Lund by a group led by gender professor Tiina Rosenberg, also co-founder and formerly in the leadership of the political party Feminist Initiative:
“It can certainly be argued to do serious research on gender or different power-structures as subjects within anthropology, sociology or history; but when it is required that, for instance, the textbooks to be used in physics lecturing must be authored by the same number of women and men, rationality boundaries have been long since trespassed. When I afterwards read in Feminist Philosophy of Sciences that (the idea is) to reject the existing sciences, inclusively the scientific methods, because they have been in the main constructed by men, then I do not any longer wish to have anything to do with such (feminist) concept” [7]

Internationally, Uppsala University enjoys a solid reputation, and too in Sweden regarding the university’s ground research, natural and medical sciences. On the other hand, no wonder Uppsala University is one Swedish academic institution whose reputation or academic standards in certain domain of “qualitative-research oriented” social sciences – specifically “gender studies” has been most severely questioned by prominent professors in Sweden in the last decade. Partly for its vassal position towards government — particularly the sacrificing of scientific research on behalf of extreme “feminist” political positioning directly imposed by Ministerial rule; partly for completely disregard for external investigations on scientific or academic misconduct related to such research. 

That was the case of the creation at the government’s request (not at initiative form the University) of a professorship on radical “gender studies” for the Christian theology researcher and extremist “feminist” Eva Lundgren. The post was created “from above” with special marked public funds, [8] engineered at the time the radical feminist Minister Margareta Winberg – in fact Sweden’s Vice Prime Minister – was in the government. Winberg had made approve at the government – without opposition, according to her – [9] the compulsory “gender perspective” in all levels if education an research [See Part II, Swedish version of “State feminism”].

Eva Lundgren’s research is often cited as an example of a pseudo “feminist” research advocating instead for gender supremacy and the enhancing of privileges in detriment of gender-equality. Paramount notions of this ideology are the theses of an evil “structural patriarchal order” constructed by men through history, the notion of the moral inferiority of men and a vulgar “behaviour-genetic” approach summed up in “all men are animals” per definition. [9] It has to be noted that Eva Lundgren’s appointment specifically created to further develop extreme “feminism” posture in “research” has been backed not only by empathetic counterparts in the past government of Göran Persson but also in the conservative government of Reindfeldt; Minister Maria Larson (Christian Democratic Party) participated for instance the in Lundgren’s “professors installation”. [10]
In spite of a variety of scientific scandals regarding flawed research proceedings or alleged fabricated data in publications of Eva Lundgren and associates at Uppsala University – [8][10] or even against the assessments/conclusions of an external investigative panel of professors  – [11] the university authorities decided to carry on their docile posture towards the earlier Ministerial-rule impositions on Lundgren’s professorship and thus abstained from sanctioning academic wrongdoings or pseudo-research activities. At that time the notable professor Bo Rothstein argued publicly upon the Swedish Authorities in a debate piece published by leading Dagens Nyheter, that Uppsala University, even if eventually could be keep as educational or simple training institution, should be demoted from its university rank and erased from the list of Swedish universities for clearly demonstrating absence of academic independence and not keeping standards expected for a university. [12] The relevance of this to this article, is that it refers to the same Uppsala Faculty which has allocated several professors at the Ethical Research Committee of Uppsala that approved the “feminist” cultural-racists study by Eva Lundgren research associates – the theme which Professors blog analysed in “Throw them all out”. [13]

 

II
Distinguishing between WikiLeaks work for dissemination information and its Twitter account
After that a WikiLeaks’ tweet have linked the above mentioned “Throw them all out” to its nearly one and half million followers, it was initiated in the Internet a “troll campaign” by anti-Assange elements calling for WikiLeaks to “stop linking to Professors blog articles” on the fabricated accusation [14] that our articles would represent a “misogynist” approach [one rebuttal here]. On the 6thof May one American campaigner contacted Christensen per email on this subject. The email was published in the Internet. I seriously doubt that Christensen had replied such message, and if so, I would ignore the content whatever I would have been.  The only thing I know is that four days thereafter, @ChrChristensen started to tweet calling for the same thing, namely that WikiLeaks and Sweden VS Assange should “stop harming a just cause by (re-) tweeting nonsense about “radical feminism”
Christensen did not refer any article in particular, and was thereafter demanded by @SwedenVSAssange and other twitters to specify the articles about “radical feminism nonsense” he was referring to. Christensen never complied.
Why would the anti-Assange/WikiLeaks people that started such disinformation campaign wish to “switch off” particular voices at the public forums if it were so that such analysis would be harmful to WikiLeaks? Perhaps because the truth might be exactly the opposite; At least judging for the massive response from Assange supporters towards the Professors blogg.
Although humble, our main output has been providing political contexts and facts from the Swedish scenario relevant to the case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. We have listed the key factors and organizations playing a role in this political operation (the “investigating” on Julian Assange) including disclosing the role of the Swedish media actors in these campaigns. But we have said this, and NOT other:
 

Within the political factor we find the following constellation:  [15]

  • Geopolitical factors — the threat represented by WikiLeaks to political/military interventions elsewhere in the Third World that secure corporative interest; This “menacing” role of WikiLeaks is symbolized by the exposure of war atrocities in Collateral Damage. And Sweden is directly intervening with troops in such imperialistic occupation wars. The role of the Swedish vassal government has not only been supporting such operations militarily, but plays a pivotal political role in Europe in advocating for the increase of such support on behalf of the European nations. Sweden has in fact launched a “NATO by Proxy” doctrine (See “The NATO factor. Extradition process initiated in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder is to the uppermost extent POLITICAL“,  [16] aimed to motivate an increasing sharing of the NATO burden by the rest of European countries. 
  • The decimation of WikiLeaks – and the deterrent action with regard of possible initiatives of the like in the local level – in the sight of the Swedish government, has also to do with exposures done by WikiLeaks on both the social democratic and conservative governments in their secret agreement with U.S. officials or conservative politicians and corporations.
  • The facing of a visible deterioration in the international prestige abroad –basically attributed to the abandonment of the Neutrality doctrine in open favour not only for NATO military doctrine but also in directly participating in NATO-led military operations  [17] – have also had an impact in domestic Swedish politics. For the first time, to the best of my knowledge, demonstrations have been held in main cities of Sweden by groups of people asking for the resignation of the Minister of Foreign affairs, who together with the Minister of Defence are viewed as main pro NATO “warmongers”. The Minister of Defence Sten Tolgfors was recently obligated to resign as a government measure to counteract the exposures on the arms-deal scandal with Saudi Arabia, a NATO principal ally in the region. 
  • It is after those events that the public support for the government parties started for the first time (in some time) to decrease in the opinion polls. This circumstantial “de-stabilization” process is added to a context of marked deterioration in social welfare and employment, particularly amongst the immigrant population now estimated at over 27 per cent of the total population [18] In a typical “political” manoeuvre assisted by basic social-psychological notions, the government has launched at least three identified media campaigns aimed to portray Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as “responsible” for the deterioration of the Swedish loss in international prestige (How could the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange get the world to question Sweden’s credibility”?)  [19]
  •  The expected effect of the above among the Swedish constituencies is double fold: a) on the one hand finding an explanation to replace the real causes that are behind such international deterioration of Swedish prestige. As this is undoubtedly related to issues of Sweden’s foreign policy, this measure represents also an attempt to stop the analyses on such relationships with foreign powers; b) on the other hand, by obtaining a national cohesion behind the government that “defends” Sweden  [20] and shows being ready to “process and punish” Sweden’s Number One enemy, the rulers use the “chauvinist trick” of having people to switch attention from economic or domestic political issues to issues of “national interest”.
  • One remarkable feature regarding the above is that in Sweden very seldom are legal aspects of the case against Assange ventilated in the press  – actually it has occurred only in very few occasions. Instead, what has been a constant action presented particularly by the State owned media (National Television channels, Radio, etc.) is the blaming of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, accused of having an anti-Sweden political agenda. This has reached extremes as to publicly accuse Assange and WikiLeaks of blackmailing Sweden or implied WikiLeaks would be protecting Russian’s interests (Sweden’s “arch enemy”).  See this analysis under “Sweden’s Plan “Z”, Phase 6: Swedish State Television explaining “why” WikiLeaks should be viewed as detrimental for the “interests of our nation”, in Part II of this series: “Plan Z: the latest national chauvinist campaign anti-WIkiLeaks in the Swedish media” [21]
  • Domestic political factors regarding the opportunity being used by local political organizations, such as fundamentalist groups, that, voided of a large mass-support, are bound parasitically from highly publicized media-events in order to move forward their political agenda through some journalists in their ranks employed by the MSM. These organizations have not made secret that the Julian Assange case is a symbol for their struggle  [22], a campaign seeking the further radicalizing of the legislation in Sweden towards, among other things “only sexual contact after written consent”, a national tax imposed to all men (mansskatt) in Sweden  [23] (“to compensate Swedish women of centuries of men patriarchal dominance”), and the increasing in the penalty for sexual-related offences attributed to the “nature” of men (“men are animals”, as expressed by the President of the State-supported nation-wide organization ROKS). [24] In the ranks of this multifaceted fundamentalist cohort are found people of different professions, not only journalists. Example of notable Swedish politicians which have advocated for such further radicalization of the law are Thomas Bodström (the former minister of Justice) and the former Ombudsman for gender issues Claes Borgström. They also established the Law firm Bodström & Bogström, which is the law firm that defended the plaintiffs in their “accusations” against Julian Assange. Marianne Ny, the prosecutor in the case has been also participating in the preparation of the present “radical” legislation – under which the Swedish State has asked to “investigate” Julian Assange.

 

 
III
 
The linking VS not-linking to Professors blogg. Who is afraid of what?

@Wikleaks and @SwedenvAssange have in fact tweeted a number of posts published in Professors blogg 2010-2012, but so too have thousands of other sovereign Twitter accounts or blogs which have also linked to Professors blogg articles. The call for censoring or filtering these articles was initiated in Sweden by Roland Poirier Martinsson, the CEO of Swedish think-tank Timbro. Poirier Martinsson is an ultraconservative American-schooled Swedish journalist who claims was the one inviting Karl Rove to Sweden [See in Professors blogg Karl Rove’s Swedish Connections: The Controversy And The Facts]; He most recently called WikiLeaks a “gangster” organization. [25] Timbro allegedly has connections with Prime. [26] Poirier Martinsson called bluntly for the following appeal in an email about Noemi Wolf’s publication in Professors blogg: “it would be nice if we are keeping away from see that it spreads in the Swedish blogosphere” [“det vore trevligt om vi slapp se den spridas i den svenska bloggosfären”]. [27] 

Similar “advice ” to WikiLeaks of not linking to our “voice in the Internet” have been put forward by Expressen’s editor-in-chief Thomas Mattsson (this after a debate in Swedish Radio One about WikiLeaks in which Matsson and I participated) [28].  Even the Swedish State-owned National Broadcasting Service SR have questioned in critical terms to WikiLeaks – in an interview conducted with WikiLeaks spokesman Kristin Hrafsson [2] – the allegedly “Feminist-plot thesis” of “WikiLeas supporter Ferrada de Noli, a former professor”. All these remarkable mentions with direct or indirect requests to WikiLeaks for filtering the analyses in Professors blogg finds a correspondence with the censorship against the blog exercised by the Swedish MSM and also by the Guardian. [30]

Now Professor Christensen – a specialist in social media – started his own series of twittering criticizing WikiLeaks for linking “nonsense anti radical feminist” materials. As mentioned above, what are the articles he referring to he will not say, despite having been asked multiple times, directly on this issue, by @swedenvsassange, and by @helenebergman and @treisiroon. 

Observers to the exchanges on Twitter also mentioned that they await Professor Christensen’s answer. Only recently, however, he did mention a study by Al Burke that contained references to or by notable Swedish authors Helene Bergman and Brita Sundberg-Weitman – both supporters of the cause of justice for Julian Assange.
Paramount is the question of why are those authors, or Professors blogg, being viewed so threatening to the interests of Sweden regarding their medial management of the “case” Assange? Or, in general, what voices should be given credence by WikiLeaks and which not? Respectively, who is to decide that, is it not solely and sovereignly WikiLeaks themselves? Why would media professors or Swedish newspaper editors or programme editors believe it licit to attribute themselves “editing prerogatives” at WikiLeaks sites or accounts? []  
 
In The Second Part of this series:

Setting the facts straight about what Professors blogg has in fact written on issues related to radical “feminism”, in the context of the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Go to Professors blogg and the role of Radical “Feminism” in Sweden’s case vs Assange

 

 

In The Third Part of this series:
WikiLeaks answering the attacks by the media; not vice versa. And: Is radical “feminism” a part in the constellation of political factors explaining the political offensive and media attacks against WikiLeaks and Assange? State-feminism in Sweden, does it exist?
Update 12/6/2012

Christian Christensen, in his rebuttal to my article here (see down below “Christian Christensen vs. WikiLeaks”) deceivingly refers my position on Swedish radical “feminism” by expressly picking up for his readers only one link among the variety of articles in which I have developed the issues he tries to rebut. In this update I include excerpts I have published in other analyses here in the Professors blogg on the issue radical “feminism”.

 
THIS – and NOT other – is what Professors blogg  has published on issues related to radical “feminism”, in the context of the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
Gil Elvgren’s famous arte piece “Come on honey! Blondes have more fun!!” Retouched with a fancy cap by Professors blogg
The aim of this article – the second is a series of three – is to set the facts straight about what Professors blogg has in fact written on issues related to radical “feminism”, in the context of the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
 
As an addenda to my article Christian Christensen vs WikiLeaks I would like here to point out that Christensen is not only confounding political organization with political ideology (see twitter 1 below); he is also confusing “cause” (or “partial cause”) with “contributing factor” (twitter 2). In science, at least in Epidemiology, phenomena are used to be described as having a multi-causal etiology. Yet “cause” is not “factor”.
 
While Professors blogg have only referred to the participating role played by certain radical “feminist” groups in the anti-Assange campaigns – mainly opportunistic, and aimed to mover their positions for a further radicalization of legislation they advocate- we have explained the political context in the “Swedish” case against WikiLeaks and Assange as having a wider scope, in which both domestic and geopolitical factors are primarily involved.

 


 

 

Texts by Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Italy



I

This I have already put forward in Swedish Radio incorrectly referring Professors Blogg’s theses on Swedish case against Assange

Facts on Swedish “feminists” and the Assange case

To state that a variety of known Swedish feminists have used the Swedish case against Assange as a platform to politically agitate further radicalization of the legislation is to state only facts. 
A panorama of the actual relationships played by these sort “feminism”  in the case Assange are explained in the article Feministerna i Assange-härvan gör våld på feminismen”, by Helene Bergman, the celebrated feminist and former program director of the  known feminist program ”Radio Ellen” in Swedish Radio.
Known right-wing “radical” Swedish feminists have themselves stated, “Julian Assange is a symbol” for their cause, and actively participated in mediatic anti-Assange campaigns or even publicly celebrated its success. Organizations of left-wing “radical” Swedish feminists  – to the best of my knowledge – have never taken distance from such deeds or positions. Moreover, the chairman of the Swedish Party Feminist Initiative, Gudrun Schyman, has publicly associated the case Assange with the need of “a better legislation than the one we have”.  

Right-wing social democratic politicians with a recognized ultra “feminist” agenda – such as Bordström & Borgström – take pride themselves in representing the plaintiff accusing Assange. For instance Thomas Bodström – a former Minister of Justice – with his own words, in his blog Bodström Samhället— as I have referred already in Newsmill His partner, the social-democratic politician, known fundamentalist feminist and former Ombudsman for gender issues, declared himself in the Guardian 8 December 2010 being instigator of the legal case against Assange. Equally public are the positions of prominent politicians of the “Left Party” (formerly “The Communists”) such as the Member of Parliament Eva Brinck for whom, as she wrote in Newsmill,  the support given to Assange by Left profiles such as  Ken Loach and John Pilger “stinks”.

 

II
1. Critic to feminist gender-supremacists is one thing. Support to the principles and the struggle for gender equality is another. 
Professors blogg is not an “enemy” of feminism insofar feminism would transparently struggle or implement the aim of universal gender-equality. This can only be reached by an understanding and cooperation between all progressive segments of society. Hence, this column has repeatedly condemn the notion of gender-war, the hatred of men or the hatred of women.
a) Ideology
We instead promote and practice the struggle for a society with equal opportunities for all regardless gender, social class, ethnicity. This includes fighting towards the final achievement of equal opportunities for women and men in all spheres of society, such as equal salary [See Note 1]; But this column have been also, and always shall be, opposing all forms of authoritarianism and oppression, which includes the vigilance towards those “who merely seek to replace one authoritarian system with another“. 
 

True egalitarian feminism and extreme state-feminism are two different things, and are expressed in different grades. State-feminism is the cultural and political movement aimed to establish – with the help of the authority – institutional privileges or legislation favoring women. Some of these measures adopted by State Feminism have been inspired in a notion of gender hatred or contempt. For the extreme feminist ideology behind the architecture of State-feminism, the gender-egalitarianism mantra is just a tactical cover in their strategic to achieve gender supremacy. In this sense, State-Feminism is the replacement of one abusive rule for another. 
b) Feminism has become populism and radical-feminists seek to seize political power by means of psychological deceit
Many call themselves “feminist” in Sweden. It has became cultural fashionable but also a politically correct strategy for survival. Feminism has become populism. One after the other the Swedish political parties have seized the noun as an adopted family name (“XX Party, feminist”). However, few of them deploy in reality a consequent activity towards real equality. [2] 
At left, world-famous American writer  Naomi Wolf, who is also considered a leading spokesperson of the third wave of the feminist movement. Naomi Wolf is an often linked columnist in the Professors blogg.
In sum, my criticism to fascist radical-“feminist” positions does not compromise my support for the sound classical human-rights claims on equality issues for all, for social and gender justice in society.  
As I sustain that the sectarian gender-supremacists’ campaign is not to be equated with feminism, I maintain also that the strategy of universal vendetta against men –  argued in their thesis of historical patriarch domination – is merely a pretext to profit of positions of power in a new political order sized by psychological deceit:
Radical feminists seek the “collective guilt” of all men by means of a mass-psychological campaign agitated in the media they have access to, or control. In Sweden, these radical feminists have even proposed the obligatory (by law) payment  of a “Male-taxation” from the part of all Swedish men. This law would compensate women for a sort of endemic patriarchal rule, according to the radical feminists. Conspicuous such radical-feminist politicians, such as lawyer Claes Borgström (initiative-author in the accusations against Julian Assange) are reported staunch supporters of such male-taxation.
Radical-feminism advocates the demise of nuclear family as central institution in society. New “modern” forms should replaced it. I believe instead that it is exactly Family as a whole, and the family as central institution, the best and only natural structure able to secure the ontogenetic and philogenetic destiny of humankind and their survival. Not the state, nor the anti-natural constellations posing as “modern”, not the self-proclaimed gurus of a self-pretended vanguard of social-ideas evolution such as the Swedish FI. I have already put it in my clearest terms:
The so-called Swedish “radical” feminist movement is anything but a progressive movement. Its ideological matriarchal formulations are on the regressive side of a wheel moved historically by thousands of generations towards human justice and equality. 
The epithets of “anti-feminist”, “misogynist”, “anti gender-egalitarianism” and the like, thrown to us that oppose the abuse of power coming from a Feminist-State ideology is just a dirty trick from a movement in despair and pregnant of defeatism anxiety. 
It just similar in its psychosocial mechanics to the easy and cheap “racist” accusation given to any criticism to a given failed immigration policy. This demonization tactic is and old Stalinist trick used in decades in the past by square bolshevists and modern Party-communists. E.g. true revolutionaries and social-anarchists were labelled “anti communists” because we opposed the dogmatic and ill-fated strategy of the old and modern Stalinist nomenclatures. [3]
Summing up: Above any sympathy I would have for a true feminist struggle, paramount for me is the support for justice, equality and human rights for all genders, and all nations, in all societies. In other words I do not do a fetish of WASP feminism, and I certainly do not support the idea of a supremacist female-rule in society. Neither I would accept the rule of male chauvinism. I have put my life on the line for my convictions about justice. And I do it still.
2. Sound legislation is one thing. Legal system is another, and case process implementation is yet another thing 
It is equally absurd, or preposterous, disqualify a criticism regarding some structural flaw in a Swedish institution as anti-Swedish behaviour. The far most of Swedes can basically agree with the modern Swedish crime-legislation and think in general it could very well function as model-legislation elsewhere, and still be critic to aspects of the legal system. And in the concrete case of the affair Assange the questions posed by the many among the Swedish citizens are for instance the following: 
  • Are the authorities following that legislation in the case Assange? 
  • Is the Swedish legal system flawless? 
  • Is the Swedish legal system really independent from politics and ideology?
  • Have or not the highest political authorities of Sweden publicly taken side and thus influenced the juridical out come of the case? [4]
I am not an expert in the Swedish juridical system, and even considering – as I believe – it is grounded in a sound legislation, I am although critic with regard to the implementation of such legislation in occasions the gender-factor is implicated. 
 
Further, neither can the political factor in the Swedish courts be totally disregarded with simple official declarations that the courts are independent of the state. Judges-appointments at the courts (nämdeman, a kind of permanent jury) are politically made. In fact, these judges are designated directly by the political parties according to their representation in the Parliament. However, this principle does not mean that in each court there is an “even” distribution according to that one of the Parliament. At the contrary, the political constellation of judges – read ideological majority – within each court can vary enormously. Further, considering that all Swedish political parties have allegedly positioned themselves in the Assange affair (all parties, including the Pirate Party), I even speculate as whether the Assange case has served some times as a vendetta for ideological reasons, or some times as instrument for populist reasons. And also if the case has been used as a pretext for radical-feminists to give international publicity to their theses.
 
With regard to structural flaws in the legal system as such, I only can subscribe what Jens Lapidus and Johan Åkermark have pedagogically explained in their debate article in DN . It was also shown there that the majority of Swedish lawyers manifest criticism to the legal management of the Assange case.


III



This had Professors blogg published 9 Feb. in the  analysis “Assange’s lawyer’s error shouldn’t determine the case“:

  

With regard to the  “peculiar” position of de Swedish Judiciary and its outmost  
artificially constructed proceeding in the Assange case.
These proceedings fit instead one hundred percent in the perspective-analysis of an active involvement of some Swedish officials, or institutions, as instruments in the geopolitical design of the foreign power they apparently obey.

I am aware how horrible and highly conspiratorial the above might sound, but I could myself hardly believe it was true – when I read an article in Expressen [8 Feb.] – that the very Prime Minister of Sweden Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt, whom this column have elsewhere referred as a politician with honourable marks – made public statements involving officially and openly the Swedish government in the London Court deliberations referring exclussively to protecting the rights of the accusers  (the two women) involved in the Assange extradition process.

Let me first to recall that in my article published in Newsmill Jan 11  I clearly advanced the hypothesis on whether behind the Sweden case against Assange it truly exists the intention of making a pilot case of the event. Meaning, to use Assange’s celebrity to reassure or move forwards positions in the Swedish legislative process towards a radicalization in the penalty of sex-offences, or the enhancing of criminal conceptualization in that regard.

In declarations published in Aftonbladet  “i samband med domstolsförhandlingarna om utlämningen av Julian Assange i London”, PM Reinfeldt “reveals” what would be “really” the issue at stake. Reinfelt said concretely:

“Let us not forget what is here at risk. It is the right for women to have their case tested in court as to whether what they have been subjected of is a criminal abuse (offence)” 

– Låt oss inte glömma bort vad som riskeras här. Det är ju rätten för kvinnor att få prövat huruvida det har varit ett övergrepp som de har varit utsatta för.”

I put in serious doubt that Reinfeldt  would really consider the content of his statement above as THE reason for the Swedish offensive aganist Assange and Wikileaks. For there is evidence that the “pilot-case factor” is only  a part in the constellation of causes behind the Swedish political crusade against Assange and Wikileaks.

Nevertheless, Reinfeldt did try also to defend the integrity of the kingdom’s judiciary – which would be totally understandable for his position as surrogate head of state (Sweden is still a monarchy and Prime Ministers receive formally the assignment from the king). However,  he just made things worst. What Reinfeldt in the main ended in pointing out – in the name of the Swedish government – was  the publicly taking side on behalf of the two accusers-ladies, for which he demanded respect very much exclusively. This is what he stated in Expressen:

 
“that in this way attempt to circumvent it and make it appear that their rights are worth very little, I think that’s regrettable.”

 

IV
   “Criticism to extreme “feminists” or “feminist” gender-supremacists is one thing. Support to the principles and the struggle for gender equality is another. We instead promote and practice the struggle for a society with equal opportunities for all regardless gender, social class, ethnicity. This includes fighting towards the final achievement of equal opportunities for women and men in all spheres of society, such as equal salary; But this column have been also, and always shall be, opposing all forms of authoritarianism and oppression, which includes the vigilance towards those “who merely seek to replace one authoritarian system with another“.  [1]
   “Professors blogg – a publication (see banner on top) “On Human Rights For All” – have clearly stated that strongly support the same struggle for gender equality in society that true egalitarian feminists pursue. This have included active propositions on equality in salary form the part of the Swedish State towards academics with similar merits regardless gender. My positions on these regards are well known.” [2]
   “One of the main myths spread refer to Julian Assange as “enemy of feminism”. The statement cannot be more far from truth. His liberationist platform clearly comprises the struggle for equal rights as identified by the international feminist movement. Conspicuous feminists, such as Naomi Wolf or in Sweden Helene Bergman have expressly given their support to Julian Assange’s struggle for justice in the context of the Swedish case against him. In strict ideological sense, left radical-feminists would find in true an identification of their societal purposes for justice and equality for all genders in the liberationist message of WikiLeaks as well as the actual statements of Julian Assange. Radical-feminists should not permit their spirit been kidnapped by right-wing opportunists, which in the base defend a political system opposing equality of all kinds.What has happened in Sweden is that a limited number of self-proclaimed “radical feminists”, for the most part right-wingers, have initiated or participated in campaigns ad-hominemagainst the WikiLeaks founder. And that in my opinion is NOT left radical feminism; it is simply opportunism.” [3]
   My conviction is still that the campaign in Sweden against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been initiated/implemented by a limited number of political officials, a limited number of journalists, or a limited number of opportunist feminist activists. Altogether they do not represent Sweden as a whole, their political parties as a whole, all Swedish feminists, or the total ranks in the journalist collegium. The main part have not yet express their opinion and as the happenings approach they will most certain feel ethically obliged to declare their stand, about what is truth, what is justice, and what is history. [4]
Over and over again I have made clear what my positions are on those regards. And also cared to give some concrete examples about my own participation in such struggle for gender equality and social justice. The site Justice For Assange has even linked an articlethat especially treats this disclaimer under the title “Professor Ferrada Noli on the nature of ‘State Feminism’ in Sweden”
 
V

I wrote the following about the political aspects in the Swedish case on Assange in “This is why“:
 

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). 
During these events, exposed to the pubic by a documentary in the private network TV4 (updateepisode also commented in an editorial by DN 12/8 2011), the social democratic politician and former minister of Justice Thomas Bodström was signalled a main actor in the operation. Eventually an investigation on his role was held upon the Swedish Constitutional Committee – with no further consequences, useless to add.
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 transparencyissue.
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.

 
VI
Excerpt from Part I (in this series) Section II constellation of Political Factorsin the “Sweden’s” case vs Assange:
1. In a typical “political” manoeuvre assisted by basic social-psychological notions, the government has launched at least three identified media campaigns aimed to portray Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as “responsible” for the deterioration of the Swedish loss in international prestige (“How could the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange get the world to question Sweden’s credibility”?)  [19]

2. The expected effect of the above among the Swedish constituencies is double fold: a) on the one hand finding an explanation to replace the real causes that are behind such international deterioration of Swedish prestige. As this is undoubtedly related to issues of Sweden’s foreign policy, this measure represents also an attempt to stop the analyses on such relationships with foreign powers; b) on the other hand, by obtaining a national cohesion behind the government that “defends” Sweden  [20] and shows being ready to “process and punish” Sweden’s Number One enemy, the rulers use the “chauvinist trick” of having people to switch attention from economic or domestic political issues to issues of “national interest”.
 

3.One remarkable feature regarding the above is that in Sweden very seldom are legal aspects of the case against Assange ventilated in the press  – actually it has occurred only in very few occasions. Instead, what has been a constant action presented particularly by the State owned media (National Television channels, Radio, etc.) is the blaming of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, accused of having an anti-Sweden political agenda. This has reached extremes as to publicly accuse Assange and WikiLeaks of blackmailing Sweden or implied WikiLeaks would be protecting Russian’s interests (Sweden’s “arch enemy”).  See this analysis under “Sweden’s Plan “Z”, Phase 6: Swedish State Television explaining “why” WikiLeaks should be viewed as detrimental for the “interests of our nation”, in Part II of this series: “Plan Z: the latest national chauvinist campaign anti-WIkiLeaks in the Swedish media”.  [21]



4.Domestic political factors regarding the opportunity being used by local political organizations, such as fundamentalist groups, that, voided of a large mass-support, are bound parasitically from highly publicized media-events in order to move forward their political agenda through some journalists in their ranks employed by the MSM. These organizations have not made secret that the Julian Assange case is symbol for their struggle  [22], a campaign seeking the further radicalizing of the legislation in Sweden towards, among other things “only sexual contact after written consent”, a national tax imposed to all men (mansskatt) in Sweden  [23] (“to compensate Swedish women of centuries of men patriarchal dominance”), and the increasing in the penalty for sexual-related offences attributed to the “nature” of men (“men are animals”, as expressed by the President of the State-supported nation-wide organization ROKS). [24] In the ranks of this multifaceted fundamentalist cohort are found people of different professions, not only journalists. Example of notable Swedish politicians which have advocated for such further radicalization of the law are Thomas Bodström (the former minister of Justice) and the former Ombudsman for gender issues Claes Borgström. They also established the Law firm Bodström & Bogström, which is the law firm that defended the plaintiffs in their “accusations” against Julian Assange. Marianne Ny, the prosecutor in the case has been also participating in the preparation of the present “radical” legislation – under which the Swedish State has asked to “investigate” Julian Assange.
This update posted 4 weeks ago by

Notes and References
[1] Uppsala University, Dept of Informatics
[2] WikiLeaks vs. Sweden, Blog “Christian Christensen – Uppsala University” 5 May 2012 http://chrchristensen.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/wikileaks-vs-sweden/
[3] Among other the interesting piece “It’s Official! “Iraq Coverage Wasn’t Biased” in Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0314-29.htm
[3b] Christen Christensen, Iran: networked dissent, Le Monde Diplomatique, July 2009 http://mondediplo.com/blogs/iran-networked-dissent
[5] Hanna Navier, Obamas smekmånad i medierna, Second-opinion, 20 January 2009 http://www.second-opinion.se/so/print/86
[7] “Det kan visst vara motiverat att seriöst forska kring kön och olika maktstrukturer som ett ämne inom t ex antropologi, sociologi eller historia, men när man som ett exempel börjar kräva att läroböcker som används i fysikundervisningen ska vara författade av lika många kvinnor som män, har rationalitetens och vetenskaplighetens gränser passerats för länge sedan. När jag sedan läser i feministisk kunskapsteori om att man vill förkasta den existerande vetenskapen inklusive dess metoder, eftersom de är uppbyggda till stor del av män, då vill jag inte befatta mig med begreppet med tång. Detta och många andra galenskaper finner man i ett dokument från Projektgruppen för genuscertifiering vid Lunds universitet. Denna grupp leds av professor Tiina Rosenberg.”
[10] M Ferrada-Noli, Official Sweden further endorses the unscientific theses of radical-feminism , Professors blog, 11 Ocober 2011
[11] Margareta Hallberg and Jörgen Hermansson, “Granskning av professor Eva Lundgrens forskning I enlighet med Uppsala universitets regler avseende förfarandet vid anklagelse om vetenskaplig ohederlighet”. 9/12, 2005.
[12] Rothstein B, “Uppsla universitet måste läggas ned”, DN debatt, Stockholm 22-8-2007 http://www.dn.se/debatt/uppsala-universitet-maste-laggas-ned
[14] M Ferrada-Noli, Disclosing The Fifth Column , Professors blog, 31 March 2011
15] Excerps from M Ferrada-Noli, ‘Journalistic Jealousy’ Or Politics, Or Both? , Professors blog, 28 April 2012
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] 
[26] R Poirier M “it would be nice if we are keeping away from see that it spreads in the Swedish blogosphere” [“det vore trevligt om vi slapp se den spridas i den svenska bloggosfären”].
[27] Martin Schori, Timbro-chef till Prime, Dagens Media, 10 August 2010 http://www.dagensmedia.se/nyheter/pr/article2453969.ece
[28] Thomas Mattsson blog, Expressen
[29] SR International, interview by SR with WikiLeaks spokesman Kristin Hrafsson, referred in M Ferrada-Noli, “Swedish Radio incorrectly referring Professors Blogg’s theses on Swedish case against Assange“, Professors blogg, 8 March 2012
[30] See Rixstep article “Guardian Censoring Information in Assange Case” reports on censorship exercised in The Guardian against links to Professors blogg. Wikileaks Central had reported likewise (see “Possible gag order on the Guardian re Assange case?).



 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s