by Marcello Ferrada de Noli
“I lived insidethe monsterandI know its entrails“
Patriot José Marti, a forerunner of Cuba’s sovereignty, from his latest letter 18 may 1895
The series “Sweden versus Assange – Insider Analyses“:
- Part I: Introduction; Duckpond in Swedish legal system
- Part II: Exporting Sweden’s “gender” perspective model
- Part III: The Assange Extradition Case Revisited.
- Part IV: Swedish/U.S. Intelligence co-operation in the Bodström Society
I intend to demonstrate in this new series on the Swedish case against Julian Assange, the following theses:
a) The motivation for Sweden for their proxy engagement in this US attempt to decimate the Whistleblowing movement is in itself multi-causal, and has also primarily to do with internal political factors, such as rallying support for the new sexual-offences legislation under political discussion between 2010 and to present, and a perceived (in fact real) threat from WikiLeaks or related whistleblowers of further revelations about corruption in the democratic procedures from the part of government officials and members of the Swedish political and media establishment.
b) The reason – and real target – in the ‘legal’ Swedish process is unequivocally WikiLeaks and therefore, the artificially Assange/WikiLeaks dichotomy essayed by the media (e.g. the recent BBC interview of 1 Dec 2012) is phony. Instead, the target is WikiLeaks as organization, as well as media or ideological model.
c) There is enough fact-based evidence from the repeated and uniform political behaviour of Swedish rulers – both historically and during the present government – to prove that this government is fully prepared to extradite Julian Assange to U.S. The arguments put forward to the public by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by the Swedish National Prosecutor and most recent by the EU Commissionaire Cecilia Malmström are misleading and not tenable.
d) I also intend to demonstrate that psycho-social or idiosyncratic factors cemented in the Swedish folkloric political culture (including the institution of consensus, authority over trust, and uncritical political behaviour) explain to a significant extent how the main actors in this contrived prosecution (and aggravating persecution) against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have got away so far with this charade. Among these culture we have the singular attitude of actor in the the Swedish legal system. On the one hand they claim to be sovereign in their decisions and procedures, but on the other they accept without protests the interferences of the politicians in power. Sweden has the highest number of prosecutors in all Europe, which make these prosecutors believe that they are ‘very powerful’ and “independent’. But facts deny their claim: The Swedish legal system has NEVER protested for the multiple interferences by the government, e.g. Reinfeldt, Bildt, Hägglund, etc. in the “legal” case against Assange. What would Montesquieu say about the Swedish Prosecution Authority?
e) Finally, I will demonstrate the unfairness of the blaming put by the Swedish government on WL, Assange and their supporters for the visible deterioration of the international name of Sweden –particularly its legal system. The old condescend Swedish ruling-system with repeated abuses towards the integrity of its citizens, the neglecting of the Constitution spirit or the blunt deceiving towards the Parliament and public by contracting secrets agreements with foreign powers; the legal scandals such as the ongoing Quick affair, the irregularities in the Assange case, etc. and other publicized cases of injustice is cracking apart the system by the force of its own gravity, and rapidly. Swedes should instead thank WikiLeaks for the activation of this debate which indeed started after the exposed Diplomatic Cables on Sweden. Later, the Swedish process itself against Assange – a process followed closely by the international community – revealed ostensible shortcomings of the Swedish legal system; It was then when a real discussion about democratic issues and objective administration of justice started with vigour in Sweden, for instance on that established political parties design the judges which eventually make the majority in the courts, all which resulting in countless number of flagrantly biased verdicts.
In previous analysis – referring to the situation of the Swedish media and journalism– I developed what I called the Duckpond thesis[See “Background A: The Duckpond“, in “Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?“]. However, new aspects that arise around the Swedish case against Assange (or pertinent the legislation or procedures used in the case), give indication that some very same main actors have intervened in related tasks with job assignments from the part ofboth the government, the administration of justice, and eventually even the Parliament (the three different powers, the executive, judiciary, and legislative — supposedly independent of each other). Do we also have a duckpond in the Swedish legal system?
Prosecutor Marianne Ny’s assignment from the government
Prosecutor Marianne Ny had – at the time of her initiative to reopen the case against Julian Assange in August 2010 – an assignment from the government. She was appointed expert in the Swedish Committee ensemble to propose a broadening of the criminal concept of rape in the context of hardening the legislation of sexual-offences.
This is contained in a letter – see it in box- sent to the Ministry of Justice (Chefen för Justitiedepartementet) by judge (rådman) Nils Petter Ekdahl : “The Government decided on the 17 of July 2008 to appoint a special investigator with the assignment of evaluating the applicability of the 2005 sexual-crimes legislation. . .” “To assist the investigation, Marianne Ny (named among the six appointed experts) was appointed (förordnade) from the 10 of September 2008 . . .” “The experts have agreed with all the principles in the PM conclusions and propositions. Therefore this PM is formulated in “we” form?”
The letter is contained in the document “Sexualbrottslagstiftningen – utvärdering och reformförslag (SOU 2010:71)”. The letter, signed in “October 2010”, also declares that “Hereby the work is concluded” (“utredningens uppdrag är harmed slutfört”). The document was officially given to the Minister of Justice, the right wing politician Beatrice Ask, on the 27 of October 2010.
Assange prosecutor Ms. Mariane Ny
The decision by Prosecutor Marianne Ny in Gothenburg of taking up anew the accusations against Julian Assange took place on the 1st of September 2010. To the best of my knowledge, this was in a frame period in which she would have been under the government expert-appointment and which works concluded officially only in October 2010. Further, the accusations ascribe to Assange precisely a sexual-offence characterization discussed in detail in the evaluation and propositions for the new legislation put forward by Prosecutor Marianne Ny et al on behalf of the government in the weeks ahead (the document Sexualbrottslagstiftningen – utvärdering och reformförslag was ofiicially delivered to the authorities the 27 of October 2010).
The petition of reopening the case was formally presented on the 27 of August 2010 by lawyer Claes Borgström, of the private law-firm Bodström & Borgström – a firm based in Gothenburg, as also the Prosecutor’s special bureau. Former Justice Minister of Sweden Thomas Bodström proudly announces 3 of December 2010 in his blog “Bodströmsamhället” (“Society according to Bodström”) that it is his very legal firm who represent the plaintiff against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (“Det är vår advokatbyrå genom Claes Borgström som är målsägandebiträde“). But it gets “better”:
“Bodström & Borgström” stands for a) Thomas Bodström [at left in the picture], high positioned Social Democratic politician and former Minister of Justice in Sweden. He is most known internationally for his involvement in the secret collaboration by the Swedish government with the CIA regarding, among other things, the illegal extradition of political prisoners from Swedish territory to be send to torture elsewhere via CIA rendition-flights. In Sweden, he his most known for his staunch support to any legislation which have entailed infringement-risks to the private integrity of us citizens, such as the infamous Surveillance Law (FRA lagen) of 2008 devised in Sweden at the behest of US interests. Thomas Borgström is the senior figure in the Social Democratic “Broderskap” organization, whose political secretary at the time of the “accusations” against Julian Assange in August 2010 was Anna Ardin, the main accuser.
b) Claes Borgström [at right in the picture above], another highly positioned Social Democratic politician and former Gender-Ombudsman in Sweden. According to a Wikipedia bio article, he had himself plans of becoming the Minister of Justice of Sweden “if the Social Democrats had won the election in 2010” He is also known in Sweden for his claims that “all men carry a collective guilt for violence against women” and have supported the ultra feminist politician.
Well, former Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström, former Gender-Ombudsman Claes Borgström andcurrently Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny formed part of the same governmental consulting team set in the formulation of the sexual-crimes legislation currently in use in Sweden.
Constellations as the above, referred to issues of conflict of interests, alternatively common interests in pursuing academic, professional or political, do not seem to bother Swedes much. No journalists whatsoever – to the best of my knowledge – have taken up the subject above. And the average Swede may just react by reflecting, “nåväl, världen är liten” (well, it is a small world).
And indeed some worlds are smaller than others. Einstein is quoted saying, “The drop of water in which the amoebas lives in, it is for them the all Universe”. The next article in this series – Part I – starts with that cited reflection. It touches upon the chauvinistic perspective of a small country that wishes to export a “gender”-perspective legal model they seem to believe is “modern” to perfection –unless they could manage to make it even more “radical” in what this peculiar gender supremacy is concern. The question remains, what about equal rights upon the courts, and Human Rights for All?
Continue to Second Part: Exporting Sweden’s “gender” perspective
The series “Sweden versus Assange – Insider Analyses”: