Monday, 10 December 2012

Sweden versus Assange - Insider Analyses. Part II: Exporting Sweden's "gender" perspective model


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


 ”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. I will in this article 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 explain why this process has been artificially protracted. I have previously mentioned the time 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] 

profeRT3

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 completed now six month further confined in an embassy local 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 Swedenand 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 Nr 1 would have been enough, however.

Sweden efforts to regain 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 know 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 not any 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 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 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 to 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 got the visit of Minister in the French government. She came to examine closer 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 evaluatedifferent legislations. However, the Swdish media hurried to publish informations in 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 have 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 long prison term 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 defaultculpability 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 for the 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 from the part of the government is that the phony accusation against celebrity Assange has been considered pivotal, and continues being, 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 wellbeing 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 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 Prataomdetcampaign.

"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..

In these days, it was launched in Sweden a new campaign, called now “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 in 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

There is a direct link between the campaign #prataomdet and the website “do dare to report” (Det går att se en rakt linje mellan uppropet #prataomdet och sajten vaganmal).

 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.
--
I thank Traci Birge for valuable comments

Saturday, 8 December 2012

Sweden versus Assange - Insider Analyses. Part I: Introduction; Duckpond in Swedish legal system


by Marcello Ferrada de Noli

"I lived inside the monster and I know its entrails"
Patriot José Marti, a forerunner of Cuba’s sovereignty, from his latest letter 18 may 1895

Sweden VS Assange - By Arte de Noli

Introduction

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. 

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.


Duckpond in the Swedish legal system?

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 of both 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 Swedenat 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? 

Thursday, 2 August 2012

President Correa: “Assange is the world emblem of Free Speech”

In a huge rally in Santa Elena, gathering among the public Assange supporters demanding asylum for the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa addressed the nation on vital issues, among them on Freedom of Speech

Pro-asylum demonstrators during the meeting of President Correa with the people assembled in the 
Stadium 'Alberto Spencer', in Santa Elena, to listen in vivo his weekly message to the Nation



“Never before have humans rights in Ecuador being more respected as they 
have been under the Revolucion Ciudadana. That is why Assange has chosen
 Ecuador as a country for asylum: The World’s emblem of Freedom of Speech 
asks asylum in Ecuador, precisely Ecuador, not more not less”  Rafel Correa
The Presidential message of genuine democratic Ecuador echoes proudly in the columns of Professors blogg. Word by word, the statements of Rafael Correa made on his last appearances to the Ecuadorian public, were also a strong rebuttal to the anti-Assange campaign maintained by the mainstream media at both sides of the Atlantic –at the service of their corporative alliance with global political/military power. They are also a strong denounce, at a highest level of governing, of the absolute disregard for truth in notorious MSM articles on the issue of the Sweden’s accusations and the political context behind, and the ad-hominem smear against Assange as a person.

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli 
In his recent address from Santa Elena to the citizens of Ecuador (Enlace Ciudadano 281), President Rafael Correa made assertive declarations about the freedom of speech and press liberties in Ecuador. His statements were firmly clear, and in the context unambiguously referred to the pretexted Ecuadorian “press liberties” issue agitated by USA governmental agencies and the lackey press in Europe, such as the Swedish mainstream media. Correa statements on that point can be summarized as follow:
Social protest (any forms of public criticism, including demonstrations or full exercise of freedom of speech) is permitted and welcome in Ecuador. What should not be permitted are the singular crimes that eventually it has been committed in using those civil liberties.  He referred, for instance, to vandalism exercised against private property from the part of some street demonstrators.
But he was referring also about vandalism on the integrity of persons. As we have reported previously in Professors blog, the intermezzos of the Correa government with certain mainstream media oligarchs in Ecuador have dealt not about issues of "press liberties" or "journalism rights" (as informed for instance in Sweden), but concretely on defamation-crimes which fall under the country’s Penal legislation –as in all the countries with democratic rule including the USA and Sweden.
- Public criticism or protest in Ecuador is not only permitted; is legal, welcomed, and it is protected, said Correa. And added:
“Never before have humans rights in Ecuador being more respected as they have been under the Revolucion Ciudadana. That is why Assange has chosen Ecuador as a country for asylum: The World’s emblem of Freedom of Speech asks asylum in Ecuador, precisely Ecuador, not more not less”
Nunca los derechos humanos se han respetado tanto en Ecuador como lo han sido en la Revolución Ciudadana: el derecho a la educación, el derecho a salud, el derecho al trabajo digno, el derecho a expresarse libremente, la libre expresión para todas y para todos. Por eso Assange escogió Ecuador como país de asilo. EL emblema mundial de la libertad de expresión pide asilo nada más y nade menos que en Ecuador.”
Later on the 28th of July, in his Enlace Ciudadano 282 from the city of Ibarra, the President expressed,
- We are not opponents of Freedom of Expression; we are opponents of the profitmaking that big oligarchs have done by manipulating Freedom of Expression as if it were merchandise.
"No estamos atentando en contra de la libertad de expresión. Estamos atentando en contra del bolsillo de los empresarios que han hecho de la libertad de expresión una mercancía."
Folkloric presentation during the meeting of President Correa with the people assembled in the Stadium Alberto Spencer, in Santa Elena, to listen in vivo his weekly message to the Nation. Photo: Miguel Angel Romero /Presidency of Ecuador

Further, referring to libellous expressions recently published in the version on-line of El Comercio, Correa declared,  “I do not call that Freedom of Expression, I call that absence of ethics . . .and an expression of hatred from the part of certain merchants and (their) sick journalists. In the name of Freedom of Expression I would never publish injurious, slanderous expressions that affects the dignity of the individuals. 
The Presidential message of genuine democratic Ecuador echoes proudly in the columns of Professors blogg.  Word by word, the statements of Rafael Correa made on his last appearances to the Ecuadorian public, were also a strong rebuttal to the anti-Assange campaignmaintained by the mainstream media at both sides of the Atlantic –at the service of their corporative alliance with global political/military power. They are also a strong denounce, at a highest level of governing, of the absolute disregard for truth in notorious MSM articles on the issue of the Sweden’s accusations and the political context behind, and the ad-hominem smear against Assange as a person.