Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Bemötande Elisabeth Masssi Fritzs SvD uttalanden om Assange fallet

En nödvändig debatt förs nu i Sveriges ledande media, i sökning av en lösning beträffande dödläget i Assange fallet.

Av Marcello Ferrada de Noli, med dr, professor emeritus

Författare till boken ”Human Rights Issues in the Swedish case VS. Assange”

På jakt efter en lösning

Julian Assange, som inte är åtalad, inleder sitt fjärde år i husarrest, eller bunden vid Ecuadors ambassad i London efter att ha blivit beviljad politisk asyl. Asylen till WikiLeaks grundare beviljades efter att Sverige vägrade ge garantier om att Assange inte skulle överlämnas till USA i fall det formellt skulle begäras. Emellertid tillåter England honom inte att lämna ambassaden för att resa till Ecuador, eftersom en svensk åklagare har krävt att han skall överlämnas för förhör i Sverige. Likaså väntar fortfarande de två anklagande kvinnorna i Sverige på ett besked från sina advokater om någonting i fallet har hänt. Därutöver, det verkar finnas en bred consensus om att fallets utdragna karaktär, eller dess egendomliga hantering, skadar Sveriges internationella anseende.

Kända figurer inom rättsväsendet, f.d. åklagaren, advokater och riksdagsledamöter har bidragit med konstruktiva förslag. Redan i april 2013 domaren i Högsta domstolen Stefan Lindskog framförde i ett föredrag vid Adelaides universitet i Australien att det är möjligt för att en svensk åklagare skulle förhöra Assange i London. Han sade ordagrant: "Jag skulle vilja kommentera möjligheten för åklagaren att åka till London. Det är möjligt att åklagaren skulle kunna resa till London och förhöra honom där. Jag har inget svar på frågan varför det inte har hänt." [1]

I dagarna, riksdagsledamot Johan Pehrsons, ledamot i justitieutskottet och rättspolitisk talesperson för Folkpartiet, sade till SvT “Det här är ett exceptionellt fall. Därför kan man fundera på om inte åklagaren borde vända på stenarna ytterligare en gång för att se om man inte kan få den här saken ur världen”; [2] Och ordförande i Sveriges advokatsamfund Anne Ramberg, som i senast SvT program Agenda karakteriserade det hela som ”cirkus”, tyckte att åklagaren borde helt enkelt åka till London.[3]

Däremot, i en debattartikel publicerad i SvD 5/2 2014, en av målsägandes advokat, Elisabeth Massi Fritz, beklagar sådana förslag, och att i överhuvudtaget skulle debatterats att ”Assange fallet bör läggas ner”. Hon är kritiskt mot att riksdagsledamot Johan Pehrsons har uttalat sig i programmet. ”Brottmål ska drivas i domstol, inte i medierna” säger advokaten Massi Fritz, och att ”Inte heller ska åklagare utsättas för politiska påtryckningar eller låta mediedrev påverka sitt agerande.” [4] Jag bemöter nedanför vissa påståenden i Massi Fritzs inlägg.

Elizabeth Massi Fritz må ha rätt om den allmänna demokratiska principen hon formulerar ovan, dock i sin plädering blandar hon ihop diverse aspekter och som motsäger hennes version. De första aspekterna beträffar mediernas roll, de andra gäller politikernas agerande vid fallet.

a) en aspekt är mediernas plikt att hålla publiken uppdaterad med vad som är aktuellt; inte minst i ämnena viktiga för nationens internationella anseende, som fallet Assange har resulterat i; det var det som programmet Agenda åstadkommit; och b) en annan aspekt är mediernas eventuella särbehandling av parterna i sådana tvister. Jag återkommer on den punkten.

Och angående politikernas inbladning i fallet a) en sak är att politikerna (som parlamentariker Pehrson) föreslår åtgärder för att rättsligt avsluta den ”cirkus” som ordförande Ramberg refererade, och som i längden kan också vara skadligt till nationers intresse, och b) en hel annan sak är att uttala sig offentligt i stöd till en av partnerna i tvisten. För det är just det mediala beteende från politikerna som kan kasta skugga över bilden av en oberoende rättsystem.

Just därför Massi Fritz har rätt när hon påstår i SvD att ”Alla är vi lika inför lagen, . . .ett villkor för rättssäkerhet”, måste hon hålla med om att det var fel att exempelvis Statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt delvis uttalade sig till förmån av målsägarna i DN:s och Aftonbladets artiklar (där han även felaktigt påstådde att, citat: ”Man har till allmänt åtal instämt Julian Assange. Assange är nämligen inte åtalad), [5].

Statsminister också betonade i ett program om fallet Assange vid Studio Ett, att ”vi tar mycket allvarligt på anklagelser som handlar om våldtäkt, för det finns också inslag att försöka förminska hur vi har utvecklats, och står för, en bra lagstiftning i det här fallet.” [6] Detta tyvärr tolkades om att fallet Assange skulle även för myndigheterna erhållits en symbolisk karaktär, såsom tidigare hade uttalats av representanter i den ideologiska rörelsen som verkar för en utvidgning av våldtäcksrelaterade lagstiftning. Jag tycker att promoveringen vid det internationella samfundet av den moderna lagstiftningen som Sverige redan har åstadkommit är lovordad, men det skall ej göras på bekostnad av rättsäkerhet för individen.

"Mediadrev" mot vem?

Gällande vad Massi Fritz kallar för ”mediadrev”: Mig veterligen har aldrig funnits i den svenska media, den minsta negativa eller nedlåtande referat angående målsägande i fallet. De anklagande kvinnorna har aldrig varit ”smutskastade”, vid något program eller artiklar författade av journalister anställda vid sådana media.

Emellertid, i domen utfärdad i Belmarsh-domstolen i London (City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court) beträffande överlämning av Assange den 24/2 2011, skrev Judge Riddle bokstavligt: “There has been considerable adverse publicity in Sweden for Mr Assange, in the popular press, the television and in parliament (by the Swedish Prime Minister)”. [7]

I en forskningsrapport som jag bland annat refererade i en Newsmill artikel rubricerad ”Professor: medierapporteringen om Assange osaklig och likriktad”, står att finnas att i ett material av 117 konsekutiva publikationer vid den svenska pressen i perioden 17/1 – 17/2 2011, framgick att bland de artiklar som direkt refereras till Julian Assanges personliga karaktär eller gjorde antydan till Assanges personlighetsdrag (fyrtio procent av de totala artiklarna), betydligt fler artiklar (72 procent) gjorde det med användning av fientliga, nedlåtande eller aggressiva termer, i kontrast med artiklar med användning av positiva termer (28 procent). [8]

Den statistiska analysen av dessa variabler, visade i jämförelsen ett ratio på 0,38, som pekar på en betydande överrepresentation av negativa omdömen ad hominem. Fynden som uppgavs i den artikeln, och som mottagits sedan i ”open court” vid Londons förhandlingar, har aldrig tillbakavisats från forskningssidan, eller av själva media som refererats i studien.

För advokaten Massi Fritz politisk asyl betyder "att låsa in sig själv på en ambassad"

Sedan påstår advokaten Massi Fritz: “Det handlar om en man som låst in sig själv på en ambassad i London, vilket åklagare Marianne Ny rutinmässigt beskylls vara ansvarig för. Det har gått tre och ett halvt år.”

Det finns ju anledning för en person att söka asyl vid en ambassad som respekterar mänskliga rättigheter. Exempelvis, den svenska ambassaden i Chile tog emot hundratals oppositionella som föredrog att ”låsa in sig själva på en ambassad”, än att riskera arrestering och åtal.

Motiv för att söka asyl, nämligen de politiska eller humanitära skäl som individerna presenterar, är föremål för noggrann utvärdering av respektive regeringar. I det här fallet, en suverän stat, Ecuador, gav asyl till Assange för att de till synes hade uppgifter att Assange riskerar att bli överlämnad till USA i fall så krävs. Faktum är att Sverige har beviljat utlämning till USA vid samtliga tillfällen som detta har begärts, i förutsättning att personen i fråga befinner sig i svenskt territorium.

Dialektiken vid den svenska åklagarens europeiska arresteringsorder

I den ursprungliga versionen som SvD publicerade den 5 februari för den svenska publiken, uppgav Massi Fritz att Marianne Ny, som resultat att Assange ”lämnade landet samma dag som han för andra gången blev anhållen i sin frånvaro” och “vägrade sedan att återvända”, utfärdade en europeisk arresteringsorder. [ 9 ]

Var det meningen att de laglydiga svenskarna skall uppfatta att den europeiska arresteringsordern utfärdades eftersom Assange två gånger hade vägrat att inställa sig till förhör hos åklagaren?

Däremot i den engelska versionen (för den internationella publiken) – fick Massi Fritz ta bort bilden av Julian Assanges “dubbelvägran”. Hon ändrade texten till:

“(Assange) försvann från Sverige samma dag som han blev häktad i sin frånvaro. Han har därefter vägrat att återvända. Detta resulterade i att Marianne Ny, åklagaren för fallet, utfärdade en europeisk arresteringsorder för Assange". [ 10 ]

Det finns några anmärkningsvärda aspekter i Massi Fritz uttalanden. Å ena sidan säger hon att arresteringsordern “anhållen i sin frånvaro” utfärdades innan Assange lämnade Sverige. Sedan säger hon plötsligt att eftersom Assange lämnade landet och därefter vägrade att återvända, utfärdade Marianne Ny på nytt en häktningsprocedur mot Assange nu i form av europeisk arresteringsorder (EAW). Emellertid:

Assange vistades minst fem timmar vid Arlanda flygplatsen, eftersom han kom ditt kring kl. 12.00. Han reste från Stockhom-Arlanda till Berlin Tegel airport kl. 17.15 . Vid 16.55 skulle han ha passerat kontrollen, sedvanligt under betydande polisnärvaro. Där vid grinden som leder till avgångshallen fick funktionärer kontrollera Assanges pass (om det inte redan hade kontrollerats vid incheckningen), boardingkort, etc. Dessutom erhåller polisen samtliga passagerarlistor, förmodar jag.
Åklagarmyndighten i Göteborg skulle ha beslutat att Assange var “häktad i sin frånvaro” redan kl. 14.15 den 27 september 2010. [11] Ett sådant beslut går brukligt åt alla polisenheter i landet, antar jag. Man var fullt medveten av att Assange befann sig i Arlanda; ändå avstår man avsiktligt att arrestera honom, således. Det kan inte vara så att de missat hans identitet. Helt tvärtom, pga att de visste Assanges identitet lyckades de att ta de bärbara datorerna från Assanges från resväska. [12]
Assange var aldrig informerad om ett “kvarhållande i sin frånvaro” beslut. Därutöver hade Assanges advokat Björn Hurtig fått en överenskommelse med åklagaren Ny (”obtained an agreement from the prosecutor Marianne Ny”) gällande att han var fri att lämna Sverige (”free to leave Sweden). [13] [14]
Dessutom hade Assange självmant föreslagit till åklagaren Ny, via sin advokat, alternativa möjliga datum för ett eventuellt förhörstillfälle. Emellertid var åklagaren Ny själv som avböjd Assanges förslagen; exempelvis med den otroliga undanflykten om att förhörsledaren var sjukskriven vid den föreslagna tidpunkten! Såsom man inte kunde ordna ett sådant uppdrag hos någon bland de över 20,000 poliser som i Sverige har erhållit förhörsutbildning vid Polishögskolan. [15]

Hur kan då advokaten Massi Fritz porträtterar Assange som näst intill en rymmare?

[text ovan från mitt inlägg i diskussionen vid tråden Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange eftersökt för våldtäkt i Sverige, FB forum, 8/2 2004]

Vad var då, dialektiken i Sveriges utfärdade EAW?

Min slutsats är att det verkliga målet i utformningen av den EAW inte var arresteringen av Assange. Det var den utlämningsprocessen i sig själv.

Vad vill man egentligen åstadkomma? Som framgår av händelserna efteråt, inhiberade den europeiska arresteringsordern Assanges frihetsrörelsen och en betydande del av Wikileaks publiceringsverksamhet inriktade mot makthavarna, inte minst i Sverige. Som jag har hävdat i tidigare, är det ställt utom allt tvivel att fallet är politiskt. Det finns inte något sådant som “ett rättsfall ” bakom charaden av den svenska åklagarmyndighetens sida och dess medlöpare målsägandes advokater.

För vad skulle ha hänt om Assange skulle ha gripits på flygplatsen? Åklagaren skulle ha träffat Assange och förhört honom. Efter det förhöret skulle ha Assange släppts. Detta eftersom åklagaren inte hade något nytt som skulle ha kommit fram i förundersökningen (under den tiden efter ärendet var avfärdat av åklagaren Finne). Assange skulle aldrig ha suttit i isolering, som istället han säkerligen kommer att vara om han kommer till Sverige utlämnad från England – med de riskerna att detta innebär, med tanken på de nu kända olagliga Svensk kollaborations verksamhet med USA. Sverige kommer inte undan. De s.k. extraordinary renditions var inte bara hemliga; de var och är olagliga enligt svensk lag.

Sammanfattningsvis: Endast en europeisk arresteringsorder skulle kunnat producera de politiska fördelarna som skördades av de inblandade parterna. Endast de juridiska övningarna och cirkusen kring tillämpningen och/eller tolkningen av den europeiska arresteringsordern skulle kunna möjliggöra en förlängning av Assanges “fångarstatus” och tillhörande kidnappningen av Wikileaks -projektet. Min ”Stallning hypothesis” [16] var helt rätt från början.

Referenser

[1] “I would like to comment upon the possibility of the prosecutor to go to London. It is possible that the prosecutor could travel to London and interrogate him there. I have no answer to the question why that hasn’t happened.” In M Ferrada de Noli. “Government-Sponsored Presentation Of Swedish Supreme Court Judge In Australia Increased Doubts On Sweden’s Legal System”. In: “Human Rights Issues in the Swedish case VS. Assange“. Libertarian Books – Sweden, 2014. Page 201.

[2] SvT . “Kravet: Förhör Assange nu”. SvT Nyheter, 2/2 2014.

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/trycket-pa-aklagaren-i-assange-fallet-okar

[3] SvT. Program Agenda, 2/2 2014.

[4] Elisabeth Massi Fritz. ”Varför ska undantag göras för Assange?” Svt, Brännpunkt, 5/2 2014.

[5] TT. “Reinfeldt beklagade negative bild av rättsväsendet”. DN, 11 Feb 2011. Artikeln vid samma namn i Aftonbladet, 11 Feb 2011.

[6] Sveriges Radio, Studio Ett, 25/1 2012

[7] City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court). “The judicial authority in Sweden –v- Julian Paul Assange. Findings of facts and reasons”. See “Summary of facts found”, Item 19, page 10.

http://www.infotorgjuridik.se/premium/incoming/article159944.ece/BINARY/Det+brittiska+domstolsbeslutet.pdf?fromType=branchartikel

[8] M Ferrada de Noli. ”Professor: medierapporteringen om Assange osaklig och likriktad”, Newsmill, 20/2 2011. Material, antal artiklar; (DN n=24, SvD n=31, AB n= 32, Expressen n= 16). Drop-out cases N= 13 (DN n=2, SvD n= 7, AB n=1, Expressen n= 3).

[9] “Han lämnade landet samma dag som han för andra gången blev anhållen i sin frånvaro. Han vägrade sedan att återvända.” In: Elisabeth Massi Fritz. ”Varför ska undantag göras för Assange?” SvD, Brännpunkt, 5/2 2014. http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/varfor-ska-undantag-goras-for-assange_8958694.svd

[10] Min översättning av den originella Engelska texten publicerades i SvD: Elisabeth Massi Fritz. “Make no exception for Assange”. SvD, Brännpunk, 7/2 2014. Citat: “(Assange) disappeared from Sweden on the same day as he was detained in absentia. He has subsequently refused to return. This resulted in Marianne Ny, the prosecutor for the case, issuing a European Arrest Warrant for Assange.” http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/make-no-exception-for-assange_8968448.svd

[11] [Information avs. tidpunkten för arresteringsorder] retrieved from a post signed by Duqu at FB-forum. I have asked for the original source, which will be posted here.

[12] See Affidavit of Julian Paul Assange, 1. Summary of Claims, Item 4.:

"My lawyer in Sweden Bjorn Hurtig obtained an agreement from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that I was free to leave Sweden. I left Sweden on 27 September 2010."

http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html

[13] UK:s Supreme Court dokumentet "Agreed Statement of Facts And Issues. Between: Julian Paul Assange (Applicant) V. Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)", hearings 1-2 Feb 2012, Item 13, sidan 4.:

"On 14th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel enquired in writing as to whether the Appellant was permitted to leave Sweden. On 15th September 2010, the prosecutor informed the Appellant’s counsel that he was free to leave Sweden."

JA:s Affidavit summerar i sin tur (Se No 4, "Extended stay in Sweden", Item 113), "My lawyer in Sweden Bjorn Hurtig obtained an agreement from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that I was free to leave Sweden. I left Sweden on 27 September 2010."

[14] Affidavit of Julian Paul Assange. 4. Extended stay in Sweden, Item 133

[15] Polishögskolan. "Intervju- och förhörsmetodik". Kursplan http://www.polis.umu.se/digitalAssets/9/9137_reviderad-kursplanintervju-o-frhr.pdf

[16] M Ferrada de Noli. “Operation Stalling. Explaining Sweden’s Reluctance To Conduct Assange’s Interrogation In London”. In: “Human Rights Issues in the Swedish case VS. Assange“. Libertarian Books – Sweden, 2014. Page 72.

Featured image courtesy of Somerset Bean

In Search Of A Solution. Refuting Elisabeth Massi Fritz SvD statements on Assange case

A new look into the political motivations of the Swedish EAW against Assange, and on other misconceptions around the case

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli, PhD, Professor Emeritus

Author of the book "Human Rights Issues In The Swedish Case VS . Assange"

In Search of a Solution

An important debate is ongoing in Sweden's leading media, in search of a solution to the deadlock in the Assange case. Julian Assange, who is not charged with any crime, is yet beginning his fourth year under house arrest, for which he is staying at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, after being given political asylum. The asylum to the WikiLeaks founder was granted ensuing Sweden's refusal to give assurances that Assange would not be handed over to the U.S. – should such request be received by the Swedish authorities. However, the UK does not allow him to leave the Embassy and travel to Ecuador, because a Swedish prosecutor is demanding that he should be questioned in Sweden.

Likewise, the two women who filed accusations against Assange are still waiting in Sweden for statements from their lawyers, Claes Bogström (of the firm Bodström & Borgström) and Elisabeth Massi Fritz, on whether anything can happen (in terms of a prosecutor’s decision) to move the case forward. In addition, there seems to be a broad consensus in Sweden that such a protracted procedure, together with the peculiar mismanagement of the case, is further harming Sweden's international reputation.

Known personalities in the Judiciary, former prosecutors, lawyers and members of parliament have contributed with constructive proposals. In April 2013, Justice Stefan Lindskog (from Sweden’s Supreme Court) expressed in a lecture at Adelaide University in Australia, that it is possible for a Swedish prosecutor to question Assange in London. He said, literally: “I would like to comment upon the possibility of the prosecutor to go to London. It is possible that the prosecutor could travel to London and interrogate him there. I have no answer to the question why that hasn’t happened.” [1]

Johan Pehrson MP, member of the Justice Committee and the political spokesperson for the Liberal Party (Folkpartiet), told Swedish National Television SvT: "This is an exceptional case. Therefore, one can wonder if the prosecutor should not turn on the stones again, to see if we can get this thing out of the world”, [2] The chairman of the Swedish Bar Association, Anne Ramberg, was also interviewed in the SvT program Agenda. As well as characterising the entire affair as a "circus”, Anne Ramberg said that the prosecutor should simply go to London. Period. [3]

In an article published in Svenska Dagbladet, one of the plaintiff's lawyers, Elisabeth Massi Fritz, resents such proposals. She protests on the very existence of the media debate on whether the "Assange case should be closed down." And she is critical of the mere fact that Johan Pehrson MP has spoken out in the SvT program. Lawyer Massi Fritz says in SvD: "Criminal cases should be handled in court, not in the media", and she adds: "Nor should a prosecutor be subjected to political pressure or let the media affect their actions. " [4 ] Below, I respond to a variety of statements in Massi Fritz's SvD article.

Elizabeth Massi Fritz is right about requesting that the general democratic principle she formulates above (on the separation of powers) is implemented in full; I have recently commented on this important issue in Open Letter To Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev. However, in her SvD piece Massi Fritz blends together various aspects - which in the end contradicts her version. The first aspect relates to the role of the media; the second one to the behaviour of politicians in the case.

On the media role: a) One aspect is the central duty the media has in keeping the public updated on relevant events, not least about subjects that are important to Sweden's international reputation – like the Assange case. And that is what the Agenda program has accomplished; both versions were heard. b) Another aspect is the discussion on whether the media indulges in any special treatment of the parties in such disputes. I will come back to that point.

Concerning the politicians' intervention in the case: a) One thing is that a politician (as MP Pehrson did) proposes measures to legally terminate the "circus" - as the Bar Association president referred to - a situation that in the long run can be harmful to the nations' interests, and b) A completely different thing is if a politician (particularly politicians within government) produces public statements in support of only one side of the dispute. It is exactly this kind of behaviour that can cast a shadow over the image of the independence of the nation's legal system.

Precisely because Massi Fritz is right when she states in SvD that "We are all equal under the law, it is a prerequisite for the rule of law”, she must also deplore, for example, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt's partial intervention in favour of the plaintiffs in articles published simultaneously by DN and Aftonbladet - where he also wrongly alleged that Assange has been indicted. Quote:

“We have an independent Judiciary which also in this case acted according to Swedish law. One has even public-indicted Julian Assange on allegations of rape”. And, “I can only regret that the rights and position of women weigh so lightly when it comes to this type of questions compared to other types of theories brought forward.” [5]. However, the fact remains that Julian Assange has not been charged.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister emphasized in a program about the Assange case at Studio Ett: "we take very seriously allegations about rape, because there are also elements that try to reduce how we have evolved, and stands for, a good law in this case”. [6] This, unfortunately, was interpreted as though the Assange case was of symbolic significance to the authorities. This attitude has previously been expressed by representatives of Sweden's feminist movement, which promotes the enhancing of rape-related legislation. The promotion of Sweden in the international community as a country with a modern legislation, should be praised. However, if this PR endeavour is enforced at the expense of individual human rights, the entire effort is compromised.

On Swedish media-harassment.

Regarding what Massi Fritz calls “media-harassment”: to the best of my knowledge, in the Swedish media there has never been the smallest negative or condescending commentary about the plaintiffs in the case. They have never been "vilified" by any program or article written by journalists working in the Swedish media.

Conversely, in the judgement issued in Belmarsh Court in London (City of Westminster Magistrates' Court) regarding the transfer of Assange on 24/2/2011, Judge Riddle wrote literally: "There has been considerable adverse publicity in Sweden for Mr Assange, in the popular press, the television and in parliament (by the Swedish Prime Minister)" [end of quote]. [7]

In a study to which I referred in Newsmill, an article the site headed "Professor: media reporting of Assange untruthful and uniform”, I reported an analysis on 117 consecutive publications in the Swedish press during the period 17/1 - 2/17/2011. The results showed that, amongst the articles that directly referred to Julian Assange's personal character, or made hints about Assange’s personality traits (forty per cent of the total articles), significantly more articles (72 per cent) did so with the use of hostile or condescending terms, in contrast with articles using positive terms (28 per cent). [8]

The statistical analysis of these variables revealed a ratio difference of 0.38, pointing to a significant over-representation of negative reviews ad hominem on Assange. The findings, as reported in the above-mentioned article, were also received in open court at Belmarsh Court in London. They have never been refuted by other researchers, or by the media referred to in the study.

Why are political dissidents granted political asylum?

Lawyer Massi Fritz states, referring to Julian Assange's situation: "It's about a man who has locked himself in an embassy in London, for which Marianne Ny routinely is blamed for being responsible.”

I shall look into Marianne Ny’s role, but first I would like to put the record straight about the meaning of political asylum. Individuals seeking asylum in embassies of countries that respect human rights, must indeed have reasons - strong reasons. For example, the Swedish Embassy in Chile received hundreds of dissidents who preferred to "lock themselves in an embassy" rather than risk arrest, prosecution, or even death.

The reasons put forward by the individuals seeking asylum are subject to careful consideration by governments. In this case, a sovereign state, Ecuador, gave asylum to Julian Assange because they had information that indicated that Assange may be at risk of being extradited to the United States. In fact, Sweden has granted extradition to the United States every single time there has been a request, on the condition that the person sought is in Swedish territory.

A new look into the political motivations of the Swedish EAW against Assange.

In the original version published on 5 February (still unchanged when I retrieved it online at 16.00 on 7 February), Massi Fritz stated:

“Assange left the country the same day that he, for the second time has been detained in absence”.[9]

Thus the law-abiding Swedes are made to believe that the EAW was issued because Assange had twice ignored Ny’s call to come to the interrogation meeting!

However, in the English version (for the international audience), Massi Fritz had to take away the notion of a “twice-fugitive Julian Assange”. She changed the text to:

“(Assange) disappeared from Sweden on the same day as he was detained in absentia. He has subsequently refused to return. This resulted in Marianne Ny, the prosecutor for the case, issuing a European Arrest Warrant for Assange. [10]

There is some remarkable aspects in Massi Fritz’s statements. On the one hand she says that the "detention in absentia" order was issued before Assange left Sweden; then she suddenly says that because Assange left and subsequently refused to return, Marianne Ny issued the detention order in EAW form; but without mentioning that Assange never got any notification about such "detention in absentia" while still in Sweden. Besides, Massi Fritz hides the fact - which is essential in the context of the event she is taking up - about that Assange made himself available for interrogation by the prosecutor office. Before he had to leave for his scheduled meeting in Berlin [11], Julian Assange presented through his lawyer some alternative dates to the prosecutor. One of the dates put forward by Assange was refused by prosecutor NY on the excuse that "the interrogation leader was on sick leave". This, as if she could not arrange one among the twenty thousand police officers that have received training in criminal interrogations at the Police Academy of Sweden. [12]

All of the above has made me rethink the Assange case. This is an account of the EAW Swedish itinerary.

Assange arrived to the airport around noon, and even chosen to change to a later SAS flight of his preferences. He finally left Arlanda Airport for Berlin Tegel at 17.15. Latest around 16.55 he would have gone through airport security where, with the usual heavy police presence, staff at the gate leading to the departure hall checked his passport (if not already checked at the desk), boarding card, etc. Besides, the police have all the passengers lists in advance.

According to the prosecutor office in Gothenburg, Assange was “detained in absentia” already at 14.15 on 27 September 2010. [13] Normally, such order goes to all police units in the country. Why wasn't he detained at the airport? It could not be that they missed his identity. Quite the opposite: because they knew his identity at the airport desk or at the control gate, the police (or government officials, or whoever agency was operating) managed to take the laptops from Assange’s checked-in suitcase. [14] Besides, he stayed around five hours at the airport's premises. They just couldn't have missed him.

Assange was never informed about the “detention in absentia”. Further, Assange's laywer Björn Hurtig had obtained an agreement from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that Julian Assange "was free to leave Sweden". [15]

In fact, Assange's lawyer received the communication on the "detention warrant" issued my Marianne Ny (the warrant that Elisabeth Massi Fritz is writing about in connection to Assange's departure for Berlin on the 27 of September), as late as the 30 September 2010. This means three days after that it was issued by the same Marianne Ny.

In support of this claim I refer here to the Supreme Court document “Agreed Statement of Facts And Issues. Between: Julian Paul Assange (Applicant) V. Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)”, hearings 1-2 Feb 2012,. In Item 17, page 5, it reads: "On 30th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel [Björn Hurtig] was advised of the existence of the arrest warrant."

So what were the dialectics of Sweden’s EAW?

My conclusion is that the real target of the EAW was not the detention of Assange, but the creation of an extradition process.

What was to be gained by this?

The EAW immobilized Assange and, to a greater extent, WikiLeaks' activities. In previous analyses, I have demonstrated that it is beyond doubt that this case is political motivated. There isn't a genuine legal case behind the charade of the Swedish Prosecutor Authority and the plaintiff's prejudiced lawyers. This is not the first time that this sort of behaviour has been seen in Sweden.

What would have happened if Assange had been detained at the airport? The prosecutor would have had to interrogate Assange within a few hours. Assange would have requested the presence of a lawyer or that the interview was videotaped. Afterwards he would have been released, because in terms of the evidence available to the prosecutor, there would have been nothing new that had not already come up in the preliminary investigation, conducted by prosecutor Finne (who had previously dismissed the case on this evidence). He would have never been held incommunicado, as he will certainly be if he comes to Sweden under the extradition terms that resulted from the EAW.

Only the EAW could have produced the political benefits created by this scenario, which enables a prolongation of Assange's prisoner status. My “stalling-the-process hypothesis” [16] was correct from the start.

References

[1] M Ferrada de Noli. "Government-Sponsored Presentation Of Swedish Supreme Court Judge In Australia Increased Doubts On Sweden’s Legal System". In: "Human Rights Issues in the Swedish case VS. Assange". Libertarian Books – Sweden, 2014. Page 201.

[2] SvT . “Kravet: Förhör Assange nu”. SvT Nyheter, 2/2 2014.

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/trycket-pa-aklagaren-i-assange-fallet-okar

[3] SvT. Program Agenda, 2/2 2014.

[4] Elisabeth Massi Fritz. ”Varför ska undantag göras för Assange?” Svt, Brännpunkt, 5/2 2014.

[5] TT. “Reinfeldt beklagade negative bild av rättsväsendet”. DN, 11 Feb 2011. Artikeln vid samma namn i Aftonbladet, 11 Feb 2011.

[6] Sveriges Radio, Studio Ett, 25/1 2012

http://www.infotorgjuridik.se/premium/incoming/article159944.ece/BINARY/Det+brittiska+domstolsbeslutet.pdf?fromType=branchartikel

[10] Elisabeth Massi Fritz. “Make no exception for Assange”. SvD, Brännpunk, 7/2 2014.http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/make-no-exception-for-assange_8968448.svd

[11] The meetings have been scheduled long before. Partly it was the working-meetings with Kristinn Hrafnsson and the L’Espresso journalist Stefania Maurizi on the 27-28 September (this was about the ”Afghanistan materials” that the Italian paper was going to publish). And partly it was the meetings with Holger Stark and Marcel Rosenbach from Der Spiegel, the day after.
[12] Polishögskolan. “Intervju- och förhörsmetodik”. Kursplan http://www.polis.umu.se/digitalAssets/9/9137_reviderad-kursplanintervju-o-frhr.pdf
[13] [Information avs. tidpunkten för arresteringsorder] retrieved from a post signed by Duqu at FB-forum. I have asked for the original source, which will be posted here.
[14] See Affidavit of Julian Paul Assange, 1. Summary of Claims, Item 4.
[15] UK:s Supreme Court document “Agreed Statement of Facts And Issues. Between: Julian Paul Assange (Applicant) V. Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)”, hearings 1-2 Feb 2012, Item 13, sidan 4.:
“On 14th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel enquired in writing as to whether the Appellant was permitted to leave Sweden. On 15th September 2010, the prosecutor informed the Appellant’s counsel that he was free to leave Sweden.“
The "Julian Paul Affidavit" refers also in No 4, “Extended stay in Sweden”, Item 113, “My lawyer in Sweden Bjorn Hurtig obtained an agreement from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that I was free to leave Sweden. I left Sweden on 27 September 2010.”
[16] M Ferrada de Noli. “Operation Stalling. Explaining Sweden’s Reluctance To Conduct Assange’s Interrogation In London”. In: “Human Rights Issues in the Swedish case VS. Assange“. Libertarian Books – Sweden, 2014. Page 72.

Published in Professorsblogg.com 7 Feb 2014

Featured image. Courtesy by Somerset Bean

Open Letter To The Prosecutor-General Of Sweden

To the Prosecutor-General of Sweden

Mr Anders Perklev

Dear Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev,

Amidst these battered times for Sweden’s judicial reputation, few things would have been more revitalizing than a statement by the Attorney-General, setting the record straight on the international criticism concerning the mismanagement of the Julian Assange case.

However, your comment on the public stance of the Liberal Party's judicial spokesperson Johan Pehrson MP, gravely risks the prestige of the Swedish legal system.

You stated: "It is remarkable that a parliamentarian openly criticises individual cases like this. It goes against the separation of power between legislators and the judiciary". ¹

There have been many instances of political interference in this case by the Swedish government. For instance, the statements by Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and the Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. Is it that you consider that the Montesquieu principle,² that you have used as your main argument, contains an exception regarding the governmental interference in an ongoing case?

On 11 February 2011, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated in the DN and Aftonbladet newspapers, that Julian Assange had been indicted. He then went on to take a position that was biased in favour of the complainants in the case. Not only was this political interference in an ongoing case, but also it was based on untruths; Julian Assange has not been charged. The statement by the Prime Minister was:

“We have an independent judiciary which also in this case acted according to Swedish law. One has even public-indicted Julian Assange on allegations of rape”. And, “I can only regret that the rights and position of women weigh so lightly when it comes to this type of questions compared to other types of theories brought forward.” ³

On 15 August 2012, Göran Haglund, Swedish Minister of Social Affairs, told the Expressen newspaper: “Assange is a very coward person that does not dare to confront the charges against him”. And he added, “If he did the things he is accused of, I think one can call him a lowlife. He seems to be a miserable wretch."⁴

Considering your comments to Johan Pehrson MP, it is peculiar that the General Prosecutor Office did not issue a statement defending the “independence of the judiciary” from executive power? This type of selective behaviour creates a perception that the Swedish judiciary is not independent.

The principle of the separation of powers precludes the interference by the Legislative of the Judiciary, and vice versa. Is it appropriate, as Sweden's Attorney-General, to publicly criticise Johan Pehrson MP for exactly the same behaviour that you exhibited? Why would a representative of the Judiciary try to inhibit an initiative by a member of the Legislature, which seeks to find a solution to this deadlocked case, that has become a serious political burden both domestically and internationally?

It is known that both the Ecuadorean government and Julian Assange would welcome the questioning of Julian Assange in London, which is standard Swedish praxis. Julian Assange has never refused to be questioned. However, he has stated that he feels there is a risk of being further extradited to the U.S.

Julian Assange’s concern is based on the fact that, in circumstances where someone has been sought for extradition by the U.S. government, and they were on Swedish soil, Sweden has granted every request.

The international community is well aware of this deadlock and the role Sweden is playing in blocking the resolution of the case. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

A. The Swedish prosecutor has refused to question Julian Assange in London and instead, for no apparent reason, requires him to come to Sweden, where he will be immediately held incommunicado. A state that would prevent normal contact with his lawyer.

B. Julian Assange, in an assessment that has been shared by the Ecuadorean government, has legitimate concerns regarding an onwards extradition from Sweden to the U.S. You must be aware that, according to well known Swedish praxis, ⁵ this step - if it takes the form of an extraordinary rendition - does not need to be cleared by the Judiciary.

C. This situation could be immediately solved if the Swedish government extends a guarantee that Julian Assange will not be deported. If this were to happen, Julian Assange would be willing to be questioned in Sweden.

D. However, the government, for no tenable reason, refuses to extend these guarantees and ultimately these extradition decisions are the privilege of the government, not the Judiciary.

Against this backdrop, why would you consider it “strange” that Johan Pehrson MP, a member of the Justice Committee of the Swedish Parliament, is trying to find a solution to the current stalemate?

Many outside Sweden are concerned by the Swedish prosecutor's refusal to question Julian Assange in London and the government's refusal to issue a non-deportation guarantees, both of which are delaying the resolution of this case.

I believe this is either caused by political factors, or because the prosecutor does not have a legitimate case against Julian Assange. Either way, it is your responsibility to end this remarkable situation as soon as possible.

Yours Sincerely,

Professor Emeritus Marcello Ferrada de Noli

4 February 2014

Published in Professorsblogg.com 4 Feb 2014

___________

References:

1. “Prosecutor slams politician's comments on Assange case”. Swedish Radio, 3 Feb 2014.

2. Montesquieu. De L’Esprit Des Loix. Chatelain, 1749.

3. “– Det är beklagligt. Vi har ett självständigt rättsväsende som i det här fallet dessutom agerat på svensk lagstiftning. Man har till allmänt åtal instämt Julian Assange för anklagelser om våldtäkt, sade Reinfeldt då till journalister i riksdagen.” “Jag kan bara beklaga att kvinnors rätt och ställning väger så lätt när det gäller den här typen av frågor jämfört med andra typer av teorier som förs fram.” In: “Reinfeldt beklagade negative bild av rättsväsendet”. DN, 11 Feb 2011.

4. “Assange är en väldigt feg person som inte vågar konfrontera anklagelserna mot honom.” “– Om han har gjort det han är anklagad för så tycker jag att man kan kalla honom för ett kräk. Han verkar vara en ynklig stackare.” In: “Hägglund om asyl för Assange: "Fegis" . Expressen, 4 Febr 2012.

5. Resolution on Sweden by the UN Committee Against Torture, CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, 24 May 2005.

Time to drop the "case" VS. Assange. Debunking Sweden's political alibi

 – Part I of Series "Undressing a juridical charade" –

Against the backdrop of a drastic falling of Sweden’s international status, the "Assange Case” emerged as the Swedish rulers' political alibi. Now when the plot has been debunked, it has come the time for dropping the "case".

But the Swedish Foreign Office is not the only Swedish political force profiting of the "case". While Carl Bildt uses the Assange "case" as cover for the failure of the current Sweden's geopolitics, "radical feminists" Claes Bodström, Marianne Ny, and Thomas Bordström are having a common ideological agenda: to enhance criminal meanings in the sexual behavior of the Swedish people. The "Assange Case" was declared "symbolic issue" .

by Marcello Ferrrada de Noli

Published in Professorsblogg.com 3 Feb 2014

Initiating a Series of four analyses introducing the book "Human-Rights Issues In The Swedish Case VS. Assange"

From the book, Chapter "Duckpond in the Swedish Legal System, Page 152:

"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 . . .”

______________________________________________________________________

Human-Rights-Issues-in-the-Swedish-case-VS.-Assange-By-Marcello-Ferrada-de-Noli

Although many knew of the charming Kingdom of Sweden for a variety of reasons, what has most drawn the world attention to this nation in recent years is the political case against Julian Assange. For instance, Google News searching for “Sweden” in association with “Assange” gives twice as many hits as its association with previous trademarks such as “Nobel Prize in Medicine”, or three times more than hits in association with “Abba”. [1]

The official version given by the authorities and the media to the Swedish public, is that the international criticism on Sweden a) concerns only the legal system, and b) it was brought up, in PM Fredrik Reinfelft own words, “in conjunction with the court procedures on the extradition of Julian Assange”. [2] In further elaborations by government officials or by the media, it is asserted that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange himself directly author the said “discredit campaign”. [3]

Neither of the above official versions is truthful.

Nevertheless irregularities in the legal system do exist, [4] the core of the international criticism has to do a) partly with the abandonment of a sovereign foreign policy and other geopolitical behaviours that Swedish rulers have deployed in the years after the assassination in Stockholm of PM Olof Palme; and b) partly with multiple violations perpetrated by Swedish government officials – including ministers at the government - against Human Rights conventions of which the country is a signatory. These behaviours have comprised severe violations of the UN Absolute Ban On Torture, for which Sweden has been sanctioned by the UN organ for Human Rights [5] and other international committees.

I find relevant to note in the context, that one of the ministers accused as main figure in the decision-making of the extraordinary renditions to the CIA that led to the above-mentioned UN and European sanctions, is the former Justice minister Thomas Bodström, co-owner of the law firm Bodström & Borgström. I develop on this aspect in some chapters in this book a cause of the important implication of these two politicians in the diathesis of the “Assange case”. For instance:

a) At the time of the accusation done nominally by Ms "A" against Assange, Bodström was member of the same internal political phalange (Brotherhood) [6] within the Swedish Social Democratic Party to which the accuser Ms. A belonged; while Bodström was a senior, top-ranked politician in the group, Ms A was the “political secretary”;

b) While Tomas Bodström himself has proclaimed that it is his (and Borgström’s) law firm the one “representing the plaintiffs”, Claes Borgström has acknowledged in an interview with The Guardian that it was he who took the initiative for the reopening of the case upon the prosecutor office;

c) The actual prosecutor turned out being Ms Marianne Ny, who had previously participated together with either Bodström, or Borgström, or both, in committees set by the government to study the enhancement of the sexual-offences legislation. [7]

d) Interestingly, the new proposals in the legislation (under study) include precisely the type of “criminal behaviour” within “grey zones” which all along has been implied in the accusations against Julian Assange.

Reactions

In recent developments, during an important voting at the Human-Rights organ of the United Nations in November 2012, Sweden obtained the lowest preference from the voting country-delegates. The election concerned Sweden’s own candidacy towards becoming a member of the United Nations Human Rights organization. Also in recent years and for the first time in modern history, the government of Sweden has been obliged to face the burning of Swedish flags by angry protesters in countries as far away as Pakistan.

Motive for those actions were found in the reaction of normal, law-abiding citizens of various countries, which felt insulted by the permissive stance of the Swedish government and Swedish media around the “Muhammad drawings controversy” of 2007, provoked by the racist Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. The native-Swedish cultural elites appealed to the “freedom of expression”. Which was used as a pretext to further reproduce the offensive material. This was done in conscious disregard towards the numerous groups of immigrants and refugees, which, in spite of being of diverse nationalities, share peacefully Islam as their religion or culture.

The behaviours implemented by the Swedish political and cultural elites on the Vilks affair, added Sweden’s military occupation of Afghanistan were specifically given as reasons [8] by the suicide-bomber for his terrorist retaliation blast of Stockholm in December 2010. The straightforward SÄPO chief Anders Thornborg acknowledged that to the international media. [9] However, this was not publicized in Sweden, in spite it was the very first time that the centenaries-quiet streets of Stockholm witnessed a suicide-bomber action.

Further, the Swedish government provided Vilks with National Security-police escort during his visit to New York on the 2 October 2012, where the racist cartoonist addressed anew an anti-Islam speech. [10] The irritation grew amidst the immigrants’ high-density marginalized areas of Stockholm.

Only some months after, the Guardian announced, with some stupefaction, the following headlines, “Swedish riots spark surprise and anger – As inequality and segregation start to rise”. Initiated in the “suburb” of Husby, mainly allocating social discriminated immigrants, the protested were triggered by the shooting of an older immigrant by a member of the National police, during an investigation proceeding. Hundreds of cars were burned in Stockholm and other major cities by the rioters.

Again, the Swedish government and the Swedish Main Stream Media (for brevity, called henceforth MSM) neglected to connect the domestic reaction to their policies and deeds, in the same fashion as they neglected to connect the drastic fall of the international status of Sweden with their own turn in the geopolitical arena.

There was no Swedish MSM-article whatsoever, nor government analysis, connecting those happenings with the actual deeds conducted by the Swedish government or institutions. Not even at the occasion of the surprising explosions in the centre of Stockholm – or at the above-mentioned race riots that debuted simultaneously in Stockholm and other major cities - did Swedish journalists made any reference to behaviours of the government, including cases of institutional discrimination against immigrant minorities. Or those for which Sweden have received sanctions by the United Nations, or with Sweden’s military occupation of Northern Afghanistan under U.S. command.

In my late years I have been lecturing on Epidemiology under Swedish assignments in a variety of universities, including central Africa and Latin America. In Chile, on occasion of a lecturing at the School of Public Health, at the Medical Faculty of Chile University, I saw painted in walls at Providencia, not far from the Swedish Embassy, “OTAN Sueca fuera de Afganistan” (“Swedish NATO”, get out from Afghanistan). Diplomatic people from Latin-American or African countries that I have met in connection with those academic activities have confide: “no more business with Sweden in the first place, as it was before”.

And the anti-Sweden sentiment abroad grows. Who to blame?

The "case" as political alibi

Instead, the strategy of the MSM (which in Sweden it is subsidized by the State) and in conjunction with the State-owned “public-service” media has been to use the “case Assange” and WikiLeaks as a blunt alibi. And this is done with a not so subtle appealing to national chauvinistic sentiments.

As mentioned above, already in 2011 PM Reindfelt was connecting in front of the public the international criticism on Sweden with the case Assange. Two months after, the State-owned TV broadcasted repeatedly over several days this headline:

“How could the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange get the world into questioning Sweden’s credibility?” [11]

The reader should note the emphasis SvT is doing on “WikiLeaks founder” (my cursives), a status that it should have nothing to do with a case, which as Sweden has repeated to the international forum, is against an individual and for his individual behaviour. In true, the case is ultimately about what WikiLeaks disclosed on Sweden and fundamentally on USA. And the Swedish Ministry of Defence goes farther in this line.

On the 29 February 2012, the National Television of Sweden aired a long reportage program focused on WikLeaks and Assange during the main news program Aktuell. The reporter, a Military-Intelligence trainee then working as envoy for Swedish Television, interviewed Mike Winnerstig, a high-rank representative of FOA (a military-research institute under the Ministry of Defence). Winnerstig’s angle in the sending to the Swedish public was that WikiLeaks and Assange have an “agenda” consisting in targeting USA and allies (Sweden) but not Russia (Sweden’s “archenemy” state). Secondly, Winnerstig said expressly that Assange exercises blackmail against Sweden. He refers to the “disclosures” Sweden was expecting around Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.

In other words, Assange is clearly presented in Sweden not as a “crime suspect individual” but as the enemy of Sweden; the agent that has caused “the world into questioning Sweden’s credibility”!

Carl Bildt’s Office contradicts itself

I am aware that this may be difficult for non-Swedes to understand this context, since the “Assange case” is presented outside Sweden as a “legal case”. But here is a further contradiction.

If it were so, as Sweden’s rulers say, a) that the case VS. Assange is “only legal” and only pertinent to the judicial system, and b) that Assange is a figure in decay, isolated and deprived of influence, etc., one question is; How come that the case deserves (for the first time in the history of Sweden, to the best of my knowledge) special information pages in Swedish and English in the official websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well of the Prosecutor Authority? Why would the very Prime Minister of Sweden care interfering publicly in “the independent legal case” of an “insignificant Assange”? [12]

During 2012 several demonstrations in main cities of Sweden started to call for Bildt's resignation. This was an odd event in "consensus" Sweden, but the news about the fall of Sweden's international prestige was reaching domestic dimensions. It was then when the MSM sat in motion "Plan Z – Saving Minister Bildt". The government had an alibi, it was not Bildt's wrong doings; it was WikiLeaks, particularly Julian Assange, characterized as Sweden's No 1 enemy. But it was not any longer the version of Assange attacking Sweden, but of WikiLeaks and Assange "targeting" concretely Carl Bildt. Which of course it was demonstrated a blunt lie. How the "case" Assange was used with this purpose I describe in detail in "Plan Z: The anti-WikiLeaks campaigns in the Swedish media. – Saving Minister Bildt?"

Further, the “radical feminist” organizations acting in public events with the Swedish politicians that pushed the reopening of the case, [13] refer unequivocally in public banderols or press releases to “the case against the WikiLeaks founder”, which also denotes anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks as being the real target behind the “legal” pretence. This, in its turn, leads us to the superpowers and satellite governments that have been exposed by Assange’s organization.

I am not referring to the Swedish feminist movement in general, neither to all “radical feminists”. I personally now many of these cadres and for whom I praise trust and respect. I am only referring to the fascist-wise feminists, often right-wing, which in spite of characterizing themselves of being “radical”, do not have the focus on societal issues – including gender inequality. They are instead focused in a “gender war” against men as such. In fact, they are more motivated by gaining positions of hierarchy amidst the cultural, political and corporate elites. They are, in alliance with fundamentalist academics carrying extreme, irrational anti-men positions, main ideological pillars of Swedish State Feminism.

I argue that:

i. Behind the Swedish “legal case” against Assange, there is a political case. Although Sweden is acting against the backdrop of the known WikiLeaks disclosures on this government, in the main is following Sweden’s current geopolitical and military alignment with the US – partly concretized in “secret Intelligence agreements of collaboration”. [14] According to facts, Sweden is not a “Neutral” country.

ii. The political aim in the case goes even beyond the destruction of WikiLeaks; it also aims to counteract the whistleblowing movement, among other measures, by means of terrorizing ad hominem. [15] In this regard, the Swedish mainstream media and State-owned media apparatus have deployed a consistent campaign, what has constituted a “Trial by media” on Julian Assange.

iii. Sweden has further used the case for ideological purposes within its foreign policy; for instance, as a vehicle to proselytise ideological claims of Sweden’s state-feminism.

iv. The management of the Swedish case has comprised breaches in the human rights of Julian Assange.

v. In the context of the above issues, the characteristics of the Swedish legal system would not guarantee per se a fair trial of Julian Assange.

vi. At the contrary of what is stated by Swedish sources, it is the Swedish government – and not the judicial system - which ultimately can decide the issue of extradition to a third country. The government is fully entitled to issue guarantees of a non-extradition.

References & Notes

[1] Retrieved 24 Jan 2014

[2] Fredrik Reinfeldt’s declarations in: “Beklagar att kvinnors rätt och ställning väger så lätt. Statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt (M) om Assange-fallet”. Aftonbladet, 8 Feb 2011.

[3] See Part II, ”The Trial By Media”.

[4] See Part V, on the Swedish legal system.

[5] UN Committee Against Torture, CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, 24 May 2005

[6] ”Broderskap” (Brotherhood), nowadays renamed to ”Faith & Solidarity”, is a Christian phalange within the Swedish Social Democratic Party.

[7] For sources, see chapter Duckpond In Swedish Legal System, in Part V in this book.

[8] The rationale was given both in written message, and in videotape.

[9] See my post ”Afghanistan, Lars Vilks, bomb, Sweden”. Professors blogg, 13 Dec 2010.

[10] SvT, ” Lars Vilks - konstnär och provokatör eller rasist? Uppdrag granskning, 28 Sept 2012.

[11] Trailer of the anti-Assange documentary by the Swedish National Television, SvT-1. 7 Apr 2011.

[12] Fredrik Reinfeldt has publicly implied that the Assange case is about a) the right of the two women b) to make the world to respect the Swedish legislation on sexual-offences.

[13] Politician Claes Borgström, formerly Ombudsman for gender issues appointed by the Persson government. His partner in the law firm Bodström & Borgström is the former Justice Minister of the same government, later a resident if the U.S. at Virginia.

[14] Some of the secret agreements on the Intelligence collaboration of Sweden with the US – mainly disclosed by the WikiLeaks Dipolmatic Cables of 2010 and subsequently by Edward Snowden revelation of 2013 – have been analysed by Prof. Wilhem Agrell, e.g. “Det är samma gamla lik som trillar ur garderoberna” (DN, 7 Dec 2010); “FRA spionage mot Ryska civila mål” (SvD, 7 Dec 2013).

[15] After the Assange case initiated in 2010, attacks ad hominem have followed also suit, e.g. against Aaron Swartz, Jeremy Hammond, and Edward Snowden.

Professors blogg - A Swedish Blog On Human Rights For All