To BehindRayban
I thank you for your comment.
My personal opinion is that, generally speaking,
the Swedish Juridical system - including prosecution officials - is professionally-ethic minded and thus NOT adjustable to external political pressures. With this said, my opinion is also - and with facts grounding it - that,
sectors from the government as well as from the political opposition, have indeed exercised political pressures through the media and interfered in the legal process against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Moreover, they have given the impression this is, or should be, a national ideological crusade.
The above means that we have to distinguish between:
A) on the one hand the political motives and actions behind the instigation/initiation of the legal process against the
WikiLeaks founder J. Assange. I have already stated my opinion in this regard in the FB forum: I have got succesively the impression that a chain of political events - including the active participation of politicians in the re-initiation of the case - have designed the case long before the dossier was actually opened by the new prosecutor. These politicians, such as co-propietors of the Law firm Bordström & Borgström, were directly or indirectly touched by the WikiLeaks disclosures on Sweden during the G. Persons's era (the "Egyptians" episode is one of such references). This mere fact would constitute "conflict of interests" (
jäv) in countries with highly developed legal system such us the U.S. or Great Britain.
B), on the other hand the legal process it self. I have already expressed that once this legal process started, its legal machinery has made impossible main modifications at the free initiative of the actors in this drama. The process has in the main only followed its legally predictable course.
Besides, a confounding factor brought about during the protracted process, has been the further political or ideological exploitation of it by a variety of political interests or organizations.
In Sweden this political utilization of the case Assange has been the case of lobby organizations pursuing a further radicalization of the Swedish rape legislation. They have said it crystal-clear: “The Assange case is a symbol”.
Internationally, the protracted and prolonged process has made possible the "disarmament" of WikiLeaks, for instance through deprivation of funding. It is hardly a secret that the corporate world most hurt by the WikiLeaks disclosures has been the military industry as well as warmongers behind a variety of contemporary occupation wars. Including those in which Sweden participates under a foreign-power lead.
Is the above patriotic? I do not think so. I deeply believe that Sweden’s best interest would be served by a foreign policy of Neutrality. And I do not mean “neutrality” in the sense of opportunistically avoiding taking sides in international conflicts. I mean, for example, the actively pursue of mediating in such conflicts for the cause of human rights and world peace. As it was in Sweden once upon a time.
You said:
“Our prime minister has only stated that JA will get a fair trial and that rape is a severe crime, which is of course correct.”
Our Prime Minister, regardless what his personal reflections may be around this sad case, it has to stand up for the defence of Sweden when it is sensed being harsh criticized by the international media. This anyone can easily understand. Besides, the main blunder – the so called “Egyptians case”, for which Sweden has been condemn by the very United Nations for violations of the Absolute Ban on Torture - this government has inherited from the past social pro-Bush democratic government of Göran Persson and former Justice Minister Thomas Bodström (indirectly also a part in the Assange case).
Nevertheless, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has intervened through the media in the case. This information is fact-based (Please see “Swedish government using media to interfere in the legal process against Julian Assange”
http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/201...interfere.html ).
You said:
“I am not aware that the "in this case, the rape legislation is good" remark has been actually spoken. Most likely an error in translation?”
It can very well be a matter of erroneous translation from my part. I do hear the Prime Minister uttering
“Vi måste naturligtvis stå upp för att vi har en fungerande rättsstat och också vi tar mycket allvarligt på anklagelser som handlar om våldtäck för det finns också inslag att försöka förminska hur vi har utvecklats och står för en bra lagstiftning I det här fallet."
The best thing however would be to listen directly to the Swedish Broadcasting (SR) stream here:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel...rtikel=4928323
You said:
“It´s a left radical feminist cohort.” [in reference to my contention “This, mainly a right-wing radical-feminist cohort, includes notorious former gender-ombudsman Claes Borgström and several other politicians from the Social democratic party such as one of the Assange accusers, at the time the Political Secretary of the social democratic “Brotherhood” – as well as from State-feminists appointed also by the current government. This so called "radical" feminist campaign - which hardly represents the progressive, pro Human-Rights Swedish feminism - has declared openly and publicly that the case Assange is 'a symbol' in such struggle”] [Details in
http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/201...issue-for.html].
I would disagree, because the paramount notion of equality – which to the highest extent includes gender equality - it is among the fundamentals of leftists (socialist) as well as genuine liberal ideologies.
Instead, the anti Human-Rights theses put forward in that regard by the sort “radical” feminism I criticize, aim to privilege one gender in their possibilities upon court. The notion that one gender should be given by law supremacy against the other is for me medieval and inquisitorial, and advocated during the past as well in present times only by ugly unjustice worshipers, or worse.
And I guesstimate you would agree with me in this reasoning.
