Positions often directly
or indirectly attributed to WikiLeaks
are in fact misrepresentations. For instance, WikiLeaks do not have
"anti-Sweden" or “misogynist” positions whatsoever, and neither have
such postures authors that have been cited, linked, or tweeted by WikiLeaks or Sweden
Versus Assange.
“To
think free is great; but to think right is greater” (att tänka fritt är stort
att tänka rätt är store) Inscription
engraved at the Uppsala University’s auditorium
“That a University calls on its scholars to think ‘right’ should trouble all who value academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, it harkens back to the old days when Universities were not independent centres of learning but were, indeed, constrained by the church and the Monarchy to "think right" or be shut down. Attacks on the scientific process and promotion of non-scientific dogma in some faculties in Uppsala University suggests that this old proclamation (still) reflects the University's position in thinking according to cannons of political correctness imposed by an authority." Professors blogg
By Marcello Ferrada de Noli
*Professor emeritus of Public-Health
Epidemiology; former Professor of Psychosocial Methods. Submitted the Witness
statement on the Swedish Trial by Media of Julian Assange upon the London court
2010.
Introduction
The
purpose of this article – the first is a series of three - is to set the facts
straight about some important topics regarding WikiLeaks and the media. One is how
to properly assess the conflict between certain media hostile to WikiLeaks and
Julian Assange; in my view, WikiLeaks and Assange have only tried to respond to
such attacks; namely they are not the “aggressors”.
Another
topic is about the different roles of
WikiLeaks regarding the Internet publishing of whistleblowing material and the
interacting in the social media. Professor
Christian Christensen might have misunderstood these different roles, concepts he
has not limited to academia but further spread in the Internet and the social
media via his blog and Twitter.
A
third item is the confounding Christensen indulges when referring to “Radical
feminism” in Sweden as if this – in fact an ideology or an ideological concept
– would be simply equated with the political organization “Feminist Initiative”
Christensen
has also publicly endorsed twittering criticizing Julian Assange’s talk show, “The
World Tomorrow” for not including women in any of the first interviews with
leading revolutionary or intellectually significant figures. But, would it not
be more logical to wait for such assessments until the full schedule of
interviews is completed?
In
sum, the interpretation errors here appear to be two-fold, in form and in
content
Formally,
because it is up to WikiLeaks editors to decide both what to make public in
disseminating information at their official sites and with whom and how to
interact in their Twitter account; and also because it is erroneous to equate
different modes in the societal interaction of WikiLeaks.
In
content, because positions directly or indirectly attributed to
WikiLeaks by Professor Christensen in such issues as, for instance, “feminism”,
“radical feminism” and the like, are in fact misrepresentations. In clear
words: WikiLeaks do not have “misogynist” positions whatsoever, and neither
have such postures – to the best of my knowledge – authors that have been
cited, linked, or tweeted by WikiLeaks or Sweden Versus Assange.
In the
core of the matter, what has been problematized here, or intended to be debated
by such criticism, is an issue of consequence: Whether the different
statements by WikiLeaks are or not consensual with basic Human Rights values
implicit in their main whistleblowing endeavour: the contribution to justice,
to equality (including of course gender equality as well as social and economic
equal opportunities) and respect for human dignity; and the positioning of the
integrity of individuals in societies as paramount to “secret” State interests,
egoist interests of the rulers or corporate interests. In other words - in my
interpretation - a political philosophy of liberation, democracy, and human
rights development.
And in
this core of the matter is where the equivocal interpretation spread, for
instance, by Christensen shows itself emphatically. Namely, it is
in any case incorrect or “straw man” fallacious to attribute to WikiLeaks (the
organization), its founder and editor, or deputy editors and staff, etc., the
opinion expressed by WikiLeaks supporters, irrespective of whether these
opinions are or are not congruent with WikiLeaks fundamental principles.
The one who wishes to establish what posture WikiLeaks has on issues, should be
restricted to WikiLeaks own statements.
Christensen
is professor of media and communication studies and in his personal
presentation at the Uppsala University directory, he describes his primary special area being the
“use of social media during times of war”. [1] In
this war that NATO and their proxy, the conservative right-wing government of
Sweden, wages against WikiLeaks, Professor Christensen has publicly requested
WikiLeaks – without any argument whatsoever - to filter away in its twittering
the linking to certain articles describing important actors in the Swedish
political context of such attacks.
I
Uppsala University and Swedish extreme
“radical feminists”
Just
to be sure the international reader understands the scope of some excesses
sanctioned by the Swedish state at some Swedish universities, I reproduce here
a text authored by a civil engineer of name Susanna Varis. In her report “Att
tänka fritt är stort att tänka rätt är store” (“To think free is great; but to
think right is greater”, the above quoted Uppsala University inscription), she
says commenting on a text authored in Lund by a group led by gender professor
Tiina Rosenberg, also co-founder and formerly in the leadership of the
political party Feminist Initiative:
“It can certainly be argued to do
serious research on gender or different power-structures as subjects within
anthropology, sociology or history; but when it is required that, for instance,
the textbooks to be used in physics lecturing must be authored by the same
number of women and men, rationality boundaries have been long since
trespassed. When I afterwards read in Feminist Philosophy of Sciences that (the
idea is) to reject the existing sciences, inclusively the scientific methods,
because they have been in the main constructed by men, then I do not any longer
wish to have anything to do with such (feminist) concept” [7]
Internationally,
Uppsala University enjoys a solid reputation, and too in Sweden regarding the
university’s ground research, natural and medical sciences. On the other hand,
no wonder Uppsala University is one Swedish academic institution whose
reputation or academic standards in certain domain of “qualitative-research
oriented” social sciences – specifically “gender studies” has been most
severely questioned by prominent professors in Sweden in the last decade.
Partly for its vassal position towards government -- particularly the
sacrificing of scientific research on behalf of extreme “feminist” political
positioning directly imposed by Ministerial rule; partly for completely
disregard for external investigations on scientific or academic misconduct
related to such research.
That was the case of the creation at the government’s request (not at
initiative form the University) of a professorship on radical “gender studies” for
the Christian theology researcher and extremist “feminist” Eva Lundgren. The post was created "from above" with special
marked public funds, [8] engineered at the time the radical feminist Minister
Margareta Winberg - in fact Sweden's Vice Prime Minister - was in the government. Winberg had made approve at the government – without opposition,
according to her - [9] the compulsory “gender perspective” in all
levels if education an research [See Part II, Swedish version of “State feminism”].
Eva Lundgren’s
research is often cited as an example of a pseudo “feminist” research
advocating instead for gender supremacy and the enhancing of privileges in detriment
of gender-equality. Paramount notions of this ideology are the theses of an
evil “structural patriarchal order” constructed by men through history, the
notion of the moral inferiority of men and a vulgar "behaviour-genetic" approach summed up
in “all men are animals” per definition. [9] It has to be noted that Eva Lundgren’s
appointment specifically created to further develop extreme “feminism” posture
in “research” has been backed not only by empathetic counterparts in the past
government of Göran Persson but also in the conservative government of
Reindfeldt; Minister Maria Larson (Christian Democratic Party) participated for
instance the in Lundgren’s “professors installation”. [10]
In spite of a
variety of scientific scandals regarding flawed research proceedings or alleged fabricated
data in publications of Eva Lundgren and associates at Uppsala University – [8]
[10] or even against the assessments/conclusions of an external investigative
panel of professors - [11] the
university authorities decided to carry on their docile posture towards the
earlier Ministerial-rule impositions on Lundgren’s professorship and thus
abstained from sanctioning academic wrongdoings or pseudo-research activities. At
that time the notable professor Bo Rothstein argued publicly upon the Swedish
Authorities in a debate piece published by leading Dagens Nyheter, that Uppsala University, even if eventually could
be keep as educational or simple training institution, should be demoted from
its university rank and erased from the list of Swedish universities for clearly
demonstrating absence of academic independence and not keeping standards expected
for a university. [12] The relevance of this to this article, is that
it refers to the same Uppsala Faculty which has allocated several professors at
the Ethical Research Committee of Uppsala that approved the “feminist”
cultural-racists study by Eva Lundgren research associates – the theme which Professors blog analysed in “Throw them
all out”. [13]
II
Distinguishing between
WikiLeaks work for dissemination information and its Twitter account
After that a
WikiLeaks’ tweet have linked the above mentioned “Throw them all out” to its nearly
one and half million followers, it was initiated in the Internet a “troll campaign”
by anti-Assange elements calling for WikiLeaks to “stop linking to Professors
blog articles” on the fabricated accusation [14] that our articles
would represent a “misogynist” approach [one rebuttal here]. On the 6th
of May one American campaigner contacted Christensen per email on this subject.
The email was published in the Internet. I seriously doubt that Christensen had
replied such message, and if so, I would ignore the content whatever I would
have been. The only thing I know is that four days thereafter, @ChrChristensen
started to 
tweet calling for the same thing, namely that WikiLeaks and Sweden
VS Assange should “stop harming a just cause by (re-) tweeting nonsense about
“radical feminism”
tweet calling for the same thing, namely that WikiLeaks and Sweden
VS Assange should “stop harming a just cause by (re-) tweeting nonsense about
“radical feminism”
Christensen did
not refer any article in particular, and was thereafter demanded by @SwedenVSAssange and other twitters to
specify the articles about “radical feminism nonsense” he was referring to.
Christensen never complied.
Why would the anti-Assange/WikiLeaks
people that started such disinformation campaign wish to “switch off” particular
voices at the public forums if it were so that such analysis would be harmful
to WikiLeaks? Perhaps because the truth might be exactly the opposite; At least
judging for the massive response from Assange supporters towards the Professors
blogg.
Although humble,
our main output has been providing political
contexts and facts from the Swedish
scenario relevant to the case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. We
have listed the key factors and organizations playing a role in this political
operation (the “investigating” on Julian Assange) including disclosing the role
of the Swedish media actors in these campaigns. But we have said this, and NOT
other:
- Geopolitical factors -- the threat represented by WikiLeaks to political/military interventions elsewhere in the Third World that secure corporative interest; This “menacing” role of WikiLeaks is symbolized by the exposure of war atrocities in Collateral Damage. And Sweden is directly intervening with troops in such imperialistic occupation wars. The role of the Swedish vassal government has not only been supporting such operations militarily, but plays a pivotal political role in Europe in advocating for the increase of such support on behalf of the European nations. Sweden has in fact launched a “NATO by Proxy” doctrine (See "The NATO factor. Extradition process initiated in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder is to the uppermost extent POLITICAL", [16] aimed to motivate an increasing sharing of the NATO burden by the rest of European countries.
- The decimation of WikiLeaks - and the deterrent action with regard of possible initiatives of the like in the local level – in the sight of the Swedish government, has also to do with exposures done by WikiLeaks on both the social democratic and conservative governments in their secret agreement with U.S. officials or conservative politicians and corporations.
- The facing of a visible deterioration in the international prestige abroad –basically attributed to the abandonment of the Neutrality doctrine in open favour not only for NATO military doctrine but also in directly participating in NATO-led military operations [17] – have also had an impact in domestic Swedish politics. For the first time, to the best of my knowledge, demonstrations have been held in main cities of Sweden by groups of people asking for the resignation of the Minister of Foreign affairs, who together with the Minister of Defence are viewed as main pro NATO “warmongers”. The Minister of Defence Sten Tolgfors was recently obligated to resign as a government measure to counteract the exposures on the arms-deal scandal with Saudi Arabia, a NATO principal ally in the region.
- It is after those events that the public support for the government parties started for the first time (in some time) to decrease in the opinion polls. This circumstantial “de-stabilization” process is added to a context of marked deterioration in social welfare and employment, particularly amongst the immigrant population now estimated at over 27 per cent of the total population. [18] In a typical “political” manoeuvre assisted by basic social-psychological notions, the government has launched at least three identified media campaigns aimed to portray Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as “responsible” for the deterioration of the Swedish loss in international prestige (“How could the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange get the world to question Sweden's credibility”?) [19]
- The expected effect of the above among the Swedish constituencies is double fold: a) on the one hand finding an explanation to replace the real causes that are behind such international deterioration of Swedish prestige. As this is undoubtedly related to issues of Sweden’s foreign policy, this measure represents also an attempt to stop the analyses on such relationships with foreign powers; b) on the other hand, by obtaining a national cohesion behind the government that “defends” Sweden [20] and shows being ready to “process and punish” Sweden’s Number One enemy, the rulers use the “chauvinist trick” of having people to switch attention from economic or domestic political issues to issues of “national interest”.
- One remarkable feature regarding the above is that in Sweden very seldom are legal aspects of the case against Assange ventilated in the press – actually it has occurred only in very few occasions. Instead, what has been a constant action presented particularly by the State owned media (National Television channels, Radio, etc.) is the blaming of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, accused of having an anti-Sweden political agenda. This has reached extremes as to publicly accuse Assange and WikiLeaks of blackmailing Sweden or implied WikiLeaks would be protecting Russian’s interests (Sweden’s “arch enemy”). See this analysis under "Sweden’s Plan “Z”, Phase 6: Swedish State Television explaining "why" WikiLeaks should be viewed as detrimental for the "interests of our nation", in Part II of this series: "Plan Z: the latest national chauvinist campaign anti-WIkiLeaks in the Swedish media". [21]
- Domestic political factors regarding the opportunity being used by local political organizations, such as fundamentalist groups, that, voided of a large mass-support, are bound parasitically from highly publicized media-events in order to move forward their political agenda through some journalists in their ranks employed by the MSM. These organizations have not made secret that the Julian Assange case is a symbol for their struggle [22], a campaign seeking the further radicalizing of the legislation in Sweden towards, among other things “only sexual contact after written consent”, a national tax imposed to all men (mansskatt) in Sweden [23] ("to compensate Swedish women of centuries of men patriarchal dominance”), and the increasing in the penalty for sexual-related offences attributed to the “nature” of men ("men are animals", as expressed by the President of the State-supported nation-wide organization ROKS). [24] In the ranks of this multifaceted fundamentalist cohort are found people of different professions, not only journalists. Example of notable Swedish politicians which have advocated for such further radicalization of the law are Thomas Bodström (the former minister of Justice) and the former Ombudsman for gender issues Claes Borgström. They also established the Law firm Bodström & Bogström, which is the law firm that defended the plaintiffs in their “accusations” against Julian Assange. Marianne Ny, the prosecutor in the case has been also participating in the preparation of the present “radical” legislation – under which the Swedish State has asked to “investigate” Julian Assange.
III
The linking VS not-linking to Professors
blogg. Who is afraid of what?
@Wikleaks and @SwedenvAssange have
in fact tweeted a number of posts published in Professors blogg 2010-2012, but so too have thousands of other
sovereign Twitter accounts or blogs which have also linked to Professors blogg articles. The call for
censoring or filtering these articles was initiated in Sweden by Roland Poirier
Martinsson, the CEO of Swedish think-tank Timbro. Poirier Martinsson is an
ultraconservative American-schooled Swedish journalist who claims was the one
inviting Karl Rove to Sweden [See in Professors blogg Karl Rove’s Swedish Connections: The Controversy And
The Facts]; He most recently called WikiLeaks a “gangster”
organization. [25] Timbro allegedly has connections with Prime.
[26] Poirier Martinsson called bluntly for the following appeal
in an email about Noemi Wolf's publication in Professors blogg: "it would be nice if we are keeping away from see
that it spreads in the Swedish blogosphere" ["det vore
trevligt om vi slapp se den spridas i den svenska bloggosfären"]. [27]
Similar “advice ” to WikiLeaks of not linking to our "voice in the Internet" have been put forward by Expressen’s editor-in-chief Thomas Mattsson (this after a debate in Swedish Radio One about WikiLeaks in which Matsson and I participated) [28]. Even the Swedish State-owned National Broadcasting Service SR have questioned in critical terms to WikiLeaks - in an interview conducted with WikiLeaks spokesman Kristin Hrafsson [2] - the allegedly "Feminist-plot thesis" of "WikiLeas supporter Ferrada de Noli, a former professor". All these remarkable mentions with direct or indirect requests to WikiLeaks for filtering the analyses in Professors blogg finds a correspondence with the censorship against the blog exercised by the Swedish MSM and also by the Guardian. [30]
Similar “advice ” to WikiLeaks of not linking to our "voice in the Internet" have been put forward by Expressen’s editor-in-chief Thomas Mattsson (this after a debate in Swedish Radio One about WikiLeaks in which Matsson and I participated) [28]. Even the Swedish State-owned National Broadcasting Service SR have questioned in critical terms to WikiLeaks - in an interview conducted with WikiLeaks spokesman Kristin Hrafsson [2] - the allegedly "Feminist-plot thesis" of "WikiLeas supporter Ferrada de Noli, a former professor". All these remarkable mentions with direct or indirect requests to WikiLeaks for filtering the analyses in Professors blogg finds a correspondence with the censorship against the blog exercised by the Swedish MSM and also by the Guardian. [30]
Now Professor Christensen – a
specialist in social media – started his own series of
twittering criticizing WikiLeaks for linking “nonsense anti radical feminist”
materials. As mentioned above, what are the articles he referring to he will
not say, despite having been asked multiple times, directly on this issue, by
@swedenvsassange, and by @helenebergman and @treisiroon.
Observers to the exchanges on Twitter also mentioned that they
await Professor Christensen’s answer. Only recently, however, he did mention a
study by Al Burke that contained references to or by notable Swedish authors
Helene Bergman and Brita Sundberg-Weitman – both supporters of the cause of
justice for Julian Assange.
Paramount
is the question of why are those authors, or Professors blogg, being viewed so threatening to the interests of
Sweden regarding their medial management of the “case” Assange? Or, in general,
what voices should be given credence by WikiLeaks and which not? Respectively,
who is to decide that, is it not solely and sovereignly WikiLeaks themselves?
Why would media professors or Swedish newspaper editors or programme editors
believe it licit to attribute themselves “editing prerogatives” at WikiLeaks
sites or accounts? []
In The Second Part of this series:
Setting the facts straight about what Professors blogg has in fact written on issues related to radical "feminism", in the context of the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Go to Professors blogg and the role of Radical "Feminism" in Sweden's case vs Assange
In The Third Part of this series:
WikiLeaks
answering the attacks by the media; not vice versa. And: Is radical “feminism”
a part in the constellation of political factors explaining the political
offensive and media attacks against WikiLeaks and Assange? State-feminism in
Sweden, does it exist?
Update 12/6/2012
THIS - and NOT other - is what Professors blogg
has published on issues related to radical "feminism", in the context
of the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
Gil Elvgren's famous arte piece "Come on honey! Blondes have more fun!!" Retouched with a fancy cap by Professors blogg
The aim of this article – the second is a series of three - is to set the facts
straight about what Professors blogg has in fact written on
issues related to radical "feminism", in the context of the Swedish case
against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
As an addenda to my article Christian Christensen vs WikiLeaks
I would like here to point out that Christensen is not only confounding
political organization with political ideology (see twitter 1 below);
he is also confusing "cause" (or "partial cause") with "contributing
factor" (twitter 2). In science, at least in Epidemiology, phenomena are
used to be described as having a multi-causal etiology. Yet "cause" is
not "factor".
While Professors blogg have only referred to the participating
role played by certain radical "feminist" groups in the anti-Assange
campaigns - mainly opportunistic, and aimed to mover their positions for
a further radicalization of legislation they advocate- we have
explained the political context in the "Swedish" case against WikiLeaks
and Assange as having a wider scope, in which both domestic and
geopolitical factors are primarily involved.
Texts by Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Italy
I
This I have already put forward in Swedish Radio incorrectly referring Professors Blogg's theses on Swedish case against Assange
Facts on Swedish "feminists" and the Assange case
To state that a variety of known Swedish
feminists have used the Swedish case against Assange as a platform to
politically agitate further radicalization of the legislation is to state only
facts.
A panorama of the actual relationships
played by these sort “feminism” in the case Assange are explained in the
article “Feministerna i Assange-härvan gör våld på feminismen”,
by Helene Bergman, the celebrated feminist and former program director of
the known feminist program ”Radio Ellen” in Swedish Radio.
Known right-wing "radical" Swedish feminists have themselves stated, "Julian Assange is a symbol" for their cause, and actively participated in mediatic anti-Assange campaigns or even publicly celebrated its success.
Organizations of left-wing "radical" Swedish feminists - to the best
of my knowledge - have never taken distance from such deeds or
positions. Moreover, the chairman of the Swedish Party Feminist
Initiative, Gudrun Schyman, has publicly associated the case Assange
with the need of "a better legislation than the one we have".
Right-wing social democratic politicians with a recognized ultra "feminist" agenda - such as Bordström & Borgström
- take pride themselves in representing the plaintiff accusing Assange.
For instance Thomas Bodström - a former Minister of Justice - with his
own words, in his blog "Bodström Samhället" -- as I have referred already in Newsmill. His
partner, the social-democratic politician, known fundamentalist
feminist and former Ombudsman for gender issues, declared himself in the
Guardian 8 December 2010 being instigator of the legal case against
Assange. Equally public are the positions of prominent politicians of
the "Left Party" (formerly “The Communists") such as the Member of
Parliament Eva Brinck for whom, as she wrote in Newsmill, the support given to Assange by Left profiles such as Ken Loach and John Pilger "stinks".
II
1. Critic to feminist gender-supremacists is one thing. Support to the
principles and the struggle for gender equality is another.
Professors blogg is not an
“enemy" of feminism insofar feminism would transparently struggle or
implement the aim of universal gender-equality. This can only be reached by an
understanding and cooperation between all progressive segments of society.
Hence, this column has repeatedly condemn the notion of gender-war, the hatred
of men or the hatred of women.
a) Ideology
We instead promote and practice the struggle for a society with equal
opportunities for all regardless gender, social class, ethnicity. This
includes fighting towards the final achievement of equal opportunities for
women and men in all spheres of society, such as equal salary [See Note 1]; But
this column have been also, and always shall be, opposing all forms of
authoritarianism and oppression, which includes the vigilance towards those
"who merely seek to replace one authoritarian system with
another".
True egalitarian feminism and extreme
state-feminism are two different things, and are expressed in different grades.
State-feminism is the cultural and political movement aimed to establish - with
the help of the authority - institutional privileges or legislation favoring
women. Some of these measures adopted by State Feminism have been inspired in a
notion of gender hatred or contempt. For the extreme feminist ideology behind
the architecture of State-feminism, the gender-egalitarianism mantra is just a
tactical cover in their strategic to achieve gender supremacy. In this sense,
State-Feminism is the replacement of one abusive rule for another.
b) Feminism has become populism and
radical-feminists seek to seize political power by means of psychological
deceit
Many call themselves
"feminist" in Sweden. It has became cultural fashionable but also a
politically correct strategy for survival. Feminism has become populism. One
after the other the Swedish political parties have seized the noun as an
adopted family name ("XX Party, feminist"). However, few of them
deploy in reality a consequent activity towards real equality. [2]
At left,
world-famous American writer Naomi
Wolf, who is also considered a leading spokesperson of the third wave of the feminist movement. Naomi Wolf is an often
linked columnist in the Professors blogg.
In sum, my criticism
to fascist radical-"feminist" positions does not compromise my
support for the sound classical human-rights claims on equality issues for all,
for social and gender justice in society.
As I sustain that
the sectarian gender-supremacists' campaign is not to be equated with feminism,
I maintain also that the strategy of universal vendetta against men
- argued in their thesis of historical patriarch domination - is merely a
pretext to profit of positions of power in a new political order sized by
psychological deceit:
Radical feminists
seek the "collective guilt" of all men by means of a
mass-psychological campaign agitated in the media they have access to, or control.
In Sweden, these radical feminists have even proposed the obligatory (by law)
payment of a "Male-taxation" from the part of all Swedish men.
This law would compensate women for a sort of endemic patriarchal rule,
according to the radical feminists. Conspicuous such radical-feminist
politicians, such as lawyer Claes Borgström (initiative-author in the
accusations against Julian Assange) are reported staunch supporters of such
male-taxation.
Radical-feminism
advocates the demise of nuclear family as central institution in society. New
"modern" forms should replaced it. I believe instead that it is
exactly Family as a whole, and the family as central institution, the best and
only natural structure able to secure the ontogenetic and philogenetic
destiny of humankind and their survival. Not the state, nor the anti-natural
constellations posing as "modern", not the self-proclaimed gurus of a
self-pretended vanguard of social-ideas evolution such as the Swedish FI. I
have already put it in my clearest terms:
The so-called
Swedish "radical" feminist movement is anything but a progressive
movement. Its ideological matriarchal formulations are on the regressive side
of a wheel moved historically by thousands of generations towards human justice
and equality.
The epithets of
"anti-feminist", "misogynist", "anti
gender-egalitarianism" and the like, thrown to us that oppose the abuse of
power coming from a Feminist-State ideology is just a dirty trick from a
movement in despair and pregnant of defeatism anxiety.
It just similar in
its psychosocial mechanics to the easy and cheap "racist" accusation
given to any criticism to a given failed immigration policy. This demonization
tactic is and old Stalinist trick used in decades in the past by square bolshevists
and modern Party-communists. E.g. true revolutionaries and social-anarchists
were labelled "anti communists" because we opposed the dogmatic and
ill-fated strategy of the old and modern Stalinist nomenclatures. [3]
Summing up: Above
any sympathy I would have for a true feminist struggle, paramount for me is the
support for justice, equality and human rights for all genders, and all
nations, in all societies. In other words I do not do a fetish of
WASP feminism, and I certainly do not support the idea of a supremacist
female-rule in society. Neither I would accept the rule of male chauvinism. I
have put my life on the line for my convictions about justice. And I do it
still.
2. Sound legislation
is one thing. Legal system is another, and case process implementation is yet
another thing
It is equally
absurd, or preposterous, disqualify a criticism regarding some structural flaw
in a Swedish institution as anti-Swedish behaviour. The far most of Swedes can
basically agree with the modern Swedish crime-legislation and think in
general it could very well function as model-legislation elsewhere, and still
be critic to aspects of the legal system. And in the concrete case of the
affair Assange the questions posed by the many among the Swedish citizens are
for instance the following:
- Are the authorities following that legislation in the case Assange?
- Is the Swedish legal system flawless?
- Is the Swedish legal system really independent from politics and ideology?
- Have or not the highest political authorities of Sweden publicly taken side and thus influenced the juridical out come of the case? [4]
I
am not an expert in the Swedish juridical system, and even considering -
as I believe - it is grounded in a sound legislation, I am although critic with regard to the implementation of such legislation in occasions the gender-factor is implicated.
Further, neither can the
political factor in the Swedish courts be totally disregarded with
simple official declarations that the courts are independent of the
state. Judges-appointments at the courts (nämdeman, a kind of permanent jury) are
politically made. In fact, these judges are designated directly by the
political parties according to their representation in the Parliament.
However, this principle does not mean that in each court there is an
"even" distribution according to that one of the Parliament. At the
contrary, the political constellation of judges - read ideological
majority - within each court can vary enormously. Further, considering
that all Swedish political parties have allegedly positioned themselves
in the Assange affair (all parties, including the Pirate Party), I even
speculate as whether the Assange case has served some times as a
vendetta for ideological reasons, or some times as instrument for populist reasons. And also if the case has been used as a pretext for radical-feminists to give international publicity to their theses.
With regard to structural flaws in the legal system as such, I only can subscribe what Jens Lapidus and Johan Åkermark have pedagogically explained in their debate article in DN . It was also shown there that the majority of Swedish lawyers manifest criticism to the legal management of the Assange case.
III
This had Professors blogg published 9 Feb. in the analysis "Assange’s lawyer’s error shouldn’t determine the case":
With regard to the “peculiar” position of de Swedish Judiciary and
its outmost
artificially constructed proceeding in the Assange case.
These proceedings
fit instead one hundred percent in the perspective-analysis of an active
involvement of some Swedish officials, or institutions, as instruments in
the geopolitical design of the foreign power they apparently obey.
I am aware how horrible and highly conspiratorial the above might sound, but I could myself hardly believe it was true – when I read an article in Expressen [8 Feb.] – that the very Prime Minister of Sweden Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt, whom this column have elsewhere referred as a politician with honourable marks - made public statements involving officially and openly the Swedish government in the London Court deliberations referring exclussively to protecting the rights of the accusers (the two women) involved in the Assange extradition process.
Let me first to recall that in my article published in Newsmill Jan 11 I clearly advanced the hypothesis on whether behind the Sweden case against Assange it truly exists the intention of making a pilot case of the event. Meaning, to use Assange's celebrity to reassure or move forwards positions in the Swedish legislative process towards a radicalization in the penalty of sex-offences, or the enhancing of criminal conceptualization in that regard.
In declarations published in Aftonbladet "i samband med domstolsförhandlingarna om utlämningen av Julian Assange i London", PM Reinfeldt "reveals" what would be "really" the issue at stake. Reinfelt said concretely:
"Let us not forget what is here at risk. It is the right for women to have their case tested in court as to whether what they have been subjected of is a criminal abuse (offence)"
– Låt oss inte glömma bort vad som riskeras här. Det är ju rätten för kvinnor att få prövat huruvida det har varit ett övergrepp som de har varit utsatta för."
I put in serious doubt that Reinfeldt would really consider the content of his statement above as THE reason for the Swedish offensive aganist Assange and Wikileaks. For there is evidence that the "pilot-case factor" is only a part in the constellation of causes behind the Swedish political crusade against Assange and Wikileaks.
Nevertheless, Reinfeldt did try also to defend the integrity of the kingdom’s judiciary – which would be totally understandable for his position as surrogate head of state (Sweden is still a monarchy and Prime Ministers receive formally the assignment from the king). However, he just made things worst. What Reinfeldt in the main ended in pointing out - in the name of the Swedish government - was the publicly taking side on behalf of the two accusers-ladies, for which he demanded respect very much exclusively. This is what he stated in Expressen:
"that
in this way attempt to circumvent it and make it appear that their
rights are worth very little, I think that's regrettable."
IV
Excerpt from Disclosing the Fifth Column:
•
"Criticism
to extreme "feminists" or "feminist" gender-supremacists is
one thing. Support to the principles and the struggle for gender equality is
another. We instead promote and practice the struggle
for a society with equal opportunities for all regardless gender, social
class, ethnicity. This includes fighting towards the final achievement of equal
opportunities for women and men in all spheres of society, such as equal
salary; But this column have been also, and always shall be, opposing all forms
of authoritarianism and oppression, which includes the vigilance towards those
"who merely seek to replace one
authoritarian system with another". [1]
•
"Professors
blogg – a publication (see banner on
top) “On Human Rights For All” - have clearly stated that strongly support the
same struggle for gender equality in society that true egalitarian feminists pursue.
This have included active propositions on equality in salary form the part of
the Swedish State towards academics with similar merits regardless gender. My
positions on these regards are well known." [2]
•
"One of
the main myths spread refer to Julian Assange as “enemy of feminism”. The
statement cannot be more far from truth. His liberationist platform
clearly comprises the struggle for equal rights as identified by the
international feminist movement. Conspicuous feminists, such as Naomi Wolf or
in Sweden Helene Bergman have expressly given their support to Julian Assange’s
struggle for justice in the context of the Swedish case against him. In strict
ideological sense, left radical-feminists would find in true an identification
of their societal purposes for justice and equality for all genders in the
liberationist message of WikiLeaks as well as the actual statements of
Julian Assange. Radical-feminists should not permit their spirit been kidnapped
by right-wing opportunists, which in the base defend a political system
opposing equality of all kinds. What has happened in Sweden is that a
limited number of self-proclaimed “radical feminists”, for the most part
right-wingers, have initiated or participated in campaigns ad-hominem
against the WikiLeaks founder. And that in my opinion is NOT left radical
feminism; it is simply opportunism." [3]
•
My conviction
is still that the campaign in Sweden against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
has been initiated/implemented by a limited number of political officials, a
limited number of journalists, or a limited number of opportunist feminist
activists. Altogether they do not represent Sweden as a whole, their political
parties as a whole, all Swedish feminists, or the total ranks in
the journalist collegium. The main part have not yet express their opinion and
as the happenings approach they will most certain feel ethically obliged to
declare their stand, about what is truth, what is justice, and what is history.
[4]
Over and over
again I have made clear what my positions are on those regards. And also cared
to give some concrete examples about my own participation in such struggle for
gender equality and social justice. The site Justice For
Assange has even linked an article
that especially treats this disclaimer under the title "Professor
Ferrada Noli on the nature of 'State Feminism' in Sweden".
V
I wrote the
following about the political aspects in the Swedish case on Assange
in "This is why":
A. The political
aspects
In its turn, the
political aspects determining or influencing the reporting appear being
twofold:
On the one hand
we have the change in the
foreign policy and military-strategy main perspective of the
Swedish government, namely, abandon of the neutrality-stand and identification
with NATO and the geopolitical interests this organization
represents. In this line, the government would demonstrate - as they have done
in the Afghanistan and Libyan cases
- that Sweden is a “loyal partner” and long away from the late Olof Palme’s
policy of alignment with the Third World countries.
It is worth to
note that changes in those regards started already by the times of the former
social democratic government of Göran Persson. This can be illustrated
with secret
agreements on cooperation with
USA services which otherwise had became known through the rendition-flight
episodes (political refuges in Sweden handed over in secret to the American
services to be transported to interrogation centres elsewhere, as in the case of the
Egyptians refugees).
During these
events, exposed to the pubic by a documentary in
the private network TV4 (update: episode also
commented in an editorial by DN 12/8 2011), the social democratic
politician and former minister of Justice Thomas Bodström was signalled a
main actor in the operation. Eventually an investigation
on his role was held upon the Swedish Constitutional Committee
– with no further consequences, useless to add.
Sweden's acting
in the apprehension of a USA’s number-one enemy - as Julian Assange is
characterized - might be a confirmation of the above.
For these ends,
the government have naturally got the support of all the political parties
favouring the NATO approach, including the “opposition” (mainly the social
democratic party).
Although is
natural and legitimate that a Swedish government - as the USA or any other
sovereign country - decides the foreign policy they think it best would serve
their national interests, the problem here is of another kind. It has to do
with important decisions that have been adopted in secret by government
officials and hidden to the Swedish Parliament and the public. It is about
the transparencyissue.
Yet another
issue is whether that "double play" from the part of the Swedish
government is really necessary in the interest of Sweden's foreign policy (DN-debatt 10/12
2009).
On the other
hand, the government has also got the support of the leftist parties and
organizations in their case against Assange. This through highlight the
“pro-feminist” aspects of the case, all which has served as a symbol for the
radical feminism in Sweden in their campaign for moving
forwards an even more advanced legislation in the gender-perspective. Assange
is presented as the ultimate male-in-power-perpetrator and sexual abuser of
Swedish women-victims, a construction that would mirror the
“patriarchal” structures of the power constellation in Sweden and
elsewhere, according to the radical feminists.
It is worth to
mention that the Assange accusers,
and notably members of the prosecution and police apparatus that have actively
pursued or dealt with the Assange case are members of the same radical-feminist
organizations or share their ideology.
In sum,
the Swedish crusade against
the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has shown being compact and having the
characteristic of a national cause.
The above have
generated a strong
populism-factor around the case, and hence also a profitable source
for other political or cultural opportunists in the Swedish forum, in the
blogosphere and others authors not previously known as embracing political
correct positions. The critical voices on the Assange case in Sweden have
became fewer, and had to pay a high price for their objective and ethical
stand.
VI
Excerpt from Part I (in this series) Section II constellation of Political Factors in the "Sweden's" case vs Assange:
1. In
a typical “political” manoeuvre assisted by basic social-psychological notions,
the government has launched at least three identified media campaigns aimed to
portray Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as “responsible” for the deterioration of
the Swedish loss in international prestige (“How could the
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange get the world to question Sweden's credibility”?) [19]
2. The
expected effect of the above among the Swedish constituencies is double fold:
a) on the one hand finding an explanation to replace the real causes that are
behind such international deterioration of Swedish prestige. As this is
undoubtedly related to issues of Sweden’s foreign policy, this measure
represents also an attempt to stop the analyses on such relationships with
foreign powers; b) on the other hand, by obtaining a national cohesion behind
the government that “defends” Sweden [20] and shows
being ready to “process and punish” Sweden’s Number One enemy, the rulers use
the “chauvinist trick” of having people to switch attention from economic or
domestic political issues to issues of “national interest”.
4.Domestic political factors regarding the opportunity being used by local political organizations, such as fundamentalist groups, that, voided of a large mass-support, are bound parasitically from highly publicized media-events in order to move forward their political agenda through some journalists in their ranks employed by the MSM. These organizations have not made secret that the Julian Assange case is a symbol for their struggle [22], a campaign seeking the further radicalizing of the legislation in Sweden towards, among other things “only sexual contact after written consent”, a national tax imposed to all men (mansskatt) in Sweden [23] ("to compensate Swedish women of centuries of men patriarchal dominance”), and the increasing in the penalty for sexual-related offences attributed to the “nature” of men ("men are animals", as expressed by the President of the State-supported nation-wide organization ROKS). [24] In the ranks of this multifaceted fundamentalist cohort are found people of different professions, not only journalists. Example of notable Swedish politicians which have advocated for such further radicalization of the law are Thomas Bodström (the former minister of Justice) and the former Ombudsman for gender issues Claes Borgström. They also established the Law firm Bodström & Bogström, which is the law firm that defended the plaintiffs in their “accusations” against Julian Assange. Marianne Ny, the prosecutor in the case has been also participating in the preparation of the present “radical” legislation – under which the Swedish State has asked to “investigate” Julian Assange.
This update posted 4 weeks ago by Marcello Ferrada de Noli (Italy)
Notes and References
[1] Uppsala University, Dept of Informatics
http://www.im.uu.se/om-oss/Personalpresentationer/A-G/Christian_Christensen/
[2] WikiLeaks vs. Sweden, Blog “Christian Christensen –
Uppsala University” 5 May 2012 http://chrchristensen.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/wikileaks-vs-sweden/
[3] Among other the interesting piece “It's Official!
"Iraq Coverage Wasn't Biased” in Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0314-29.htm
[3b]
Christen Christensen, Iran: networked dissent, Le Monde Diplomatique, July 2009
http://mondediplo.com/blogs/iran-networked-dissent
[5] Hanna Navier, Obamas smekmånad i medierna,
Second-opinion, 20 January 2009 http://www.second-opinion.se/so/print/86
[ 6] Vårt uppdrag http://www.fas.se/sv/Om-FAS/Vart-uppdrag/
[7] “Det kan visst vara motiverat att seriöst forska kring
kön och olika maktstrukturer som ett ämne inom t ex antropologi, sociologi
eller historia, men när man som ett exempel börjar kräva att läroböcker som
används i fysikundervisningen ska vara författade av lika många kvinnor som
män, har rationalitetens och vetenskaplighetens gränser passerats för länge
sedan. När jag sedan läser i feministisk kunskapsteori om att man vill förkasta
den existerande vetenskapen inklusive dess metoder, eftersom de är uppbyggda
till stor del av män, då vill jag inte befatta mig med begreppet med tång.
Detta och många andra galenskaper finner man i ett dokument från Projektgruppen
för genuscertifiering vid Lunds universitet. Denna grupp leds av
professor Tiina Rosenberg.”
[8]
M Ferrada-Noli, From demons
exorcism to State-feminism. Further background on the Swedish case against
Assange , Professors blog, 5 October 2011
[9]
M Ferrada-Noli, Rigged documentary
on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. Part 3: "Men are
animals" , 15 April 2011
[10]
M Ferrada-Noli, Official Sweden
further endorses the unscientific theses of radical-feminism ,
Professors blog, 11 Ocober 2011
[11] Margareta Hallberg and Jörgen Hermansson, “Granskning
av professor Eva Lundgrens forskning I enlighet med Uppsala universitets regler
avseende förfarandet vid anklagelse om vetenskaplig ohederlighet”. 9/12, 2005.
[12] Rothstein B, “Uppsla universitet måste läggas ned”, DN
debatt, Stockholm 22-8-2007 http://www.dn.se/debatt/uppsala-universitet-maste-laggas-ned
[13]
M Ferrada-Noli, ““Throw them all
out. Since the 1990s, a strand of Sweden's
mainstream scientific research has been hijacked for cultural-racist aims’”,
Professors blog, 20 March 2012
[14]
M Ferrada-Noli, Disclosing The
Fifth Column , Professors blog, 31 March 2011
http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.se/2012/03/disclosing-fifth-column.html
15]
Excerps from M Ferrada-Noli, 'Journalistic
Jealousy' Or Politics, Or Both? , Professors blog, 28 April 2012
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[26] R Poirier M "it would be
nice if we are keeping away from see that it spreads in the Swedish
blogosphere" ["det vore trevligt om vi slapp se den
spridas i den svenska bloggosfären"].
[27] Martin Schori, Timbro-chef till Prime, Dagens Media, 10
August 2010 http://www.dagensmedia.se/nyheter/pr/article2453969.ece
[28] Thomas Mattsson blog, Expressen
[29] SR International, interview by SR with WikiLeaks
spokesman Kristin Hrafsson, referred in M Ferrada-Noli, "Swedish Radio
incorrectly referring Professors Blogg's theses on Swedish case against Assange",
Professors blogg, 8 March 2012
[30] See Rixstep article “Guardian Censoring Information in
Assange Case” reports on censorship exercised in The Guardian against
links to Professors blogg. Wikileaks Central had reported likewise (see “Possible gag order on the Guardian re Assange case?).
1 comment:
It might interest you to know that the aforementioned quote is located over the door to the auditorium of Uppsala University, not it´s library. More importantly; the quote comes from a book by the early feminist and liberalist Thomas Thorild. In it he argued that personal freedom is very important, but that freedom should be used for the good of humanity rather then for personal gain or such. It´s true that the quote was put over the auditorium door by a conservative principal, but its deeper meaning is quite liberal for those who are familiar with Thorilds work.
Post a Comment