Dear Mr. Michael Moore,
I read your open letter to the Swedish Government. I am afraid they will probably not answer. They’re a bit busy at the moment: The aftermath of the financial crisis requires attention. And there’s also the thing with the first suicide bomber in our country, which has caused quite some commotion. But don’t you worry, it is very unlikely that we will use this single act of terror as an excuse to invade a country. Or maybe a very small one, but that it is unlikely.
Anyway, since the Government will not answer your letter I thought maybe I could send you a short note,from the perspective of a Swedish lawyer on how the Swedish legal system works and how it doesn’t work . It seems there is some confusion here, probably as a result of differences between our systems.
1. I am afraid that you sent the letter to wrong place. In Sweden we keep our judicial system separated from the Government. The courts and the prosecutors carry out their work without intervention of the Swedish government. In fact, such intervention is forbidden.
We think this is a good idea, but maybe we should think more outside the box here. It is just that states that allow for the Government to decide if an accused person should be held in custody or not in our country would be considered as dictatorships. Like the Soviet Union.
2: In some countries the Government runs a little judicial system of its own, on the side. I know that some countries even run little torture camps, so to say, outside the borders of the country where it is said that normal rules don’t apply. This way one could escape the tiresome requirements of due process, for instance.
The Swedish state has not taken this route, even if there are several nice islands close that could be used for this purpose. Ösel, for instance. Or Åland. But so far the Swedish government has refrained from trying to cheat its way out of the requirements of the rule of law in such a way.
I am sure this seems very backwards and inefficient to you. Anyway, this all means that the Government has nothing to do with the the processes of the legal system in individual cases.
3.Statistics is a difficult thing. Not all people know how to read statistics. When you quote statistics on the ratio between reported rape and legal proceedings, you seem to be getting it quite wrong, I am afraid. A reported crime is not the same as a crime and it is something completely different from a provable crime.
Many reports of rape has its background in events that have happened behind the closed doors of a home. In these cases it can often be difficult to prove what has happened. And when sufficient evidence cannot be produced we have this peculiar principle in Swedish law called the presumption of innocence. You might have heard of it.
It means that if the prosecutor cannot prove her case the law will consider the accused person as innocent. The downside of this is that possibly guilty men and women will go free. Yes, we would even let ”thousands of Swedish rapists roam free” if needed to uphold a Rechtsstaat.
4. Maybe there’s another difference here. In Sweden, we try not to let statistics influence individual cases of criminal investigations or proceedings. In your letter you quote (misinterpreted) statistics and seem to hold that this has relevance for whether Mr. Assange should be arrested or not. (So far the only question on the table has been whether to arrest Mr. Assange.)
In the view of our archaic legal system it is not considered relevant whether Mr. Assange or someone else involved in the case, or if the allegations as such, fall into any particular statistical category. Each case should be dealt with individually.
5. A little digression into the Swedish language. In Sweden we have a saying that has recently become popular. We talk about ”foliehattar”. A foliehatt is a hat made by tin foil. It is used by people who wants to protect the brain from mind reading and other intrusions, for instance by the Government. I am not sure, but I think that the hat may also be used to block out signals from a transmitter that has been hidden in someone’s teeth.
When a person is called a foliehatt it’s often because she’s a conspiracy theorist. The Assange case is a wet dream for the conspiracy theorist. Some talk about ”dark forces”, others about ”honey traps”, and you pitch in a little story about ”a conservative MP” that supposedly influenced the prosecutors in Sweden to change their position.
People forming these arguments we call foliehattar in Swedish. It is difficult to take such arguments seriously. Some of these arguments may turn out to be, in reality, true or somewhat true. But it seems unlikely. It seems unlikely that an advanced CIA/Mossad/SÄPO trap would use these kinds of accusations. They crimes that Mr. Assange has been accused of are not the kind of activities that would put you in jail for a very long time. It seems unlikely also for a lot of other reasons. Even the wikileaks people in Sweden seem to think so. But what do I know, maybe it’s all part of the plan.
6. Your argument seem to be resting on an idea of fairness different from that of our little system. Here’s a quote. ”But that really wouldn’t be like you would it, to go all the way to another country to pursue a suspect for sexual assault when you can’t even bring yourselves to make it down to the street to your own courthouse to go after the scores of reported rapists in your country.” You seem here to be saying, in a nuanced manner, that since many rapists are allowed to walk free in Sweden, without even being brought to justice, the accusations of Mr. Assange shouldn’t be investigated. I don’t agree with the premise of the argument.
Outside my window right now I see a father with a trolley, a woman holding a bag full of Christmas presents and two people trying wipe snow off their cars. Now, I know you can’t tell just from looking – but I would be quite surprised if all these people turned out to rapists. But let’s assume they are rapists, rapists that are being allowed to push trolleys, buy Christmas presents and drive cars, without the Government even trying to arrest them. Even if it was so, I can’t understand why not another accusation should be sufficiently investigated. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
7. Finally, to clear out some misunderstandings that have flourished in the discussion: Mr. Assange has not been charged with anything by anyone as of yet (and maybe he never will – the investigation is still ongoing); it is not criminal to have sex without a condom in Sweden; it is criminal to have sex without a condom if the person you’re having sex with wants you to use a condom; it can be criminal to have sex with a sleeping person; whether the accused person is a saint, or a horrible person, has no influence on the investigation of a crime; Sweden’s rape law is as far as I understand it not that different from most other Western countries.
Futhermore: Mr. Assange has the right to be presumed innocent, and a right to privacy; the women that has accused Mr. Assange of a crime should be considered as trustworthy as long as no compelling evidence says otherwise, and these women also has a right to privacy. Here I think that we have already seen a problem with the Swedish legal system, namely that it does not protect privacy enough in matters such as these. This holds for both Mr Assange, as well as for the women that made the allegations. We should also talk more about the relationship between the protection of privacy and freedom of speech. But these points have been completely lost in some strange war where people feel they have to take sides in an ongoing investigation regarding something they cannot know anything about. Quite depressing, really. Personally I sympathize strongly with wikileaks and the struggle for transparency. But that is not what the Swedish legal system is occupied with at the moment.
Allright, that was just some thoughts from Stockholm. I am sorry for mistreating the English language like this. I have been trying to make knäck at the same time as I wrote this. Have you tried it? I think you’d like it. Knäck is normally very tasty. This batch turned out a bit burned, though. Those damned dark forces.
With best regards from a snowy Stockholm
Mårten
[Update: A preliminary draft of this post was published for a short while here. A hacker attack, I’m sure.]
149 kommentarer
Comments feed for this article
december 20, 2010 den 3:26 e m
David Bergkvist
Är det inte väldigt taskigt att antyda att Michael Moore skulle vara medskyldig till krigen i Afghanistan och Irak, samt lägret i Guantanamo Bay, bara för att han råkar vara amrikan? Det är ju inte så att han är stolt över, eller sympatiserar med, sitt lands agerande i dessa frågor.
december 30, 2010 den 5:36 e m
Suzanne
Marten is just using the same sarcastic, generalized-attacks-tone that Moore was using in his post.
As someone who has lived in the US for 10 years I do think it would have been more relevant – but also a lot more complex – to get into the enormous flaws of the US justice system regarding sex crimes.
As weird of a thing as it is to say, if I had to choose where to get raped, all other things being equal, I would rather have it happen in Sweden. Especially if it was a so called ”date rape”. I have a friend who was raped orally by a friend of a friend after she fell asleep at a party. She went to the NYPD – special victims unit of course – who asked her ”come on, you’re a flirtatious girl aren’t you? You were probably flirting with him all night?” They persuaded her to not press charges.
In Sweden they would have been required to investigate the charges and file a report for DA to review, so the police couldn’t have pressured her to drop them. Also, the report would have had to include recordings of the police interview with her, and they would have been required to focus on if the crime she was reporting happened (did he or did he not put his penis in her mouth when she was sleeping), not question her behavior (regardless of how she had acted earlier, if she was asleep when he did this to her it’s rape since she was unconscious and couldn’t consent).
That is not to say she would have been able to prove her case in court. Just that she would have likely been treated with the respect and dignity all humans deserve.
december 20, 2010 den 3:27 e m
GoldenScepter
The Swedish legal system needs to get rebooted. You’re not getting Assange extradited. Claes Borgstrom and Marianne Ny are CRAZY. The accusations are scurrilous and without merit.
One day I’ll visit Sweden, but if I meet a girl, I may ask her to sign a document before any romance. Crazy Scandinavians with your long winters and nothing to do but go insane…
december 20, 2010 den 3:33 e m
Simon
What should we do instead? Send people to Gitmo?
You sir are and foliehatt 😉
december 20, 2010 den 4:17 e m
Haram Kafir
Two things, ”GoldenScepter”:
1: Please explain the change that the Swedish legal system should, in your opinion, undergo. Should it be specific to Julian Assange and/or accusations of sexual abuse, or are you looking for something more generic? (Me, I think it’s a good thing when people are equal before the law.)
2: If you wish to be taken at all seriously, sweeping generalizations, like the ones you make about Scandinavians, do not help.
december 20, 2010 den 9:49 e m
Malin Schultz
Asbra skrivet, Mårten! Och engelskan var ok;
One question: Doesn’t US have the same law about presumed innocence as we do tho? Innocent until proven guilty”?
december 22, 2010 den 3:38 e m
Stefan
Of course you have to sign a document. You are american. You need warninglables on coffemugs that tells you the coffee maybe hot…
december 20, 2010 den 3:31 e m
Simon
Excellent!
december 20, 2010 den 3:34 e m
Fredrik Ekdahl
@mårten.
Hatten av för ditt grepp med sprida nytt begrepp hos bushland. =) faaoolieehätt. Hehe gött o se ni är humoristiska om ni vill.
december 20, 2010 den 3:41 e m
Dennis
Tror i och för sig att Tin foil hat inte är helt obekant, det finns till och med forskning på området.
december 27, 2010 den 7:15 e m
Kanadagås
Hattarna är väl iofs oftast gjorda av en slags ledande plastfolie som kallas velostat(TM) och inte metallfolie. Hela grejen började i USA så begreppet behöver inte förklaras för en amerikan.
december 20, 2010 den 3:39 e m
Jacob
Nicely done Mårten!
december 20, 2010 den 3:40 e m
Filippa
@GoldenScepter How do you know that Marianne Ny and Claes Borgstrom are crazy ? And why ? Beacause they want some answers that Mr Assange isn´t willing to give ? How do you know, really really know, that the accusation is without merit ? Where you there, in the room ? If Mr Assange is innocent, then wouldn´t he want that proven in court ?
december 20, 2010 den 3:44 e m
Nils Östergren
Moore suddenly became less.
december 20, 2010 den 3:48 e m
Gubben-i-lådan
Bra skrivet mårten, förutom en sak. ”Foliehattar” är inte på något sätt ett svenskt uttryck. Det är tämligen välkänt i USA (om du nu inte var ironisk).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
december 20, 2010 den 3:49 e m
Jha
Ignore GoldenScepter.
I appreciate your voice in this conversation. A lot of us are getting very dissatisfied that the debate is centered around what USAmericans think. My compliments to your country’s feminists for managing to create a conversation out of this that doesn’t center on a single man’s actions. This huge debate on Assange’s guilt or innocence should never have happened when it’s clear it’s a private matter that should have no weight in discussions about Wikileaks.
december 20, 2010 den 4:07 e m
djävulens advokat
You seem here to be saying, in a nuanced manner, that since many rapists are allowed to walk free in Sweden, without even being brought to justice, the accusations of Mr. Assange shouldn’t be investigated.
Det hade nästan varit tillräckligt med det. Hela punkt två känns som ett småaktigt ad hominem.
december 20, 2010 den 4:09 e m
Medborgare X
Mårten!
En poäng har dock Michael Moore, varför är det så låg andel av alla anmälda våldtäktsfall som klaras upp av det svenska rättsväsendet? Enligt jämförelser med andra länder klaras ju en lägre andel upp i Sverige än i andra jämförbara länder. Detta trots att man i Sverige har ökat både fokus på och resurserna för den här typen av brott.
december 20, 2010 den 4:45 e m
Stat Guru
”Why is such a low percentage of rape accusations ”solved” in Sweden as compared to other countries?” you ask.
Well lets look at it like this:
In Sweden we have a more open climate when it comes to discussing sex and rape than many other countries (incl USA). This climate lead to women pressing charges in ”gray zone” cases, such as ”He said he would use a condom, but he lied and now I feel violated”. Such a case would not be reported, yet alone tried, in most countries.
However, and this is important, just because ”gray zone” rape-cases are being processed in our system, this does not mean that our legal system will go berserk and arrest people on weak charges!! Hence, the quota (proportion) ”Accused rapist”/”convicted rapist” will be lower here in Sweden as compared to countries where women do not dare to press charges.
Now, If you now want to claim that the number of convicted rapists in Sweden in proportion to the total number of men in this country is lower than average, let me explain that as well:
You could either try to explain this by the (very weak) theory that ”we-let-them-roam-free” OR the (much more probable) alternative that a higher percentage of Swedish men are ”nice guys” then men in countries not practicing paternal leave, feminism/equalism and such an open debate climate regarding sex.
(I mean, seriously, could you see #prataomdet happening with as strong power as here in any other country?)
december 20, 2010 den 6:13 e m
Carl
Uhm, sorry for being a smartass regardin an otherwise great reply: ”Hence, the quota (proportion) ”Accused rapist”/”convicted rapist” will be lower” – actually, it will be higher in Sweden. What will be lower, though is the ”Convicted rapist”/”Accused rapist” quota.
januari 10, 2011 den 9:10 e m
Stat Guru
Oh, thanks!! *lol*
december 27, 2010 den 7:20 e m
Kanadagås
Internationellt är det inte någon låg andel av alla anmälda våldtäktsfall som klaras upp av det svenska rättsväsendet (om man med ”klara upp” menar ”bura in någon”. Sverige har runt dubbelt så många våldtäktsdömda som de flesta jämförbara länder. Om det beror på att det svenska rättsväsendet är dubbelt så duktigt på att avgöra skuldfrågan som andra länder eller på att man tar hälften så lätt på beviskraven är en öppen fråga.
december 20, 2010 den 4:15 e m
Somebloke
”Many reports of rape has its background in events that have happened behind the closed doors of a home. In these cases it can often be difficult to prove what has happened. And when sufficient evidence cannot be produced we have this peculiar principle in Swedish law called the presumption of innocence.”
Case closed. (Oh .. except Anna Ardin deleting her tweets about how lovely it was to be with Julian mean there IS a case to answer – just not by Assange)
december 20, 2010 den 4:19 e m
Mårten Schultz
I know nothing about what has happened but it is not that unusual that crime victims don’t view themselves as such until some time has passed. It is thus not unusual, as far as I understand it, that a person eats breakfast with a perpetrator, or talks with him/her, and only after hour or days realizes that the thing that happened that night, behind the closed door, wasn’t OK.
december 20, 2010 den 5:20 e m
Somebloke
Mårten
My point was as you point out that in domestic situations it is usually the word of one person against another. Now in this case it could be argued that two women making complaints makes a stronger case – however, as a lawyer you will recognise that the actions of the women concerned DO THE OPPOSITE. 1) they collaborated by SMS and phone before going to police 2) Anna Ardin removed her tweets about having a great time with Assanage and co from twitter but left them on her blog. This is called ”destroying evidence”.
So we have a woman who has written about getting revenge on a cheating lover, discovering her new lover has cheated on her, working with the other woman to fabricate the case, using ”enquiry” method to avoid prosecution for false claims, deleting damaging online evidence (but failing).
There is no real case here to be answered. Sorry common sense says that.
december 20, 2010 den 4:16 e m
Jacob
Utmärkt! Däremot är kanske lite oklart varför Guantanamo-kritikern Moore, som bland annat gjorde Sicko, skulle tycka att det är ”backwards” att Sverige saknar tortyrläger på Åland 🙂
december 20, 2010 den 4:20 e m
Mårten Schultz
Han verkade anse att vi behövde nya metoder för att fånga in horderna av våldtäktsmän, tänkte jag. Notera dock att jag hejdade mig. Jag tog bort ordet ”waterboarding”.
december 22, 2010 den 3:04 e m
Bo Baldersson
Nu skall jag berätta en gammal militär hemlighet, om Sveriges Guantanamo.
Det ligger på Bolmsö!
Denna ö i Bolmen var under kalla kriget förberedd som fångläger för krigsfångar. Det fanns kontrakt med lokala fabrikörer för att med kort leveranstid kunna leverera ett stort antal baracker, taggtråd och annat.
Personalen, fångvaktare, förhörspersonal och tolkar, mobiliserade Huseby bruk. Vid Angelstad mobiliserades krigsdomarenheter bestående av krigsplacerade jurister. Dessa försågs med vapen och uniform.
En liknande större enhet var även förberedd på Visingsö.
december 20, 2010 den 4:41 e m
Memmon
Jacob..har du hört talas om ironi?
december 20, 2010 den 4:24 e m
Viktor
Thank you Marten.
december 20, 2010 den 4:28 e m
Goodwin Strawman
Mårten, såvitt jag och kanske andra förstått det så stöder Sverige USA i kriget mot terrorismen så till den milda grad att staten låter USA operera på vårt territorium, låter USA spionera på svenskar, medverkar till att skicka svenskar till tortyr i utlandet såsom Egypten.
Mot bakgrund av detta förstår jag inte riktigt hur du kan raljera gentemot Michael Moore om hur förträfflig vår rättsstat är.
Och kan du verkligen ta gift på att våra politiker inte försöker styra våra oavhängiga domstolar och förvaltningsmyndigheter i myndighetsutövning mot enskild ibland? (Jag skulle råda dig att inte ta gift på det)
december 20, 2010 den 4:30 e m
Mårten Schultz
Men bevisbördan måste väl ligga på den som påstår sådan påverkan?
december 20, 2010 den 4:36 e m
David Bergkvist
Men om försvaret hävdar att åtalet är politiskt motiverat (och att detta, om det är sant, är skäl att fria), och då avkrävs att bevisa detta, så råder väl omvänd bevisbörda?
december 20, 2010 den 5:00 e m
Goodwin Strawman
Var det inte så att Lasse Wierup eller Dick Sundevall i sina böcker om informatörs/infiltrationshanteringen gjorde gällande att utredande åklagare blev kallade till samtal på regeringskansliet (bara för att ta ett känt exempel)?
Hur var det med Geijersaffären/bordellhärvan på 70-/80-talet? Vågade de rättsvårdande myndigheterna agera rutinmässigt i sitt utredande? (för att ta ett annat känt exempel som ger anledning att anta vissa politiska ”hänsyn”.
Jag har själv, på en väsentligt ”lägre nivå” i den rättsliga näringskedjan för några år sedan blivit politiskt antastad vid myndighetsutövning mot enskild. (Du behöver inte tro mig. Jag kommer inte att ihärda.)
december 20, 2010 den 4:39 e m
Ger Foliehatter
I think that i Will wear that hat of tinfoil. Using sex charges against political oponents is a quite common tactic. Therefore, I find the coincidence of these charges while he is assaulted from Evert other angle very suspicious. Us folihatter call those who cling to stubborn belief in THE system, mindcontrolled.
december 20, 2010 den 4:51 e m
Stat Guru
SO be it. But he should non-the-less be heard in this case. Our legal system is obliged to do so, in respect to the women pressing charges. And please keep in mind that these women, with most other Swedes incl known politicians, choose to support Wikileaks work prior and after Assanges possible misconduct.
december 20, 2010 den 5:15 e m
Somebloke
The women are NOT pressing charges. Anna Ardin has left Sweden and is not cooperating with prosecutors. Both have said they do not want him tried for rape and there was no violence.
They tried to delete their twitter tweets to cover up the truth. Fortunately for Assange they failed and Ardin’s tweets AFTER the ”rape” are visible online still and she boasts about how great a time she is having with Assange and Co, the day after she was ”raped”.
Borgström, their lawyer, has stated they are not capable of deciding if they were raped as they are not lawyers. His political pressure got this case reopened weeks after it was dismissed – within 24 hours – by the first senior prosecutor.
december 20, 2010 den 5:06 e m
myiq2xu
I am sad to say that here in America many people seem to think the nation of Sweden is just some U.S. puppet government.
As for myself, I think no one should be above the law. Guilty or innocent, Mr. Assange should have his day in court.
december 20, 2010 den 5:06 e m
Antony
In your reply you raise some good points. I think Michael Moore would heartily agree with many of your witty criticisms of the USA legal process.
Unfortunately, though, your reply doesn’t really address any of the substantive points in his open letter about this specific case.
But a nice try.
december 20, 2010 den 5:07 e m
davidkramer
Excellent! Thank you for a great piece. While I agree with the legal implications of course I am fascinated with the discussion that is ongoing and have tried to describe it from my perspective: http://davidkramer.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/julian-assange-what-really-happened-in-sweden/
Maybe you will not be crazy about the speculative parts of my article, however, personally I am amazed by some of the implications of the understanding of rape that ensues in Sweden. The law may not be very different between european countries in this regard, but the way of looking at the problem, and the definitions the common people have are.
december 20, 2010 den 5:14 e m
tayga
”A reported crime is not the same as a crime and it is something completely different from a provable crime”
i think thats the point. issuing a red notice for a reported crime after letting the alleged leave the country by the permission of the prosecutor speaks for itself. seeing this, i really i dont buy the ”In Sweden we keep our judicial system separated from the Government” stuff. and i reccommend u dont either. i mean, for ur own sake…
december 20, 2010 den 5:57 e m
Somebloke
hear hear …..
The cables released by Assange have shown that your Government SECRETLY works with American Intelligence – to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
What makes you think for one moment that other things are not happening SECRETLY behind the scenes? You can have no certainty of this but the fact your Government lies to the Swedish parliament and people is proven fact.
december 20, 2010 den 5:27 e m
Goodwin Strawman
Något i Mårtens artikel får mig att vilja tro att han är ironisk genom att framställa rättsstaten Sverige som så helylle och robust. För inte kan väl en akademiker vara så långt från verkligeheten att han verkligen menar vad han bokstavligen skriver?
Eller så är det den normativa bilden som Mårten försvarar, alldeles oavsett hur den empiriska verkligheten ser ut. Och ett sådant försvar har jag egentligen inte några andra synpunkter på än att man får se upp så att man inte förleder andr att tro att det normativa skulle motsvara det deskriptiva i vår rättsstat.
december 20, 2010 den 5:28 e m
Deepedition » Lucka 18: Wikileaks vill bara prata om det
[…] det igen Uppdatering: Ännu ett svar från en jurist mot […]
december 20, 2010 den 5:51 e m
Mårten Schultz
This famn phone I managed to delete a
question again. Egon: I think it is unusual, and maybe not formally correct
december 20, 2010 den 5:53 e m
Jakob Heidbrink
Bloody marvellous! A pity, though, that Swedish law is such a backwater that we need to explain its workings to the nationals of the land of the free, the home of the brave. We seem to utterly have misunderstood the concept of freedom and braveness: it doesn’t seem to have to do with due process and sticking to the course of the law even in the headwind of crude criticism.
december 20, 2010 den 7:11 e m
Anders
Hahaha!
december 20, 2010 den 6:03 e m
links for 2010-12-20 « 6 to cut, 4 to sharpen
[…] Open Letter to Mr. Michael Moore | Juridikbloggen (tags: wikileaks rape assange sweden law) […]
december 20, 2010 den 6:13 e m
Rory Mesecher
Speaking as a citizen of the USA, I applaud Martin’s response to Michael Moore.
Michael Moore is an embarrassment to the USA…he is a self appointed preacher o what he feels is right, which as our reent elections have indicated are not the same thoughts of the majority of the USA citizens.
I feel what Sweden is doing in regards to Mr Assange is correct and parallels what the United States did recently by bringing Roman Polanski to trial for his rape trial he supposedly committed years ago.
Bottom line, to all my Swedish friends and family, please rest assured that Mr. Moore does not speak for me, nor the American public.
He is a buffoon.
december 20, 2010 den 6:19 e m
Rory Mesecher
Speaking as a citizen of the USA, I applaud Martin’s response to Michael Moore.
Michael Moore is an embarrassment to the USA…he is a self appointed preacher of what he feels is right, which as our recent elections have indicated are not the same thoughts of the majority of the USA citizens.
I feel what Sweden is doing in regards to Mr Assange is correct and parallels what the United States did recently by bringing Roman Polanski to trial for his rape trial he supposedly committed years ago.
Bottom line, to all my Swedish friends and family, please rest assured that Mr. Moore does not speak for me, nor the American public.
He is a buffoon.
december 20, 2010 den 6:46 e m
Aronson
Återigen ett lysande inlägg, Mårten. Tack!
december 20, 2010 den 6:47 e m
jj22
well obviously the Swedish are lying.
When are you going to ”dismiss” the rape charges or are we just going to have to close your Embassy in the UK down?
Until you get rid of the ”satanic influences” operating in your country?
Then we start ”normal sexual relations” with you again.
thx
december 20, 2010 den 7:12 e m
Bo Baldersson
Dear Mr Moore,
Dr Schultz has forgotten to tell you some details.
One is that the main legal principle in practical application of international law in Sweden is that when a state powerful enough is involved, the normal legal procedures are set aside.
During WWII Sweden was neutral in theory, but allowed a full armoured division from Nazi Germany to be sent by state railways from Norway to Finland. The allied resistance fought back and blew up several German munitions trains. The British Special Operations Executive who did it, Malcolm Munthe, was actually the son of the physical doctor of Swedish queen Victoria.
After the war a number of refugees from the Baltic States were extradited to Soviet Union to presumably be executed. Many of them committed suicide before being extradited. There was no legal ground for the extradition. According to The Hague Conventions, after end of a war a neutral power is not required to extradite war fighters to anyone. Furthermore, prisoners must be free to return home, however, only if they wish to do so.
More recently, when Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was assassinated, the crime was not investigated by the criminal police, which is normal procedures, but by a local executive who was known to be trusted by the prime minister’s party. He assigned a close friend as a special and illegal agent to make private investigations. Nobody has been legally bound to the crime.
Regarding statistics. You point at the fact that the number of reported rapes in Sweden has risen rapidly during the last years, but the number or convicted rapist has been constant. Your interpretation is that this means that there are many guilty rapists walking around in Sweden.
The truth, Mr Moore, is that the Swedish government think so too. Therefore the government as organised a special unit in Gothenburg to try to get more men convicted or at least punished. The head of the unit has in an official interview in the legal journal “Nämndemannen” stated that ”If the police and the prosecutors during the preliminary investigation may provide sufficient evidence, the case will go to prosecution. By prosecuting the legal system puts the responsibility on the violent party. Marianne Ny argues that the prosecution has a good effect to protect women, even in cases where the offender is prosecuted but not convicted. ”
Taste that again. The Swedish legal system uses prosecution as a punishment. The present minister of justice has stated that letters from the prosecutor or the police regarding sex crimes should have a special colour so that the family and neighbours will know. You do not believe me, but it is true.
Regarding division of power. The plaintiff counsel, actually a sort of assistant prosecutor, is a former head of the government agency for gender equality, and is actually aspiring for the ministry post for this. His partner at the law firm is the former minister of justice. The law firm is specialising in sex cases.
The plaintiff counsel is actually the one who demanded this special prosecutor in Gothenburg to be set in charge, when the case was first put aside.
Did I tell you Mr Moore, that I think that Julian Assange should be prosecuted for espionage.
No I did not.
I think that Julian Assange should be prosecuted for espionage.
december 20, 2010 den 8:37 e m
Goodwin Strawman
Right on Mr BB.
But your last sentence worries me a great deal. On what grounds do you make your claim?
december 22, 2010 den 1:04 e m
Bo Baldersson
I may have been too fast on that, maybe I should have written”thoroughly investigated” instead.
Or maybe not.
If Assange had revealed American misconducts in an article supported by evidence from the stolen documents that would have been OK. That’s journalism.
But if he reveals a bulk of 250 000 diplomatic documents on just about everything, his purpose cannot be journalism His purpose is obviously anarchy. That’s terrorism.
When Swedish journalist (or was he KGB agent?) Jan Guillou revealed the entire Swedish organisation for counter espionage in magazine articles in the late 1960-ies he was convicted for espionage, but may not have been so today.
Stig Bergling was a real spy. Suppose that Bergling instead had given all the information he had on Swedish fortifications to a leftist magazine and published it. Would that had been journalism?
Rule of law is a fundamental principle, but there has to be exceptions, to take care of criminals beyond normal human imagination. When the war criminals were convicted in the Nuremberg trials, they were found guilty according to laws that were not in force at the time of the crime. Was that wrong?
Nobody had imagined that someone would have stolen a truck load of 250 000 secret documents and then published them. But in the digital age something that was previously unthinkable suddenly became possible.
This is old good thinking. Take out your law book and read Olaus Petri judge rules, #11: “The law does not like all that she does not punish, because all mistreatments cannot be listen in the law book.”
december 23, 2010 den 11:03 f m
Goodwin Strawman
Well, what Assanges motives are with the leak, he himself has said many times. It is also written on Wikileaks homepage I suppose. Wikileaks has a democratic purpose, to inform with first grade sources the democratic subjects about what their politicians really are doing in their names.
For you to call that anarchism or terrorism, that surprises me or worries me a ”T-bit”.
You got to be a conservative who really does not believe in democracy.
What harm has Wikileaks done to the democratic society?
Nothing I would say.
december 23, 2010 den 12:04 e m
Bo Baldersson
What harm has Wikileaks done to the democratic society?
Inrepairable harm.
First, United Nations have, in a democratic order, agreed on diplomatic rules in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The convention includes rules that all official diplomatic correspondence shall be kept inviolable.
This is an agreement in ordet to make the world a safer place to be in. Diplomacy, not war.
This thrust between nations have been destryed by Assange. Diplomats cannot trust each other anymore.
Second, remember why this bulk of infomation was available in one place to start with. It was because there was acutally information available on the attack on September, 11th, but it was not searachable.
This junior intellegence analyst in Iraq had access to diplomatic information for just that purpose.
We can now see how US Department of State is limiting access to that information (http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/atkomst-till-diplomatpost-i-usa-begransas-1.1219240).
Usama Bin Laden is laughing in his cave.
december 20, 2010 den 7:21 e m
kpants
This was excellent. Thank you.
december 20, 2010 den 7:38 e m
Albert
Something is rotten in the state of … Sweden. First you have The Pirate Bay trial where the US Embassy exerted pressure on the Government Of Sweden (GOS) which trickled down all the way to the Swedish justice system. There goes your separation of government and courts. Check this cable. The US embassy forwarded six items to the GOS which Sweden was obliged to fulfill to get off the Special 301 Watch List. Among the items was to ”take care” of The Pirate Bay (the exact words are slightly different but means the same). GOS also needed to pass some controversial surveillance laws (which is now happening). This was also reported in the svt news show rapport on dec 7. The cables proves that the weak GOS caves in to even mild pressure from the US embassy.
And now it is obvious the same thing is happening again in the Assange case. Why would Sweden send out an international arrest warrant for a minor crime? This has *never* happened before and is – as Assanges lawyer puts it – highly exotic.
The prosecutors are basically telling him: We will bring you to Sweden and there’s no justice here – there’s just us. bwahaha.
december 20, 2010 den 8:14 e m
Eve
Minor crime?
Is rape a minor crime?
Is that Assanges or his lawyers attitude towards women?
Highly exotic.
december 20, 2010 den 8:21 e m
Albert
I am not a lawyer, but from what has been written on this it seems the allegations against Mr. Assange could only lead to fines and not to prison. That is the very definition of a minor crime. And Sweden is not allowed to put out an international arrest warrant for a minor crime. It is even unusual to put up an international arrest warrant if the person is suspected of a major crime. So the very fact that Sweden put out an international arrest warrant is suspicious and should be examined closer.
december 27, 2010 den 10:11 f m
Alexander
@Albert
You are wrong, inside EU you can issue internation arrest warrant for minor offenses. It is an abuse of the original intent but none the less legal.
december 20, 2010 den 8:31 e m
Goodwin Strawman
As you might know, Eve,
since the year of 2005 there could be a very wide difference between rape, rape, rape, rape, and rape in Sweden, from one extreme to another. In the case of Assange, from the information which has leaked out in public you could easily draw the conclusion that it is a question of minor offence we are talking about.
december 20, 2010 den 8:27 e m
Someotherfella
Nice article. I agree with the criticism about the US. I would wager that Michael Moore also whole heartedly agrees with you as well on all those quite correct allegations about the US.
What I find bizarre is how detailed notes about a legal case could ever be published in the media??? Totally weird. If Sweden has such a great legal system how could this possibly happen? No court case I’ve ever been involved with would take the prosecution notes and publish them, but what do I know about Swedish law, maybe this is quite common and happens all the time in Sweden?
december 20, 2010 den 8:35 e m
Goodwin Strawman
Have you not heard that the government just resently deprived us almost all the rights of privacy, probably in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights?
december 20, 2010 den 8:57 e m
Michael Moore på krigsstigen mot Sverige | Per Nobäck
[…] fria här i vårt land, ungefär så . Mårten Schultz, docent, jur. dr., ger svar på Juridikbloggen och man får väl säga att det är 1-0 till Mårten i denna fråga. Känns som Michael Moore […]
december 20, 2010 den 9:00 e m
Isabelle Ståhl
haha! åh så bra!
december 20, 2010 den 9:06 e m
John Jonsson
Bra Mårten! Som oftast knivskarpt!
Möjliga tillägg:
Någon talade om ”att vissa har svårigheter att läsa statistik”. De relativt frekventa anmälningarna av våldtäkt (mellan ickebekanta eller tillfälliga) kan tyda på att den svenska kvinnan är tämligen rättskapabel för att inte säga beundransvärt modig.
Den relativt låga uppklarningsprocenten (avdömda mål) beror givetvis på svårigheter att leda saken i bevis. De flesta våldtäkter begås inom familjen. Tala om ”under press”?
Överfallsvåldtäkter, med ofta multipla skador i skilda plan, är ofta tämligen ”enkla” att rättsföra. Ex. Serievåldtäktsmannen som var ”nyhetsankare” i TV och fallen i Gävle och Örebro.
Michael Moore brukar ha väl på fötterna; så inte rakt igenom i detta ”open letter to the Swedish Goverment”.
december 20, 2010 den 9:20 e m
european
How many times are foreigners being prosecuted on behalf of Sweden by Interpol and how often extradited because they are accused of similar things like Assange and have to be questioned in a similar way? Do you have any statistics on that? I mean, is it 10.000 per year? 1000? 10? 1? Just to see the dimension and relation.
Or is it the first time that happened?
december 20, 2010 den 9:32 e m
Minna
Alltså – i ett land där en stor del av alla domare har utsatts för hot från nazister och i anslutning inte får tillräckligt med statligt skydd tycker jag inte att man kan komma med en så blåögd framställning av rättsväsendet, som dessutom lider av så knappa resurser att straff förkortas eller upphävs. Det är alltid nödvändigt att skilja mellan teori och praktik och svenskarna skulle vinna på att betrakta sina egna institutioner med mer misstro. I Sverige finns en utbredd tilltro till auktoriteter vilket bla. leder till att man inte tycker att de folkvalda behöver informeras när man inom regeringen träffar hemliga avtal med stora starka USA. Jag tycker inte alls att det är osannolikt att en svensk domare påverkas genom någon slags intervention från regeringen, Pirate Bay-processen tycker jag absolut verkar misstänkt i det avseendet.
december 20, 2010 den 9:46 e m
Mårten Schultz
Okej men har du något konkret belägg?
december 20, 2010 den 9:58 e m
Goodwin Strawman
Mårten,
Du, som akademiker, kommer med idealistiska påståenden om det svenska rättssystemet och kräver att andra ska motbevisa dig. Läs mitt (jag är praktiker) inlägg ovan och varför inte Bo Baldersson, som också verkar ha försörjt sig utanför akademin.
Nu är det inte lätt att komma med all sådan bevisning som vore önskvärd, men det är inte så lätt när den inte finns i ens kontrollsfär. Den finns i kontrollsfären hos den som du idealiserar.
december 27, 2010 den 7:30 e m
Kanadagås
Här kan du läsa om hur svensk lag ändras på önskemål från USA:
http://rickfalkvinge.se/2010/12/25/det-kom-en-julklapp/
december 20, 2010 den 9:59 e m
Khrystene
A well written rebuttal. Merry Xmas 😉
december 20, 2010 den 10:26 e m
Rasmus (en annan)
Michael Moore bygger sitt brev i stor utsträckning på vad Naomi Wolf skrivit i den här debatt artikeln.
http://www.countercurrents.org/wolf201210.htm
Naomi Wolfs artikel är väsentligt seriösare och är inte behäftad med lika mycket missförstånd och faktafel.
december 20, 2010 den 10:30 e m
Anonym
Anser att Mårten här gör precis samma tankefel som när han ondgjorde sig över Naomi Kleins jämförelse avseende den uppmärksamhet andra våldtäktsmål får. Det hela syftar till att belysa hur snedvridet detta mål har blivit just pga att Assange är förgrundsfigur för uppmärksammade Wikileaks, N. Klein har rätt i sin kritik avseende den icke uppmärksamhet andra våldtagna kvinnor får i jämförelse. Man frågar sig också, när blev någon i Sverige efterlyst av Interpol för att han skall höras i ett våldtäktsmål ?
Mårten, Google Translate fixar grammatiken.
december 20, 2010 den 10:45 e m
Nedor Primatu
Mårten, I am very disappointed of you. Why write a letter to an illiterate who does not want to learn to read.
Michael Moore is an idiot.
http://www.celsius4111.com/
december 20, 2010 den 10:51 e m
Mårten Schultz förklarar vårt rättssystem för Michael Moore « Dubier och Dobbleri
[…] [länk] […]
december 20, 2010 den 10:55 e m
profanum_vulgus
A. Det är inte den första självmordsbombaren i Sverige.
B. Det är inte den enda terrorattacken, har folk redan glömt snubben i Malmö som sköt ett 20 tal människor? (människor av fel hudfärg förvisso).
C. Vi invaderar redan ett land med terror som motiv.
1. Det gäller nästan alla länder. Ändå gnäller man på Vitrysslands regering när en presidentkandidat får 14 dagars fängelse, på Irans regering när en kvinna döms till hängning för mord osv, det är det språket som normalt sett används.
2. Öhum? Har inte Sverige tvärtom gjort exakt samma sak? Som de två egyptierna som man lät tortera eller när man gick med på att USA fick spionera lite utanför protokollet?
3. Framförallt så borde han kanske få veta att ett brott i den svenska statistiken inte motsvarar ett offer eller en anklagad. En anklagad kan motsvara flera hundra brott (det högsta jag hört är 400). I USA däremot så blir varje anmälare +1 i statistiken även om denne kommer in och anmäler 100 brott.
4. Självfallet spelar det roll! Det är ju detta som skiljer diktatur/polisstat från demokrati/rättsstat! Om man normalt sett inte bryr sig om att efterlysa eller häkta folk i motsvarande situation men lägger flera miljoner på att göra det med en politisk obehaglig person så tyder detta på politiska motiv. Nästan alla stater är rättsstater om man bara ser till regelverken, det är tillämpningen som avgör.
5. Jo, men bara sådana konspirationsteorier som man inte tror på själv. Konspirationen mot det svenska rättsväsendet t.ex, där en massa inflytelserika människor försöker svartmåla det svenska rättsväsendet för att skydda Assange, det behöver man väl inte vara foliehatt för att tro på?
6. Hmmm, men varför utredde man det inte när Assange var i Sverige och ville bli utredd? Varför kastade man ut honom ur landet, väntade tills han blev en politiskt het potatis och sedan utredde honom? Det är ju det som är frågan, inte OM det skulle utredas.
december 20, 2010 den 10:59 e m
Open Letter to Mr. Michael Moore | Kvalitetsbloggen
[…] with anything by anyone as of yet (and maybe he never will – the investigation is still ongoing); it is not criminal to have sex without a condom in Sweden; it is criminal to have sex without a cond…; whether the accused person is a saint, or a horrible person, has no influence on the investigation […]
december 20, 2010 den 11:03 e m
profanum_vulgus
Bo Baldersson:
Även om du har rätt så har du historiskt fel.
1. Division Engelbrecht åkte från Norge där de var ockupanter till Finland där de slogs på finnarnas sida. Vinn-vinn för Sverige som var på både Norge och Finlands sida.
2. Baltutlämningen baserades på avtal med vinnarmakterna att alla som stridit för tyskarna som flydde till Sverige skulle utlämnas till den vinnarmakt som befriat området de flydde från. De flesta av balterna kom från Bornholm som befriades av Sovjet och skulle därför utlämnas till Sovjet. Inte så många begick självmord men väldigt många skadade sig med benknäckarapparater som de gjorde av logementssängar. Hur som helst så var det en liten del av dem som straffades och medelstraffet var 2 års fängelse, de högsta straffen var på 10 år och gällde landsförräderi.
december 20, 2010 den 11:32 e m
Colin
Delightfully cogent response, well written and engaging. You crazy Swedish people and your ideas of ”due process” and ”innocent until proven guilty”; separation of government and judicial system? Horrors! 🙂
december 21, 2010 den 12:03 f m
Top Posts — WordPress.com
[…] Open Letter to Mr. Michael Moore Dear Mr. Michael Moore, […]
december 21, 2010 den 12:32 f m
RasmusF
Mårten, jag tycker att ditt ironiserande skymmer din poänger och får dig att se smaklöst självgod ut. Inte helt olikt Moore när han tuffar på som bäst.
Själva engelskan blir också väl svenskifierad. Lite väl pinsamt blir det när du ger dig på att förklara foliehattar, vilket är ett begrepp som vi lånat från jänkarna och alltså är betydligt mer bekant där än här.
Hade du plockat bort ironiserandet, utvikningarna om koncept som inte hör till diskussionen och det lite barnsliga USA-kritiserandet så hade texten landat på kanske hälften eller en tredjedel. Vilket hade varit bra, eftersom den i sitt nuvarande skick är ”tl;dr”. Vilket är något vi säger på nätet när vi på ett kort och snorkigt sätt vill säga att en text är för lång för att orka läsa.
december 21, 2010 den 2:08 f m
eirakarlsdotter
OK. I do not follow this investigation at all… Mainly because I have better things to do with my life. But as a so called ”date rape victim” I can say it’s difficult to make any claim regarding sexual assault within a relationship. No matter what the domestic law says. Hence many women, and most likely more men than would care to admit it, never press charges. And most partners, even if they press charges, can never prove it conclusively. That does NOT mean there’s no point to it. I still believe in the legal system. I still believe in justice. It would seem that most people discussing this have no personal experience, but only seems to disagree on the ideas of different legal systems. I have been let down by social preconceptions – NOT by the legal system. So there!
december 21, 2010 den 5:17 f m
Valkyrie607
Yes, innocent until proven guilty is a principle in American law as well.
In either case, it should apply to the women accusing Assange as well as Assange himself–bringing a false accusation against someone is prosecutable, at least in the US, and alleging that they are making up their stories is a serious accusation. They deserve the benefit of the doubt as much as he does. All this talk of honey pots etc. I think stems from discomfort from people on the left with acknowledging that their hero is not pure.
I support Wikileaks, but Julian Assange is not Wikileaks.
december 21, 2010 den 7:13 f m
Tio
As an east-European this are sad times for me: you people are losing your rights and freedoms and are not going to do anything to stop that from happening. As an east-European I see all the signs for a totalitarian world (this time they are going to have the brains and the resources to do it, this time you are going to help).
Yes, I know all about your “positive” experience with Government or the “independent” judiciary but this is not for a few thousand crazy islamists but it is for you. Enjoy!
P.S.
Mårten, om judiciary är så ”independent” varför öppnades fallet igen i Göteborg? Finns en bra förklaring till det? Menar du att man aldrig kan påverka en åklagare ”off the record” i Sverige?
december 21, 2010 den 7:54 f m
Morris Packer
Mårten, du brukar skriva bra.
Ibland skriver du fantastiskt.
Den här gången har du överträffat dig själv!
Tack!
/Morris
december 21, 2010 den 8:41 f m
Igor
Det var en underhållande artikel – men tyvärr är det svårt att inte tycka att författaren är naiv.
december 21, 2010 den 9:25 f m
Open Letter to Mr. Michael Moore (via Juridikbloggen) « Utsikter från en balkong i Varberg
[…] Dear Mr. Michael Moore, I read your open letter to the Swedish Government. I am afraid they will probably not answer. They’re a bit busy at the moment: The aftermath of the financial crisis requires attention. And there’s also the thing with the first suicide bomber in our country, which has caused quite some commotion. But don’t you worry, it is very unlikely that we will use this single act of terror as an excuse to invade a country. Or maybe a … Read More […]
december 21, 2010 den 9:35 f m
Bra länkar – 21 december, 2010 | Per Olof Arnäs
[…] Open Letter to Mr. Michael Moore « Juridikbloggen Lysande! Foliehatt! ROFLMAO […]
december 21, 2010 den 10:12 f m
Mats.söderberg
10 poäng till Mårten. Moore är ju en orädd grävare, men tyvärr också en enögd populist. Assange är väl också en orädd grävare, men har nog valt att tänka med ”the little head” när han var i Sverige. Det får han försöka stå för innan han går vidare.
december 21, 2010 den 12:55 e m
Länkat & kommenterat 2010-12-21 — emretsson.net
[…] Open Letter to Mr. Michael Moore « Juridikbloggen […]
december 21, 2010 den 1:29 e m
Emma Söder
Klart att Assange är skyldi en tjej skulle aldrig ljuga om en sån sak
december 21, 2010 den 1:55 e m
Andreas Stjärnhem
Fantastiskt. I love it. Postar ut den vilt på Facebook nu.
december 21, 2010 den 9:03 e m
Halftruth
Sad to see that people commenting here cannot see through the half truths on both sides, as well as out right lies….like: law is separete from goverment.
THE LAW IS NEVER ISOLATED FROM THE POLITCAL! NOT A SINGLE SERIOUS LEGAL SCHOLAR ALIVE TODAY WOULD MAKE SUCH A CLAIM (AND EXPRESS THIS SO AROGANTLY)!
december 21, 2010 den 9:18 e m
profanum_vulgus
That is not the idea of division of powers. The legislator should be the state, but the judges should be independent from the state.
december 21, 2010 den 9:41 e m
Claes Rudling
Texten är infantil, icke-juridisk och tyvärr, pinsam.
”The aftermath of the financial crisis requires attention.” Källa på det?
det är ett löjligt påstående att regeringen inte skulle kunna svara på brevet för att de är upptagna.
”But don’t you worry, it is very unlikely that we will use this single act of terror as an excuse to invade a country.” Vad är syftet med kritik mot den kanske störste kritikern på det området?
”In Sweden we keep our judicial system separated from the Government.” Ungefär som när regeringen genom utrikesdepartementet mer eller mindre beordrade Levonline AB (webhotellet) att stänga ned Sverigedemokraternas hemsida då de publicerade muhammedbilder? (JK 2006-03-24 ”Publicering av Muhammedbilder”)
”It is just that states that allow for the Government to decide if an accused person should be held in custody or not in our country would be considered as dictatorships. Like the Soviet Union.” Snälla, undvik politiska one-liners utan källa.
”I know that some countries even run little torture camps, so to say, outside the borders of the country where it is said that normal rules don’t apply.” Igen, varför kritisera den störste kritikern på området?
”In Sweden, we try not to let statistics influence individual cases of criminal investigations or proceedings. (…) Each case should be dealt with individually.” Poängen är att det sker många våldtäkter som inte får lika mycket uppmärksamhet från rättssytemet. Och det är alltså inte konstigt att svenska åklagare i ett sånt här oklart och svagt fall går över lik för att få tag i Assange?
”We talk about ”foliehattar”. (…)” Jag förstår verkligen inte varför SVT har länkat ditt brev.
”it is not criminal to have sex without a condom in Sweden; it is criminal to have sex without a condom if the person you’re having sex with wants you to use a condom”
Jag ser att du har avgjort målet redan på förhand, det verkar dessvärre gå emot det du tidigare skrev om ”(…) we have this peculiar principle in Swedish law called the presumption of innocence.”
”(…) have been completely lost in some strange war where people feel they have to take sides in an ongoing investigation regarding something they cannot know anything about.” Du verkar som jag skrev ovan redan ha tagit ställning till hans skuld.
Då det inte är en juridisk text utan en renodlad politisk text som dessutom är dåligt underbyggd borde du inte skriva under som jurist.
Om detta vore Sveriges officiella svar till Michael Moore skulle jag skämmas.
december 21, 2010 den 10:44 e m
John Billing
”Och det är alltså inte konstigt att svenska åklagare i ett sånt här oklart och svagt fall går över lik för att få tag i Assange?”
Har du någon källa? Vem eller vilka?
”Jag ser att du har avgjort målet redan på förhand, det verkar dessvärre gå emot det du tidigare skrev om ”(…) we have this peculiar principle in Swedish law called the presumption of innocence.””
Well, att uttala sig på förhand huruvida ett visst beteende är straffbart eller ej är knappast samma sak som att uttala sig om en viss person betett sig som beskrivet. Däremot verkar ju du ha klart för dig angående skuldfrågan (oklart och svagt fall).
”Då det inte är en juridisk text utan en renodlad politisk text som dessutom är dåligt underbyggd borde du inte skriva under som jurist.”
1. Politisk text? Har du någon källa på det?
2. Sicken tur att han skrev under med bara Mårten då!
december 21, 2010 den 11:11 e m
Goodwin Strawman
John Billing
Att åklagaren går ”över lik” är sannolikt bildligt talat. Däremot så har åklagaren använt sig av en europeisk arresteringsorder, vilket man inte ens brukar använda vid relativt brutala misshandelsmål.
Att på förhand uttala sig om att det Assange har gjort är kriminaliserat, är på sätt och vis att ”döma” på förhand. Läser du lagtexten så framgår inte direkt vilka konkreta handlingar som är att bedöma som våldtäkt, sexuellt ofredande etc.
För att bedöma om Mårtens text är juridisk behövs inte någon annan källa än Mårtens egen. Den är självtillräcklig i relief mot erfarenhetssatser.
Mårten skriver ”under” som jurist. Han skriver texten på en juridikblogg, i inläggets andra stycke skriver han att han är en svensk jurist.
december 22, 2010 den 2:32 e m
John Jonsson
Claes Rudling:
Kan en text verkligen vara infantil? Och jag som trodde det var en egenskap som icke sällan vidlåder oss människor!
Med en gnutta humor i ”vänster bakficka” underlättas läsförståelsen samt budskap och underhållningsvärdet gifter sig!
(Hon är en väldigt duktig fotograf! Endast för Claes!)
december 22, 2010 den 3:08 e m
Mårten Schultz
Claes Rudling FTW!
Det där med att jag avgjort målet – det har jag inte. Jag uttalar mig in abstracto.
december 21, 2010 den 10:04 e m
Claes Rudling
Förresten, ursäkta att jag är så otrevlig, gammal Flashback-skada.
december 21, 2010 den 10:39 e m
swedesinspain
Don´t know if this is mentioned in above comments, but what I thought about hearing about the content of Mr. Moor´s open letter is what he says about Sweden having a very high number of rape reports. This in my view says nothing about how many rape cases there are in Sweden, the only thing it tells us is how many women that actually reports the rape. Different!
december 22, 2010 den 1:57 f m
Christian
Don’t know exact detail about Swedish law. But to even accuse someone of rape is as serious as it gets. To be falsely accused of rape is one of the top things that makes a person take suicide. To extend rape to many rape-light different sub-categories, I believe is totally stupid.
A another thing is also, almost everyone have had a bad sexual experience, but that does in no way make it rape, its just something that happens, not one difference on gender there.
Girls also have a fantastic tendencies to miss use: ”Oh I am so weak and innocent”, ”he was so bad and brutal”.
Miss Anna in this case looks stronger than Assange…
If Anna was raped (wikipedia – rape), no way in hell she would weeks after leave Sweden and go to a war/conflict zone, she would go through sewer personal trauma at home.
Sweden also broke the rules of how to do the witness statements, and used the least effective method also, whats up with that??? That is so fucked-up©.
Last, why on earth could not this be dealt with in a professional way behind closed doors? That would have benefitted all involved regardless of outcome.
This is my 10 cent
december 22, 2010 den 5:09 e m
Fredrik
So we should not regard all forms of forced sexual relations as rape? The types of acts that fall under the swedish rape-law are not ”light weight”. To you maybe it is not that serious to be forced to have sex without protection – but to most people it is. Perhaps you think that STD:s and unwanted pregnancies are ”light weight”? This is not a question about a ”bad sexual experience” but a question about someone forcing sexual acts upon another human being. Swedish law sets a great example for other countries to follow.
Everyone does not react the same way to sexual crimes. It is not an absolute necessity for a rape-victim to be completely devastated to the point of not being able to move for several weeks. Trauma takes many forms and tears and complete breakdown can not be criteria for rape. And please do not think that women as a whole tend to ”overreact” that way.
Lastly: To use wikipedia as a source for the meaning of fairly abstract legal terms is a sure way of demolishing all credibility you may have.
december 22, 2010 den 3:19 f m
Why #MooreandMe Helped—And How Twitter Busted Twelve Straw Men « Millicent and Carla Fran
[…] Juridikbloggen: Open Letter To Mr. Michael Moore (from a Swedish lawyer) […]
december 22, 2010 den 8:53 f m
Sanne
Hejsan,
Mycket insiktsfullt MEN nej tack vi på Åland vill inte har svenska (eller andra) tortyrläger! Inte heller vill vi ha hit svenska kriminelle (eller andra) för att straffas alt avtjäna straff…. Har Gud nog med våra egna.
God Jul!
december 22, 2010 den 3:06 e m
Mårten Schultz
Äntligen någon som tog tag i denna fråga och sade tydligt nej!
*letar upp Ösel på kartan*
december 22, 2010 den 10:06 f m
Göran
Jag måste tyvärr säga att merparten av inläggen om Assange-affären på denna blogg fullkomligt missar målet. Alla vet att vi har en rättsstat. Åtminstone på papperet, troligen i praktiken åtminstone i större utsträckning än alla. Men släpp sargen, erkänn att alla system har kryphål, rötägg och svagheter.
Frågan är om något sådant lyckats kravla sig igenom rättsstatens maskor i detta fall eller ej. Frågan är inte hur systemet ser ut på papperet.
december 26, 2010 den 12:53 e m
Hasse P
Well spoken, Brother!
december 22, 2010 den 11:08 f m
ardmoth
You make sense. This is a well-reasoned and nicely written article. Thank you Marten for your contribution to this wide-ranging global discussion that goes beyond wikileaks and America and a man accused of a serious crime. I’m from Australia and have been wondering what discussion must be going on in Sweden. I imagine you must be on the receiving end of some breathtaking ignorance from America and the rest of the world. kind regards.
december 22, 2010 den 12:09 e m
Bo Baldersson
Inom juridiken gäller ju Lagen om avtal och andra rättshandlingar på förmögenhetsrättens område från 1915. Där regleras frågor om anbud och accept och när ett avtal kan anses ha träffats.
Som rubriken anger gäller den ju bara inom affärslivet. Det behövs definitivt en likande lag inom erotikens område; en lag om sexuellt samtycke där man drar upp gränsen mellan när parterna kan anses ha samtyckt till sex å ena sidan och våldtäkt å den andra samt former för hur sådana meddelanden skall utväxlas.
För övrigt drar jag mig till minnes att jag i man fagra ungdom vaknade med torr mun i en kvinnas säng. Denna kvinna kunde jag omöjligen ha samtyckt till att ha sex med. Hon måste ha utnyttjat mitt mentalt hjälplösa tillstånd kvällen innan.
Skall jag #prataomdet eller #skitaidet?
december 22, 2010 den 12:48 e m
Maria
Ja, superbra text!!
december 22, 2010 den 1:09 e m
Bo Baldersson
Ja, sådana texter kan man nog t.o.m. bli justitieminister på!.
Eller åtminstone statssekreterare.
december 22, 2010 den 1:26 e m
Anders
Tack Mårten för en exceptionellt välskriven text fylld av lagom sarkasm och dubbelmoralpekning! Klart kul läsning för de som känner till Amerikanska rättssystemet och Michael Moore i synnerhet!
Thank you Mårten for a well written, funny and informative text! Its a very entertaining read for those of us that have some knowledge into the US judicial system and Michael Moore´s views in particular.
Its a wonder that he doesn´t tip his hat to this.. 🙂
//A
december 22, 2010 den 9:20 e m
ylva
Bra Anders! Gillar din text, men inte löjliga pretantiösen Mårten med ”tuppkammen”. Svenskt åklagarväsende är absurt och lagar skrivs av riksdagen…extremfeminister har fått dem att misstänkliggöra det mesta där parterna har olika åsikter…Åsiktslagar är lika med Politiskt korrekta lagar…dvs stackars svenskarna…Det är synd om killarna, särskillt om Assange som råkar knulla ett par extremfeminister och s-politiker och därtill Broderskapskristna utan medkänsla eller tanke på vad begreppet kärlek kan stå för..
december 22, 2010 den 2:13 e m
John Jonsson
Christian:
”Girls also have a fantastic tendencies to miss use: ”Oh I am so weak and innocent”, ”he was so bad and brutal”.”
Some experiences?
december 22, 2010 den 7:44 e m
pigeon
december 22, 2010 den 9:13 e m
ylva
Du Mårten vill väl bara ha bloggar överallt göra dig ett namn och lite märkvärdig. Du har inte mitt förtroende. Att sätta 3 miljoner på Assange huvud i borgen…är det inte lite mycket tycker du…svenskt åklagarväsende är sjukt…precis som John Pilger och andra säger. Du är en liten viktigpetter Mårten.
december 23, 2010 den 12:06 f m
norah4you
Ylva,
du har missat att det inte var svenska åklagarna utan engelska åklagarväsendet som gjorde överklagan på beslutet om att släppa Assange fri mot borgen och stränga restriktioner. Det var engelsk domstol som utifrån de handlingar inklusive uppgifter om bevis gjorde bedömning om borgensstorlek.
december 27, 2010 den 7:37 e m
Kanadagås
Nej, det stämmer inte och det vet vi nu. Emma Lindfield har förklarat att hon agerade på uppdrag av Marianne Ny när hon överklagade.
december 23, 2010 den 7:18 f m
$ilja $tormakt
Du är säker på att ditt blogginlägg utsattes för en hackerattack. Kan du bevisa det? Var det ett internt dataintrång eller ett externt? Har du polisanmält det? Ett domstolsförfarande vore önskvärt eftersom det är en allvarlig anklagelse från din sida:
”[Update: A preliminary draft of this post was published for a short while here. A hacker attack, I’m sure.]”
december 23, 2010 den 8:05 f m
Mårten Schultz
Men herregud…
Det var ju NATURLIGTVIS ett skämt
december 23, 2010 den 2:05 e m
Anna-Marina
“… it is an axiom of democratic society that the workings of government should be transparent and those who act in the name of the state should be accountable for misconduct and abuse, whereas the private affairs of individual citizens should be shielded from unreasonable intrusion from government view,” Scott Horton
Either Swedish police of the alleged ”victims” leaked private information to Expressen.
And there is the expected involvement of Rove in Assange affair:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/rove-suspected-in-swedish_b_798737.html
The legalities of Assange case:
”We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. His Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their [women] text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge.”
We need to fight for the victims of rape – not for the unsatisfied groupies
december 24, 2010 den 1:40 f m
Daniela P
Bla Bla Bla…. Förvaltningsrätten styrs av Masonry regimens NÄMNDEMANNAGÄNGET mestadels outbildade inte heller kan beskriva juridikens grundläggande normer…liksom Sven Otto cLITTORIN har sådana marionetter falska diplom…. F.ö. Migrationsverket har ”rättschef” oavsett detta begrepp strider mot demokratiska rättsuppfattningen (hans egna arbetskamrater hävdar att) självutnämnda rättscefen Mikael RIBBENVIK inte heller vet var juridiska fakulteten ligger. Sant: han saknar någon diplom efter förskola… Fråga honom få ett förvånansvärt bekräftelse. varsågoda! Därefter fortsätter du förbluffa att Sverige har oberoende eller åpoverkade rättsmarionetter… Sverige är satellit under judiska makten; inget annat
december 24, 2010 den 6:04 e m
John Jonsson
Ylva och Daniela P:
Lite aggressivitet och tuffhet kryddar i bland bloggspråket på ett lekfullt sätt, men personangrepp och självgodhet har oftast tyvärr motsatta effekten; smaklös soppa, näst intill oätlig!
Jag anser att ni riskerar att missa målet och blir mindre läsvärda!
december 26, 2010 den 4:54 f m
Richard Ford
What a load of self righteous and misinformed/ignorant drivel.
From the country that doesn’t have to spend any of their GDP on law and order or defence because of the USA. Now a citizen thinks they can attack what is of itself a highly autocratic and individualism killing system itself.
:-s
december 26, 2010 den 8:03 f m
Mårten Schultz
Best! Comment! Ever!
december 26, 2010 den 12:48 e m
Hasse P
Is there somebody who knows if this Michael Moore-guy has read this?
I would readily read his response!
december 26, 2010 den 4:53 e m
Vet Assange vad en Foliehatt är? « Röda Berget
[…] annat fall kan jag rekommendera juridikbloggens lysande öppna brev till Michael Moore A little digression into the Swedish language. In Sweden we […]
december 27, 2010 den 12:16 f m
Michael Moore
Haverist.
december 27, 2010 den 7:59 e m
Kanadagås
”it is criminal to have sex without a condom if the person you’re having sex with wants you to use a condom”
You’re claiming to be a law-savvy person, so please indicate what exactly you base this statement on. Is this situation covered explicitly by Swedish law? Is there a precedent? Or are you just extrapolating from the defendant’s lawyer tentative (and imho very tenouos) claim that it is a crime?
december 27, 2010 den 8:41 e m
Kanadagås
Correction: … Or are you just extrapolating from the *plaintiff’s advisor’s* tentative (and imho very tenuous) claim that it is a crime?
december 29, 2010 den 1:24 f m
Niclas kuoppa
Jag finner texten om än kanske inte helt oantastlig så oerhört roande ^^
december 29, 2010 den 12:16 e m
Anna Toss
Två själar, en (samtidig) tanke. Fast din var på engelska – mycket bättre förstås: http://annatoss.blogspot.com/2010/12/moore-is-less-med-feminismen-som.html
december 29, 2010 den 1:19 e m
Bo Baldersson
Assange har skapat ett bevingat ord:
”Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of Feminism”
Marianne Ny och Claes Borgström = medlemmar av den svenska motsvarigheten till Mutaween!
december 31, 2010 den 6:54 f m
Sten H.
This open letter is just a silly example of Moore trying to please the feminists while retaining some dignity by getting behind Assange. It doesn’t work, however.
There is no socialism left in Sweden for Moore to connect to – it is only a shell and inside it is a feminism akin to the Palin grizzly-womens man bashing. The extreme ideologies have a lot in common that more often than not transcends the imagined left-right dicotonomy. Swedish Social Democracy, (S) for short, today equals radical feminism, in Sweden also called State Feminism. (S) has only one concern – to retain political power, an aim that has completely corrupted it’s elite and removed the party from it’s core values. It’s only fixed value is now radical feminism.
(S) will readily do whatever the US tells them to, and has done so exceedingly under the Bush-era. (S) is no longer in Office in Sweden, but they keep asserting power through the bureaucratic and judicial systems, not to mention the media. Unluckily for Swedish subjects (and others!) these systems are cut off from all democratic control. Most mediocrats, lawyers and bureauctrats are very proud of this, and think their expertise is a good complement to democracy. This is what they are told throuout their education. The state feminists has a firm grip on all power that falls outside democratic control. However, none of this is ever debated publicly in Sweden. The Swedish judical and political system is a weak one and readily lends itself to slander attacks like this. The media in Sweden are so far up the ass of the feminists it’s suffocating to even look at.
The peolpe driving this slander attack on Assange are all members of (S). I have no idea if Borgström and Ny are acting on a orders from the US, but although it’s not likely, I wouldn’t hold it above them. Were A. A. and S. W. honeytraps? Quite unlikely. This is just normal female behaviour in Sweden. If a woman is pissed off by a guy, she can go to the police and claim she thinks he might be a rapist or pedophile. Women run no risk whatsoever of being charged or even ”questioned” for false allegations, nor sued. He will suffer dire consequences regardless his guilt. Assange has nothing to win and everything to lose by coming to Sweden. A man can never clear his name in a Swedish court. Too bad he’s stuck in UK, a country so feminist-infested, it actually had this ”debate” already a hundred years ago and absolutely nothing has improved since.
Mårten Schultz’s reply is pompously obscuring the fact that while the Swedish bureaucratic and judicial system is designed not to be vulnerable to populistic polititians and swings in popular opinion (ie democracy), it is in doing so relying too heavily on the sound judgement and objectiveness of the bureaucrats and civil servants like Ny and Borgström. The US goverment organisations are of course very aware of this flaw and it is their expertice to exploit such flaws and find corruptable people of power to do their bidding. Should be no news to US lefties. There is no way in Swedish law to stop these corrupt people. Sweden is weak, and the US knows it.
Now, there is just no way of knowing if there is anything going on behind the veil. Ny and Borgström has made it their reison d’etre to have innocent men convicted of terrible crimes, or as in this case a crime that sounds terrible, ”rape”, but is in fact just hurt feelings or missunderstanding in a sexual relationship. A. A. has, through her education and political activity, full insight into how the system works, and it is no coincidence that she chose Borgström to represent her. She is fully aware that he is the go-to-guy when you want to twist jusice in Sweden.
Are they acting on a charter from the US. Probably not. As Social Democrats they are very much opposed to everything that Wikileaks stand for – freedom and transparency, although they never miss out on riding a bandwagon for awhile. Probably it’s just a case of A. A. showing off her sexuel revenge-doctrine to other feminists. In the process incidentaly giving us a fine example of how subjugation of men has become the new order in Sweden. Media has done a great job in covering up this conclution, the only conclution that is not tin foil hat, and Schultz and Moore act their part too.
Nice, you guys!
december 31, 2010 den 10:48 f m
Bo Baldersson
Excellent analysis! Just brilliant!
januari 2, 2011 den 8:32 e m
Kanadagås
X2.
januari 3, 2011 den 12:18 e m
Dr Klor
Foliehattar of the world, united take over
december 31, 2010 den 2:08 e m
Peter
Tja, engelskan lämnar väl en del övrigt att önska, men Moore behövde sannerligen informeras om läget.
januari 12, 2011 den 6:24 e m
How Much Did Lawyer for WikiLeaks Accusers Help CIA In Torture Rendition? | Connecticut Watchdog
[…] framed by an exchange of open letters last month between filmmaker Michael Moore and a Swedish defender of its […]
januari 13, 2011 den 1:33 e m
SimonPeter
Here is some pertinent information regarding the veracity of the allegations being put forward by prosecutrix Marianne Ny:
http://ctwatchdog.com/2011/01/12/how-much-did-lawyer-for-wikileaks-accusers-help-cia-in-torture-rendition/comment-page-1#comment-119088
januari 14, 2011 den 10:42 e m
john riehle
There is plenty of sarcasm in both open letters, but I think the focus has strayed from the central issue: the validity of the EAW. Thanks to SimonPeter we can once again focus on this, as opposed to the validity of the sexual abuse allegations – about which we can have no sure knowlege before Mr. Assange is interviewed and the Swedish judicial system is able to act on the information either to dismiss the allegations or to charge Mr. Assange. Let’s remind ourselves that Mr. Assange has repeatedly offered to be interviewed and to provide all the information requested.
I’m not a lawyer, but based on the Provisional Skeleton Argument on Behalf of Mr. Assange by his defense councel provided by SimonPeter I think we have very strong reason to believe that the international warrant for Mr. Assange is invalid due to prima facie evidence of prosecutorial misconduct under Swedish, EU and UK law. I think that if the UK legal system actually retains any independence from political pressure by the US Departments of Justice and State that this warrant will be delcared null and void. Speaking as an American, and moreover one who is entirely sympathetic to the victims of sexual abuse, I hope so. We’ll see on February 7th.
januari 15, 2011 den 1:48 f m
john riehle
There is plenty of sarcasm in both open letters, but I think the focus has strayed from the central issue: the validity of the EAW. Thanks to SimonPeter we can once again focus on this, as opposed to the validity of the sexual abuse allegations – about which we can have no sure knowlege before Mr. Assange is interviewed and the Swedish judicial system is able to act on the information either to dismiss the allegations or to charge Mr. Assange. Let’s remind ourselves that Mr. Assange has repeatedly offered to be interviewed and to provide all the information requested.
I’m not a lawyer, but based on the Provisional Skeleton Argument on Behalf of Mr. Assange by his defense counsel provided by SimonPeter I think we have very strong reason to believe that the international warrant for Mr. Assange is invalid due to prima facie evidence of prosecutorial misconduct under Swedish, EU and UK law. I think that if the UK legal system actually retains any independence from political pressure by the US Departments of Justice and State that this warrant will be delcared null and void. Speaking as an American, and moreover one who is entirely sympathetic to the victims of sexual abuse, I hope so. We’ll see on February 7th.
februari 24, 2011 den 12:44 e m
Assange-beslutet « Juridikbloggen
[…] fällande dom har kommit. De prasslande hattarna på försvararna – både advokaterna och tyckarna – får inte störa den process som nu […]
februari 24, 2011 den 12:45 e m
Assange-beslutet: Låt inte rabulisterna smitta av sig på rättvisan « Mårten Schultz.
[…] fällande dom har kommit. De prasslande hattarna på försvararna – både advokaterna och tyckarna – får inte störa den process som nu […]
mars 16, 2011 den 4:48 e m
johan
HOLA
Jag är en webmaster och vill byta länkar med din webbplats. Jag har också några mycket bra webbplatser med rikt innehåll och hög som om du är villig att dela med mig kontakta mig.
väntar på ett svar.
tack
johan