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. 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
81 kommentarer
Comments feed for this article
december 20, 2010 den 3:50 e m
Oskar
Bravo!
december 20, 2010 den 4:07 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 4:09 e m
Minna
Excellente!
december 20, 2010 den 4:36 e m
Misko
This was really naive. Typical Swedish. A combination of arrogance and naivety.
december 24, 2010 den 12:12 f m
Viktor L
Foliehatt!
december 20, 2010 den 4:37 e m
Sten Sture
Om jag får tillåtas att spela djävulens advokat en aning här: om det nu skulle vara så att det faktiskt är underrättelseorgan som är ute efter att diskreditera Assange, då undrar jag om inte det mest effektiva tillvägagångssättet faktiskt skulle vara att anklaga honom för sexualbrott i Sverige. Faktiska omständigheter är fullständigt irrelevanta: redan misstanken om sexualbrott som sådan innebar att hans trovärdighet är förbrukad.
Kolla bara på Littorinfallet. Det kan kanske vara så att CIA hittade inspiration hos JK, sossarna och Aftonbladet. Deras strategi för att oskadliggöra Littorin var ju uppenbarligen mycket effektiv, detta alldeles oberoende av om han faktiskt hade begått det påstådda sexualbrottet eller inte…
En relaterad notis: De som har uppfattningen att våldtäkt och sexköp är i princip samma slags brott har nu fått vatten på sin kvarn sedan det visat sig att Göteborgspolisen uppenbarligen tycker samma sak.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/topsning-av-sexkopare-loste-valdtakt
Vad tycker du om integritetsaspekterna i detta fall, Mårten? Ska en misstänkt sexköpare behöva acceptera att per automatik bli misstänkt för våldtäkt?
december 20, 2010 den 4:41 e m
Sten Sture
Jag menar, jag antar att Göteborgspolisen inte per automatik topsar misstänkta för förmögenhetsbrott, eller kvinnor för den delen (ens om de skulle vara misstänkta för sexköp)…
december 20, 2010 den 6:00 e m
Joen
Polisen har rätt, och bör enligt vissa, topsa alla som är skäligen misstänkta för ett brott som har fängelse i straffskalan. En åtgärd som enligt vissa inte används i tillräckligt stor utsträckning.
december 20, 2010 den 6:53 e m
Beelzebjörn
Those damn Dark Forces… ^^
Utmärkt inlägg.
God jul, och lycka till med nästa omgång knäck.
december 20, 2010 den 7:02 e m
Nander
Fantastiskt inlägg! Sällan man kan skriva under rakt av, men så var det den här gången.
God jul!
december 20, 2010 den 7:08 e m
Henrik
Sten Sture, du har inte förstått hur ”topsning” fungerar. Läs det Joen skriver. Vi har ett antal fall i Sverige där vi har DNA-bevis liggande på lager. Om den skyldige begår ett ANNAT brott (ja, DEFINITIVT förmögenhetsbrott – rån hör till den kategorin, men du kanske menade ett annat ord) som har fängelse i straffskalan så tas regelmässigt DNA-prov. Om provet matchar något av de tidigare olösta fallen – bingo.
december 20, 2010 den 8:12 e m
alex
”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.”
Are you kidding?? Sweden ALREADY invaded country, Afganistan. One can argue if it is ”good” or ”bad” war, but the fact is-Sweden is in war and now this war come back to their territory.
”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;”
I guess when women is seriously drunk or on drags she can be raped like this. With Assange-she wake up and did not say ”no”. Was it difficult to say that , to put stop to undesirable act? I am having sex for 25 years and NEVER seen women which do not wake up when I touch her and start to have sex. If she did not said ”no” how the hell men could guess that she was against it? Will we proscecute every men whos condom broke as well? For go sake.sue company which made condoms and inform women in your country that they actually MUST say ”no” when someone starts sex with them or put some resistance. If they want of course this to be stopped. But they did not, they liked it all but got jealous few days later and now made sweet revenge. Anf law system supports them without any evidence. Assume that two women WANT him to be in prison. In swedish system if someone considers them TRUSTWORTHY it is enough to send him toprison. No other evidence is required and he by definition is guilty even of nobody else was present in the room where they had sex. His version of events does not counts, right?
december 20, 2010 den 8:28 e m
Joen
Your ramblings about the judicial system is not worth commenting on.
However have you ever heard of the UN? Check out resolution 1943(2010). With regards to Swedish troops in Afghanistan
december 20, 2010 den 9:07 e m
alex
you want to say that UN decided to go into war? Well, it is still war, even when decided by UN. And enemies have a trend to strike back. So, if Sweden joined invasion of afganistan, it also could look into experience of USSR and how it finished there. It will finish here the same way. Export of democrasy works as bad as export of communism. About law system-aren’t you afraid to have sex with women in Sweden? If your condom breaks-there is no way to prove that it was not by evil intention. Or should all this be videotaped just in case?
december 20, 2010 den 8:28 e m
llllllllllllllllllxlllllllllllllllll
you have to admit that the timing of the allegations is suspicious, and that if accusers + swede defense do not acknowledge that then their motives are suspicious also.
december 20, 2010 den 8:42 e m
FB
Funderar över innebörden av följande mening i din text; ”it is criminal to have sex without a condom if the person you’re having sex with wants you to use a condom”
Vilken brottsrubricering kan bli aktuell om kvinnan lämnat samtycke till sex, men villkorat samtycket med att kondom brukas, i fall där mannen bortser från kvinnans önskan?
1) Ligger det brottsliga i att han bryter ett löfte, det uppställda villkoret?
2) Ligger det brottsliga i att mannen utsätter kvinnan för risken att smittas med eventuella könssjukdomar?
3) Ligger det brottsliga i att mannen utsätter kvinnan för risken att bli gravid?
4) Något annat?
Gäller i så fall även det omvända, om kvinnan försäkrar mannen om att ingen kondom behövs då hon använder sig av någon annan form av preventinmedel, trots att hon inte så gör? Om kvinnan försäkrar mannen om att hon inte bär på några könssjukdomar, trots att hon inte gjort några tester som garanterar detta?
Tack för en lärorik och underhållande blogg!
december 21, 2010 den 3:26 f m
Olle
Det första som slår mig är att ett ”nej” uppstår om kvinnan märker att mannen faktiskt inte använder kondom under pågående samlag, t.ex.
Vid den händelsen, om kvinnan då framför sitt nej på något vis (?), blir förfarande brottsligt. D.v.s. sexuell handling med ett ”nej” från kvinnan -> våldtäkt
Löftesbrytning och graviditet är nog inget som kan processas i domstol och smittospridningen skulle falla under rubriceringen misshandel snarare än våldtäkt.
// Jur.stud.
december 21, 2010 den 10:56 f m
FB
Jag är medveten om det brottsliga i att med tvång fortsätta ett samlag trots att en av partena vill avbryta den pågående akten. Detta har dock inget att göra med huruvida det är brottsligt att ha sex utan kondom i strid med motpartens vilja.
Hade det handlat om att kvinnorna velat avbryta sexakten, och att Assange trots detta fortsatt, så är det ytters märkligt att chefsåklagare Eva Finné ansåg att misstanke om våldtäkt ej förelåg, trots att hon fäste tilltro till åtminstone den ena kvinnans berättelse.
december 21, 2010 den 11:24 f m
Alex
The question here goes farther: should this question about condom be answered every time before sex or it is enough to say that in the beginning of relations? Or should both aprties sign sexcontract with all details of what allowed or not ? If I don’t want sex but do not say ”no”-it is also ”rape”-my partner made something I did not wanted. But until I said that openly-”Stop it” my partner have no idea that he hurt me. So, Assange and this women had problems in relations, communication problems in my point of view, not legal rape problems.
december 20, 2010 den 8:47 e m
tinfoil hattie
From America: Beautiful. Thank you so much.
december 20, 2010 den 9:00 e m
alex
”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. ”
I don’t get this swedish system: both cases of ”rape” in Assange affair is exactly what author of article cited above: nobody else was present in the room. No evidence besides stories of women exist, right? But in swedish PRACTICE of using law if one women told to another about ”rape” it is considered as evidence. I can tell that UFO landed next to my door to everybody around and it is not evidence…..what is the difefrence?
december 20, 2010 den 11:57 e m
Gustaf
Well actually, you are wrong about the UFO observation. You are as free to when in a trial ”invoke/refer to” the persons that you told about the UFO as much as the prosecutor can invoke/refer to the woman the alleged victim told about the event.
In Sweden, it is the court which will decide if they think that that is evidence enough.
december 21, 2010 den 7:07 f m
Alex
It is ok to listen what the supposed victim told to her friends, why not? The question is-can it be considered as evidence to send someone to prison? Assume that some women wants to send you in prison…just because you left her or had sex with other women or may be because she woke up from wrong leg. It looks like it is enough for her to go to her friend (1 or 2) and to tell them that she was raped. And next-go to police. That’s it, you are in prison for rape. The court in such cases looks not into the evidence but into the question who ic more trustworthy-”victim” or ”rapist”. See articles in Swedish press about it, there was one last week or so in aftonbladet, from swedish lawer. He described this system and said there were many precedents like this.
december 20, 2010 den 9:33 e m
Anna
Isn’t the problem with the statistics also that there is a difference in how different legal systems define rape (for instance, if rape by definition includes penetration etc). Also, couldn’t there be other reasons for the large amount of reported rapes in Sweden – such as cultural norms that encourage women to report rapes?
However – 10% lead to a trial is very sad indeed, even considering that rape often happens behind closed doors. It makes me think the legal system is not taking rape investigations very seriously. Would you argue that Swedish police and legal system does all it can do (within reasonable limits) to ensure justice in alleged rape cases?
What’s it like in other countries?
december 21, 2010 den 9:57 f m
profanum_vulgus
Its not -10% that lead to trial.
A person accused of rape can be reported for hundreds of rapes. You cant bring a hundred people to trial when only one is accused for a hundred crimes can you?
There is no statistic about how many people are accused or how many accusers there is, just how many crimes that are reported.
december 20, 2010 den 9:45 e m
Roland Giersig
Dear Mårten,
being a student of the law I have found your explanations on how the swedish judicial system works really fascinating, it seems so… unique! While we have very similar, in fact quite the same concepts in my country, we do tend to depict Iustitia as being blind-folded, for a reason.
I’m wondering: how many cases are there per year in your country where a woman asks the police if she can somehow force her one-night-stand to submit to an aids-test because the condom ripped, gets sent away with ”Sorry ma’am, no can do!” and then, a few days later a prosecutor decides to take an active role and treat the case as sexual-intercourse-without-consent, instigates an international search warrant and refuses to have an investigational interview over the phone or via video-conference with the … well, what do we call him? ”Witness”? We cannot call him ”Accused” because there is no accusation, only investigation, no?
I’m asking you out of interest: how many similar cases are there in your country? I haven’t found any similar cases in my country (though we have several interesting judicial decisions of our own, I must admit), so I’m counting on you to provide me with an international perspective.
Yes, every case is unique, but still… I cannot help wandering if Iustitia sometimes peeks from behind her blindfold… or gets a shove from behind.
Speaking of shove… I just had a smørrebrød and it also was a little on the dark side! Coincidence?
Best wishes for the holidays from a dark and snowy Vienna.
Roland
december 21, 2010 den 7:34 f m
Lovisa
Hi Roland,
I’m not Mårten, but of the top of my head, I’m not sure it’s easy to know. I don’t think they keep statistics about that type of detail.
But it’s an interesting question. Except that it is posed as if you think ”omg it’s obvious it’s a set up”.
You see, when somebody rapes you, that is considered a crime in sweden.
And when you get raped, you might not be behaving rationally. The women maybe only thinking about the risk of HIV (which is bad enough. And giving it to someone knowingly is a punishable crime as far as i know), not wanting to handle the fact that they were raped.
I’m only pointing this out, out of concern, that maybe you should read up a bit on the behaviours of victim of sexcrimes.
ta
december 21, 2010 den 10:29 f m
Roland Giersig
Might. Might not.
Hi Lovisa, I’m fully on your side that rape-victims might behave irrationally. But that is also true for non-rape-victims. Who might falsely accuse somebody.
What people have to learn is that using dual-valued logic gives the wrong results. There is a third value that must be stressed: WE DON’T KNOW. It’s either TRUE, or it’s FALSE or it’s a case of WE DON’T KNOW.
A serious treatment of that issue has to start at the point WE DON’T KNOW and work from there. By that definition very few of the discussions can be taken seriously, most of them contain prejudice.
Can you personally say that your thoughts are without prejudice? Do you really treat your thoughts of ”there might be rape involved but the victims don’t tell” as purely speculative and still maintain the opinion of WE DON’T KNOW?
For a court case to be made there must be sufficient evidence. Right now there is only indirect evidence, as no accusations have been made by the suspected victims and as far as I know (quick google search shows no reports) the suspected victims have not been interrogated by the prosecutor. Which is strange in itself. Why isn’t the prosecutor trying to change her state of WE DON’T KNOW?
december 20, 2010 den 10:11 e m
alex
Answer to Rolan: many cases. Last year swedish court sentenced opera singer for rape which supposedly happened 8 years before. I don’t know was it rape or not, the fact was- he was sentenced with only evidence in the story told by the women. And froms tories of two vitnesses who did not see anything. They only HEARD the story from the women. In swedish practice if women told to one friend that she was raped-the friend testimony considered as EVIDENCE. When accused men tell to the court (as this opera singer) that he did not raped anyone-it is not evidence. So, the system considers who is TRUSTWORTHY but not what was the evidence. Yes, opera singer was with foreign background, like Assange, already 1/2 not trustworthy…
december 20, 2010 den 10:21 e m
Joen
You sir are a true ”foliehatt”
december 21, 2010 den 10:35 f m
Roland Giersig
Alex, this sounds frightening. This sounds like Sweden is on its way back into the Dark Ages, only this time men will be burnt on the stakes and not women.
Note to all: injustice cannot be undone by an antithetic injustice.
december 21, 2010 den 11:15 f m
Alex
It is country where women have even more equal rights than man. If University opens positions only for men-it is discrimination and suicide for administration. But it is completely fine to open professor positions ONLY for women (there were severak examples recently). In this case it is called
”wound treatment”, women is by definition is victim of men violence, if number of female professors let’s say in Mathematics is less than males-it is by definition wrong and discriminating. It must be 50%/50% everywhere.
In Assange case it is feministic network which is trying to make big case, not CIA.
december 20, 2010 den 11:51 e m
Open Letter to Mr. Michael More | Nina Amjadi
[…] claiming that Sweden is heaven for rapists. On this link you find a lawyers respons to that letter. https://martenschultz.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/open-letter-to-mr-michael-moore/ Posted by: Nina Amjadi Comments (0) 06:46 […]
december 20, 2010 den 11:51 e m
John
Hi Marten,
Well written. Just one point I want to raise. Julian was questioned, the issue investigated, Julian needed to make changes to his travel plans to answer questions in Sweden, the initial prosecutor dropped the charges. After some time Julian requested permission to leave the country when their questioning was finished and the investigation ended, he was granted permission to leave which he did.
You state you are a lawyer. This is the one point, can you clarify if it is then in the Swedish legal system that the same charges can be raised again with a new prosecutor after being dropped? And is it then at the accused own expense to return to Sweden to answer questions on old charges re-raised?
While comparing the merits of various legal systems in different countries, where most other legal systems have provisions against doing such things, could you perhaps provide a critique of the pros and cons of the Swedish system in this regard.
Thanks
John
december 21, 2010 den 10:00 f m
profanum_vulgus
Its the other way around. Assange applied for a residence permit in Sweden but was denied. He was forced to leave Sweden.
december 21, 2010 den 11:09 f m
Alex
Yes, he was too much trouble for Sweden. Wikiliaks today published information about USA forcing Sweden to participate more actively in Afganistan. Of course, if USA can force this decision, it is logical that Sweden refused to accept Assange due to possible problems with USA.
december 20, 2010 den 11:52 e m
Charles Restino
Enjoyed your piece on Michael Moore and Swedish ”justice” system. However, a smug contention that ”In Sweden we keep our judicial system separated from the Government” is probably more wishful than factual. As in most countries, Swedish judges are political appointees, and therefore just as inherently vulnerable to political ”influence”. Mr. Assange should be concerned that political appointees, rather than a jury of his peers (a more positive aspect of ”common law” jurisdictions such as the US), may eventually be deciding his fate.
december 21, 2010 den 12:07 f m
Top Posts — WordPress.com
[…] Open Letter to Mr. Michael Moore Dear Mr. Michael Moore, […]
december 21, 2010 den 2:08 f m
justme
I believe it won’t hit Michael Moore hard if you (implicitly) say that the country which he comes from is quite a mess (like the torture camps). That’s what he accused the US for himself often enough. I’m sure he would lovingly agree.
december 21, 2010 den 6:31 f m
The danger of posting links without comment. « cygnoir.net
[…] Open Letter to Mr. Michael Moore, by Mårten Schultz. This is a response from a Swedish lawyer to Michael Moore’s “Dear Government of Sweden” post which included some rape statistics. Schultz states: 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. […]
december 21, 2010 den 7:43 f m
melusineb
Very good comment. Thx.
december 21, 2010 den 8:26 f m
jm111t
@Gustaf actually an evidence is what everybody can check and find to be true, therefore hearsays, claims, quotes or anecdotes are not evidences. Evdence = fact!
december 21, 2010 den 10:04 f m
profanum_vulgus
Well hearsay is an evidence, its a statement that someone said something that is of intress . No different from a statement that someone
december 21, 2010 den 10:05 f m
profanum_vulgus
Fudge, I pressed send by mistake.
Well hearsay is an evidence, its a statement that someone said something that is of interest . No different from a statement that someone did something.
december 21, 2010 den 8:33 f m
jm111t
question: If 2 women tell one another they both had sex wiht the ”holy spirit”, would that be an evidence that the ”holy spirit” exists, in Sweden? #wikileaks
december 21, 2010 den 9:05 f m
Marre
The ”Conservastive MP” that Michael Moore is referring to is Claes Borgström, the lawyer for the two accusers. Of course he is neither a conservative nor an MP, but through misinformation and misinterpretations on various blogs and news articles, he’s now labeled as a right wing politician.
Michale Moore bases his article on hearsay and rumors, and his ”open letter” was an unnecessarily clumsy addition to the entire debate, not doing any good for neither Assange’s case nor the accusers.
december 23, 2010 den 11:08 e m
Michael Jonsson
It should also be said for the record that Claes Borgström is in fact a social democrat, or at least he used to be.
december 21, 2010 den 9:31 f m
Lukas
Well argued! This is an overdue presentation of the legal facts.
Greetings from snowy Austria
december 21, 2010 den 9:34 f m
PBCliberal
Trying to embarrass Michael Moore with America’s little judicial system on the side at Guantanamo Bay is a fools game. We know our country has serious credibility problems. Those of us who are trying to change that hope an honest discussion about our foreign policy will bring these issues to light.
That certainly can’t happen if a debate over Assange’s sex life eats up all the oxygen.
december 21, 2010 den 10:00 f m
jm111t
It is amusing to see that you are talking of the Swedish judicial system as if it were a machine! The judicial system is made up people and people are subject to pressure, greed, beliefs and bribes! It seems that wikileaks has not and probably will not teach anything to “believers”!
december 21, 2010 den 10:38 f m
s
Excellent! I like your sense of humour! 🙂
december 21, 2010 den 10:58 f m
Roland Giersig
Mårten, you wrote
”the women that has accused Mr. Assange of a crime should be considered as trustworthy as long as no compelling evidence says otherwise…”
May I ask you to elaborate on two statements containted in that sentence:
1) When were legal accusations made by the women? I did not find any reports about that, only reports indicating the contrary.
2) You say that the women should be considered trustworthy unless compelling evidence says otherwise. Do you think that the blog post* of one of the women that deals with how to get revenge, e.g. if somebody dumped you can be takes as such evidence?
*) See http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2010/08/strangest-blog-thread-yet-on-swedish.html
december 21, 2010 den 11:04 f m
Alex
I can add that Aaasange also must be considered as trustworthy until opposite proven. Now they say opposite things-one of them say she was raped, another one said she was not. No OTHER facts are present in the case and no other EVIDENCE. The court will decide barely WHO is more trustworthy. By defininition in the Swedish feminist unbalanced system the women will be right and guy is wrong in this situation. Look how newspapers describe new ”vitnesses” called by accusing side. None of them wa spresent at the moment of sex and not relevant, but they tell us stories about behavior of Assange in OTHER situations. Was he flirting with women who come to restorane with male partner? He is BAD guy, not trustworthy. How the hell this story about restorant come to be relevant as vitness testimony in the case?? Are they serious?
december 21, 2010 den 10:19 e m
Noah
Roland
International media has failed even calling Sweden, which has made much of the reports outside this country depressingly one sided. Many new details suddenly ”revealed” these last days in British media, have already been reported in Sweden.
So to many readers here, mr Michael Moores and other celebrities strong defence for Julian Assanges innocence, and to someone´s right to avoid the police during an ongoing investigation concerning serious alleged crimes, is very surprising.
Almost as surprising as the Assange defence, and others, claiming the Swedish legal system is not to be trusted, a remark that would surprise most international legal experts.
To your questions; according to a person who claimed to have read the police files and appeared on the Swedish Television Debatt programme tonight, accusations of rape were made by the women as soon as they came to the police station. I believe I read that in a paper already in August.
But my point, and somehow the answer to your second question, is that maybe we all should wait discussing something that so few people seem to know anything about?
I have read unbelievable statements and articles and blogs on this issue ever since August. And what strikes me most is the way these two women are described by the Assange defence and others. It´s just disgusting.
This is indeed serious and sad for everyone involved,no matter the outcome.
So please don´t contribute to serious allegations about world wide conspiracy without even a hint of evidence.
No matter how much I endorse Wikileaks and transparency, we don´t need to make neither a hero nor a villain out of someone before we know a god damn thing.
december 21, 2010 den 11:46 f m
Michal Polak
Oh dear.
Trying to smear Michael Moore, of all people, with all the horrible acts of the US Government, against which he’s spent pretty much all of his adult life protesting? Not cool.
You may also note that in the US, the judiciary is understood to be one of the *three branches of Government”. So a large part of your ‘funny’ remarks are simply a result of a misunderstanding: you seem to want to confine the term ‘Government’ for what in the US is called ‘the executive’. Sure, if Moore was clamouring for the executive branch to interfere in the workings of the judiciary, you’d have a point. But, if you read his letter carefully, you’ll see that he did not, anywhere. In European terms, who might as well have been referring to the ‘Swedish state’. I guess you would not deny that the Swedish judiciary is a part of that?
You also conveniently skipped over the one piece of statistical information that gives the meaning to the other ones, which you do quote. Namely, that while the number of reported rapes has increased, *the conviction rates have decreased*. If that is not true, fine. But if it is, then yes, Moore is exactly right, the Swedish judicial system can hardly be claimed to be particularly good in dealing with rape cases. Not that Britain is better, for instance. But it’s not a competition between countries – it’s about this sudden concern with this particular case, for which Sweden went so far as to issue an Interpol ‘red alert’ warrant.
Which, in fact, is the whole point of Moore’s letter, one which through all your sarcasm do nothing to counter. Sure, two wrongs do not make a right. But in a world of limited resources, why not go after the rapists that are already in your country? Whose whereabouts are known and who would not at all be hard to question? Is there *nothing* that seems strange to you about suddenly working up all this passion about someone who just happens to be a thorn in the side of the international establishment?
Assange may or may not be guilty, for all I know. And I actually do think it would be better for him to clear his name, if indeed he is innocent. But the fact that you don’t see anything fishy about the behaviour of the Swedish state (a. k. a. Government, in the US) is dismaying indeed.
Finally, two quotes:
”*Never* in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned — for *any* alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims’ complaints — sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom — please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.
Of course ‘No means No’, even after consent has been given, whether you are male or female; and of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.
But for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances — who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice — the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face. It seems to send the message to women in the UK and Sweden that if you ever want anyone to take sex crime against you seriously, you had better be sure the man you accuse of wrongdoing has also happened to embarrass the most powerful government on earth.” (Naomi Wolf: ”J’Accuse: Sweden, Britain, and Interpol Insult Rape Victims Worldwide” – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-sweden-britain-an_b_795899.html)
And more pithily:
”Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!” (Naomi Klein, via Twitter)
december 21, 2010 den 3:52 e m
profanum_vulgus
Well you must understand that swedes generally thinks that Sweden is an extreme country. Everything about Sweden, according to the general swede, is top of the world or the worst in the world.
The taxes are the worlds highest (not)
The Schools are the best in the world (not)
The social security is the best in the world (not)
The judicial system is the least corrupted in the world (not)
Most suicides in the world (not)
and so on.
Many Swedes have the idea that Sweden is the perfect state in some areas at the same time as it is the worst state in the world in others.
People within the judicial system and people who are in favour of it cant settle with it being good but flawed in some aspects. Therefore criticism of the judicial system will lead to very upset states of mind with these people. They even sometimes thinks that judges can have magical powers (witch they dont consider magical if a judge has it).
So; the prosecutor refused to questioning Assange for over a month. Then he was kicked out of Sweden after his application for a residence permit was denied. Then the prosecutor waited a few months more, and suddenly after the diplomatic documents were released she did something witch has never happened in a case like this before.
This seems strange for many people. But if you think that the judicial system is the best in the world, cant be corrupted and is flawless; how will you react to the criticism?
december 21, 2010 den 4:45 e m
Carlos
Naomi Klein and too many others cannot have two thoughts in their minds at the the same time. Wikileaks can be a good thing and Mr Assange can be a rapist – these two things can both be true. I think they are, and I hate people that try to tell raped women not to go to the police because the man is famous.
december 21, 2010 den 5:02 e m
profanum_vulgus
The only people talking about correlation between doing good things and doing bad things are people that are against Assange.
No one that thinks he should not be jailed or that there is other interests behind the sudden move to get him in jail has ever said anything like that.
If you have to lie to argue for or against something, you are probably wrong.
december 21, 2010 den 12:06 e m
Sten Sture
Joen och Henrik: visst har jag inte koll på polisens rutiner för topsning (är de förresten författningsreglerade?) men min fråga gällde integritetsaspekterna.
Varför ska man anses misstänkt för ett helt orelaterat brott?
december 21, 2010 den 12:19 e m
Sten Sture
Förresten, Henrik, du skriver: ”Om den skyldige begår ett ANNAT brott…”. Varför ”den skyldige”? Vi talar endast om misstankestadiet här.
december 21, 2010 den 3:57 e m
alex
New piece of circus in todays newspapers-foto of broken condom. And conclusion from criminalists-yes, investigation confirms that it is broken.
So, the women kept broken condom several days after it broke..hmmm
How many of us keep broken condoms for several days? Now it start to look like mousetrap…. and yes, investigation of condom said it is impossible to say if was broken intentionally or not…. The purpose seem to be achieved: instead of looking into various crimes published on wikileaks and discussion why Sweden obeyed pressure from USA the whole community is looking on broken condom and wonders how did it happened…http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article8313094.ab
Mårten, one serious question about law system- how it happened that the case is taken in other city , does it mean that any prosecutor from any part of country can take the case after it was closed in Stockholm?
februari 8, 2011 den 9:11 f m
Ani
If this article is true, then he did use violence. It says that one of the women asked him to take on a condom, but he refused and held her legs and arms down. After a while he agreed to a condom but she suspects that he teared it apart. The other woman also suspects that he teared the condom apart while they were having sex. If this is not violence, what is it? Nevertheless, none of us know what happened, non of us were there. What we know is that everything we’ve read are rumors, more or less. So, keep your heads stright. Hopefully the truth will come out one day. Until then, noone is guilty, neither Assange or the women.
december 21, 2010 den 7:14 e m
Christina Marie
Käre Mårten,
under bart.
Vill Du bli min jurist ;-), jag är blodgivare
ha en skön helg
Ps D här v-e-t engelsmännen överlag ( om kondom etc.)
december 21, 2010 den 7:31 e m
Craig
Good article. Does Interpol normally place warrants for suspects under this charge?
december 21, 2010 den 8:50 e m
Alex
Can author of article explain how with all advantages of Swedish system THAT kind of information about investigation could leak to newspapers?
Is it normal that broken condom fotos are now all around the globe? I don’t see anything in aftonbladet about some policemen or criminal investigator to be accused of leaking information about Wikileaks farther. Is it always that all details of investigation are sent directly to newspapers? How it happened that name of Assange was in newspapers from the first day? In any other case I see something like that-”24 years old suspect”. Not in this case from the first day.
december 21, 2010 den 8:53 e m
Mårten Schultz
I don’t really understand the question but if you are implicitly arguing that it is strange that investigators can leak confidential info I agree.
december 21, 2010 den 10:33 e m
Göran
Sverige är fylld av våldtäkts kvinnor, topsa skiten. Sen om mannen inte ens anmälde för våldtäkt vem bryr sig. Hoppas fler män och kvinnor går till polisen efter inte använt kondom!
GOD BLESS SWEDEN
december 22, 2010 den 12:24 f m
Jack
So when did sweden become was Washington puppet? You guys might want to check into that.
december 22, 2010 den 9:59 f m
Sigrid
Love it!!!
december 22, 2010 den 4:48 e m
Diyarbakir Evden Eve
really nice sharing …. sharing are really useful and helpful information on this site ….
december 23, 2010 den 8:29 f m
Anonym
Well, docent Schultze your goverment dont send prisoners to Aland but what about Egypt.
december 23, 2010 den 9:06 f m
ylva
Mårten Schults: -”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.”
This is just a statement, but not the Truth. Sweden has Political Correct courts. Parliament makes the Law for Political groupsparties and that´s what the Juridical system have to follow. Parliament-Government-Juridical system is one whole system….they are not separeted …they are working together.
”Anyway, this all means that the Government has nothing to do with the the processes of the legal system in individual cases.”
To Mårten Schultz: When the Media pleeding for a refugee, our Government give the Individual asylum, because swedish people and Media want the Individual to stay. Isn´t that Government and Juridical system working together in such a Case? Yes!.
You try to be funny and easygoing Mårten, with ”knäck-cooking and snowy Sweden”, but didn´t you forget to say someting about 3.000.000 (Swedish crowns) paid for Assange ”the Spy” Swedish Government have to send to U.S. where they want to execute him?
Assange is a bigger story than you Mårten want us to know about. I don´t believe you are so innocent.
december 23, 2010 den 9:08 f m
ylva
Mårten Schults: -”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.”
This is just a statement, but not the Truth. Sweden has Political Correct courts. Parliament makes the Law for Political groupsparties and that´s what the Juridical system have to follow. Parliament-Government-Juridical system is one whole system….they are not separeted …they are working together.
”Anyway, this all means that the Government has nothing to do with the the processes of the legal system in individual cases.”
To Mårten Schultz: When the Media pleeding for a refugee, our Government give the Individual asylum, because swedish people and Media want the Individual to stay. Isn´t that Government and Juridical system working together in such a Case? Yes!.
You try to be funny and easygoing Mårten, with ”knäck-cooking and snowy Sweden”, but didn´t you forget to say someting about 3.000.000 (Swedish crowns) paid for Assange ”the Spy” Swedish Government have to send to U.S. where they want to execute him?
Assange is a bigger story than you Mårten want us to know about. I don´t believe you are so innocent.
december 23, 2010 den 1:51 e m
Petter
Anyone interested in how the legal system works in this matter can read the judgment of the swedish supreme court from last year (NJA 2009 s. 447).
It states that accused rapists are considered innocent unless the guilt has been proved beyond all resonable doubt. Even if the victim’s story should seem more probable than the story of the accused, that is not enough unless credible evidence is produced.
There seems to be some confusion regarding the relevance of political involvement in the courts of sweden. Political views may well have a notable influence on the judge’s decision in practice, however that is a different matter from suggesting that the government can order the prosecutor to halt this investigation. That is outside of their authority.
It would therefore seem more reasonable to send this letter to the prosecutor rather than the government.
/Petter
Jur. Stud.
december 30, 2010 den 8:42 f m
profanum_vulgus
Petter:
That judgement is however not precedential. Its a reminder of the precedents of 1991 and 1992 (developed further in 2005, and changed a bit the day before yesterday concerning the use of the magical powers of Swedish judges).
The two cases from 2009 says that if someone is accused and the only evidence besides the accusation (the accused statement is not considered evidence) is supporting the accused, its not enough to convict.
The precedents (from 1991, 1992 and 2005) says that an accusation has to be supported by ”supporting evidence”, normally ”supporting evidence” consist of a witness who has heard of the accusation before the accuser went to the police.
Political involvement in the courts? The judges are either politicians or jurists selected by the government, the courts ARE political.
However its common that you direct a letter to a state when something is rotten in the state. No one argues as long as its directed to other states, for example: Aftonbladet send lists of names to the Iranian government concerning the wish that an Iranian court should free a murderer. Amnesty wrote letters to the government of China to release a Chinese terrorist so he could receive an award. Dagens nyheter complained against the president of Belarus because the police had arrested violent protesters that had run in the election. No Swedish jurists complain about this.
januari 1, 2011 den 5:27 e m
2010 års bad boy på webben | Pontus hörna
[…] blandar ihop sak och person, däribland korsriddaren Michael Moore. Julian Assange försvaras av ett flertal nätaktivister som ifrågasätter kvinnorna som anmält […]
januari 2, 2011 den 11:43 e m
Grisnils
”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.”
SUCK!
Efter ovan skolboksnaiva trams orkade jag inte att läsa mer. Har den där Mårten aldrig lämnat skolbänken???
Vad kommer härnäst?
”In Sweden the Government only make life better for us all here in the best country in the world…”
(Ja-tjenare)
januari 3, 2011 den 12:13 e m
Dr Klor
En foliehatt till. They keep on coming!
januari 25, 2011 den 12:09 e m
barbastina
Bra skrivet! Hoppas han svarar.
januari 25, 2011 den 10:34 e m
tredjemannen
Vänta nu, så alla som inte tror blint på den svenska rättvisan är foliehattar? Jag, som arbetat som jurist i svensk domstol, skulle inte bli det minsta förvånad om statliga organ skulle kunna påverka svenska domstolar på olika sätt med hänsyn till rikets intressen.
februari 8, 2011 den 12:40 e m
Julian Assange igen: förhörsprotokollen « Sverige är inte världens navel!
[…] Men jag varnar er för att ta på foliehattar och tro att detta är en konspiration mot Assange. Läs gärna Mårten Schultz öppna brev till Michael Moore här! […]