Assange extradition to Sweden

Post Reply New Topic

And what basis do you have for your view? Can you name any of these "all too many aspects?"

Now, I, on the other hand, maintain that Sweden has one of the fairest and most reputable legal systems in the world. And, unlike you, I have some evidence to back that up.

http://worldjusticeproject.org/?q=rule-of-law-index

In the 2010 survey, among 35 jurisdictions, Sweden presented the top global ranking in 5 subfactors, and was in the top five in all subfactors.

In the 2011 survey, among 66 jurisdictions, Sweden presented the top global ranking in three of the eight subfactors, was in the top 5 in four others, and was ranked 7th (it's worst performance) in the 8th. Now, admittedly, that eighth factor was "effective criminal justice," but no where in that ranking is there any suggestion that Sweden's court system is not good enough to fairly balance the interests of accuser and accused in an impartial forum.

Your sympathy for Mr. Assange has blinded you to fact.

It hasn't blinded me at all - I just happen to think the whole world is crap. It's either less crappy or more crappy - never good. A country's judicial system being good at following the law also means nothing - what if the laws are the problem?


Yes, I can name some of the aspects:

- "mangamålet", and what the legislation, surrounding it, may mean for the future of free speech
- the fact that it's perfectly legal to undress someone, while they are unconscious, and photograph that someone naked, while owning tame hentai with drawn "girls", with small breasts, certainly is NOT legal, and even will put you on the sex offender registry
- the FRA law/FRA-lagen
- the upcoming extension of the FRA law
- Datalagringsdirektivet/DLD
- the upcoming extension of Datalagringsdirektivet
- the ratification of ACTA
- the case of Domenic Johansson
- the case of Thomas Quick
- the way services like The Pirate Bay became "illegal" (with the exception for Google, and similar large companies, since they are, well, large companies), despite actually being legal by law, just because the U.S. extorted the cowardly Swedish politicians by threatening with a trade embargo
- the IPRED law/IPRED-lagen, and the privatized extortion which it allows
- etc., etc.


Many of these examples break current law, by the way, but of course it's okay, anyway, as long as the "right" people do it.

Tell me, why should I be all content with how Sweden is, hmm? Because it's even worse in the vast majority of the rest of the world? I'm sorry, that just doesn't sound very reasonable, in my ears.

Well, leaving aside the nonsensical, "etc., etc." you have provided 11 complaints about the Swedish legal system.

But only one of these has to do with the Swedish court system.

Your complaints about Swedish legislation is a complaint about Parliament, and the political decisions that parliament makes to enact certain laws. Now are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong in a law that states that a person commits a crime when persisting in sexual intercourse after the other person has withdrawn consent, or when the conditions on which consent was predicated cease to be present?

If you are saying that the conduct alleged by his accusers is actually pefectly proper conduct that should not be criminalized, then we are having a much different conversation. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that the withdrawal of consent obliges a person to cease sexual activity then your complaints about Swedish legislation are entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Assange can get a fair trial.

Similarly, EU regulation on data retention does not seem logically connected to the question of whether Assange can receive a fair trial.

So that wipes out nine of your complaints at a stroke. And we are left with the two personal cases: Thomas Quick and Domenic Johansson.

I am certainly not going to contradict your assertion that these cases are highly problematic. But I do suggest that they reflect more poorly on the Swedish police and prosecutors (in the Quick cases) and the Swedish child welfare authorities (in the Johansson case) than they do on the courts themselves. In the Quick cases, courts were presented with confessions and, seemingly, corroborative detail to substantiate them. It bears noting, though, that since recanting his confessions, Quick has successfully obtained retrials for two of his convictions, and an acquittal in one of those. This does tend to reinforce the view that the Swedish court system includes sufficient safeguards to correct errors, even well after the fact.

As for the Johansson case, I think there is a significant disconnect between Swedish law on child welfare and human rights legislation--and it very much depends whether one believes that parents are always the best determiners of their children's welfare. I think Swedish law has it wrong--and in this case there may have been more that the courts could have done.

But one case is not sufficient to bring an entire judicial system into disrepute.