#MooreandMe such nonsense

US bloggers, twitterers, night show hosts and feminists have  taken on the #Assange case and declared it a date rape, the accusing women, rape victims, and that we still live in a rape society. The accusors Ardin and Wilen are helpless victims, who without having a chance to defend themselves in media are described as tools of CIA, and hysterical and while the women are being smeared, Assange and his lawyers can speak freely.
Obviously most  of us that have followed the case from the beginning and have bothered to read all documents in the case in Swedish have another opinion about the women, the case and Assange's role. The exceptions are the feminists who have another agenda than many average Swedes who believe in legal justice and gender equality.
Let me give you  a background and some viewpoints from a Swedish woman, myself, who has followed the case for many reasons, one is that my family knows the Ardin family and I grew up on Gotland, went to the same high school and university as Anna Ardin and just cannot understand her behaviour and I think her actions have caused damage to the gender equality debate and progress. I just cannot understand why a feminist, professional, employed as press secretary and paid to coordinate Assange's visit in Sweden, would go to bed with him in the first place, then proudly indicate that she had a special relationship with him and at the same time tell her friends that he was the worst lover she had and later go to the police and accuse him of rape? Who is the victim here?
The Assange case has some interesting parallells to the biggest legal scandal in Swedish justice history, the Thomas Quick case.

Thomas Quick was acquitted of a murder when chief prosecutor Eva Finne decided to drop the case because there was not enough technical evidence to convict Quick. Quick was convicted of eight murders most of the convictions were based on his confessions. He recently retracted all his confessions and together with his lawyer plan to appeal the remaining seven murder convictions. Wikipedia has an excellent summary of the case in English. Claes Borgstrom was Thomas Quick's defense lawyer and has been heavily critizised for being passive and not doing a good job defending his client while raking in millions of kronor from the state and making himself a name by defending an alleged serial killer.
The fact that Eva Finne threw out the case due to lack of evidence is an obvious blow to Claes Borgstrom's competence and motives as a defense lawyer and to many it looks like more than a coincidence that after Eva Finne dropped the rape charges against Assange, Claes Borgstrom  gets involved and his friend and colleague Marianne Ny re-opens the case. Another question I ask myself is why Ardin and Wilen, I know at least that Ardin is a well educated, updated, professional woman, would like to be represented by Claes Borgstrom considering his track record with the Quick case. Did they get some sorts of promises from him that they would win the case and possibly get a huge settlement and instant fame?  

The Thomas Quick case has shown Swedes that there are some grave problems with the Swedish legal system where a chief prosecutor can use almost any means to prove his or her case, we now know how the chief prosecutor of the Thomas Quick case, abused his powers to get the convictions and that several others, possibly even the defense lawyer Claes Borgstrom, cooperated with the chief prosecutor to get the convictions. Few doubt that Quick will be acquitted of the other seven murders. Obviously this is a very, very bad situation where we now know that eight murderers are still free an might have murdered and murder again. And another question arise, how many innocent people do we have in Swedish prisons?

Interestingly enough Hogsta Domstolen, the Supreme Court and final instance in civil and criminal cases,  published a verdict in an alleged child rape case yesterday. The convicted rapist was acquitted after having spent four years in prison on a conviction based on the story of his son. The accused had divorced his son's and other three children's mother and for some time the son had lived with his father and he claimed that during that period he was sexually abused by his father and on the allegations made by the son the father was convicted of child rape. The Supreme Court writes amongst other things "for a conviction in a sexual crime case, the court must, like in other criminal cases, prove beyond doubt, in the investigation presented, that the accused is guilty." The Court makes some conclusions as well that will serve as guidelines for the lower courts in sexual criminal cases like this when a case is based solely on someones words: "In this case, as in many sexual cases, the judgement of the trustworthiness of the accuser is central......possible alternative explanations to the accusor's actions before and during the trial shall be considered....The fact that the accusor is considered more trustworthy than the accused is obviously not enough for a conviction....The fact that a person and his/her story appear as trustworthy does not mean that the information is correct. It   might be connected with the fact that for some reason, the person is convinced that he/she tells the truth, eventhough the information can be partly based on imagination, confusion or suggestion, other external effects on the memory....further, the actions of the accusor immediately after the alleged crime and his/her general behaviour...special considerations must be taken to indications that the accusor's information can be less credible due, for example, possible personal hostilities between the accusor and the accused, that the accusor might need a reason to explain a relation to his/her family, or that the accusor might have other reasons to make untruthful allegations against the accused. Also the temptation that might exist within certain accusors to get a settlement shall be considered."          

This verdict and the conclusions made by the Supreme Court is an attempt to protect the real victims of sexual assaults as well as the falsely accused and to assure that the Swedish legal system is not abused for personal vendettas.

This verdict and its conclusions indicate, at least to me, that Marianne Ny hasn't got enough for a trial in the Assange case and that Assange has no reason to go to Sweden to answer her questions.

The leaked documents from the investigation of the case shows that Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen didn't seem to be traumatised after the alleged sexual abuse, Anna Ardin claimed in August that Assange had not been violent to her and she did not feel threatened by him, only that he had a lousy way with women, that combined with her friend's testimony that Anna Ardin claimed that he was a lousy lover, indicates that she, before she talked to Sofia Wilen, showed no signs of having been sexually assaulted, in later interrogations, she claims that she was thinking to herself while having sex with Assange, "I do hope this is over soon".  Sofia Wilen seems to be more concerned about having contracted an SDT than anything else, and the prosecutor then made a rape case out of having consensual sex without a condom and the fact that Assange might have had sex with Wilen while she was napping or half awake as she said in interrogations. One lesson learned from above, men cannot read thoughts and maybe not body language from women they hardly know, so if you want someone to stop, say no. Do we need to ask our governments every time we think or felt we were abused, is this the system we want?  

I do not think this case should be compared to date-rapes or to be used by feminists and others to claim that "the absolute epidemic of rape and sexual assault that we face in this society has become that much clearer to me, the list of women I know who are rape survivors has become much, much longer since I posted it on Saturday" writes journalist Sady Doyle on her blog tigerbeatdown.com

Jeeez, "rape survivor" now she is trying to surf on the whole "I am a breast cancer survivor" industry here in the US to get the attention. Yes, there are plenty of rape victims in the world and some do not survive to tell her story some do.

More from tigerbeatdown.com

"We made it clear that journalists - men and women - who do this, who minimize and misrepresent those claims, who leak those names, who endanger those women, are going to face consequences. And those consequences might be bigger than anything they've ever seen before; bigger than anything they had any reason to expect."

Full blown American shock- jock rethoric. We need a debate and we need to dare to look at rape accusations from both sides, had the Swedish police and the Swedish prosecutor not leaked the first interview protocols with Ardin and Wilen to the tabloid Expressen, that decided to publish the name of the accused as he was famous, of course, it became of public interest who accused Assange. Remember that one of the sharpest and best female prosceutors in Sweden, who had to guts to stand up to the male mafia that run the Thomas Quick case into a legal disaster, dismissed the alleged rape accusations. Let the debate go on and show some respect to both sides.

So far nothing impressive from the US bloggers, twitters etc, more than cheap tricks to get 15 minutes of fame.


1 - Emoticon

2 - Damn, you've been living in America too long. You just can't stop bashing Sweden at every turn, can you? Does it appeal to your sense of superiority in being sortof-American? Swedes tend to have a love affair with everything American but your attitude is simply ridiculous. If you can't stand Sweden why dedicate a blog to the country? As an American I have nothing against Sweden being "feminazi." "socialist" and conformist. I've had enough of Americans just like you which is why I left. But you won't see me dedicating a blog to the "flaws" of the country I left since I know what works for someone won't work for someone else. Hopefully you'll understand that one day. Emoticon

3 - @M I am Swedish and neither American or sortof-American. I have lived here for a while, and I would not call myself American. I do bash what I feel is wrong with Sweden and I do strongly feel that the whole Assange case has shed the lights on some real problems, I think we have in Sweden. Maybe I take it more serious than an American, as I grew up in Sweden and now, from afar, see certain things going on in Sweden that I simply do not like. I could, if I wanted to, feel rather insulted of being called American, but I decide not to as it is Friday Emoticon

Post A Comment (comments are moderated before posted)


Follow Us

Facebook.pngspace.png twitter.pngspace.png rss2.png

Get the blog sent to your inbox by entering your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Showcase your Scandinavian business here