Sweden’s Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange’s Arrest

By Naomi Wolf, The HuffPo

Naomi Wolf

As I have been making the case on media outlets in the past few days that the British and Swedish sex crime charges related actions against Julian Assange are so extraordinarily and unprecedentedly severe — compared to how prosecutors always treat far more cut-and-dry allegations than those in question in this case worldwide, including in the Scandinavian countries, and that thus the pretext of using these charges against Assange is a pimping of feminism by the State and an insult to rape victims — I have found myself up against a bizarre fantasy in the minds of my (mostly male) debating opponents.  [Be sure to read the addendum, where Naomi accuses the great powers involved in this cynical circus of “pimping feminism.”]
Attorney: Swedish Case is a “Holding Charge” to Get Julian Assange Extradited to U.S.

The fantasy is that somehow this treatment — a global manhunt, solitary confinement in the Victorian cell that drove Oscar Wilde to suicidal despair within a matter of days, and now a bracelet tracking his movements — is not atypical, because somehow Sweden must be a progressively hot-blooded but still progressively post-feminist paradise for sexual norms in which any woman in any context can bring the full force of the law against any man who oversteps any sexual boundary.

Well, I was in Denmark in March of this year at a global gathering for women leaders on International Women’s Day, and heard extensively from specialists in sex crime and victims’ rights in Sweden. So I knew this position taken by the male-dominated US, British and Swedish media was, basically, horsesh-t. But none of the media outlets hyperventilating now about how this global-manhunt/Bourne-identity-chase-scene-level treatment of a sex crime allegation originating in Sweden must be ‘normative’ has bothered to do any actual reporting of how rape — let alone the far more ambiguous charges of Assange’s accusers, which are not charges of rape but of a category called ‘sex by surprise,’ which has no analog elsewhere — is actually prosecuted in Sweden.

Guess what: Sweden has HIGHER rates of rape than other comparable countries — including higher than the US and Britain, higher than Denmark and Finland — and the same Swedish authorities going after Assange do a worse job prosecuting reported rapes than do police and the judiciary in any comparable country. And these are flat-out, unambiguous reported rape cases, not the ‘sex by surprise’ Assange charges involving situations that began consensually.

Indeed, the Swedish authorities — who are now being depicted as global feminist sex-crime-avenger superheroes in blue capes — were shamed by a 2008 Amnesty International report, “Case Closed”, as being far more dismissive of rape, and far more insulting to rape victims who can be portrayed as ‘asking for it’ by drinking or any kind of sexual ambiguity — than any other country in their comparison group. As Amnesty International put it in a blistering attack: “Swedish Rapists Get Impunity.”

The same Swedish prosecutors who are now claiming custody of Julian Assange are, indeed, so shamefully negligent in prosecuting Swedish rapists who did not happen to embarrass the United States government that a woman who has been raped in Sweden is ten times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than she is of getting any kind of legal proceeding on her behalf undertaken by Swedish prosecutors.

Of all Swedish reported rapes (and remember this is rape, not “molestation”), fewer result in legal proceedings of any kind than do comparable cases in the US, Finland and Norway.

“Sweden needs to do much more to clamp down on rapists, according to reports from Amnesty International and the United Nations,” Jennifer Heape reports for the website thelocal.se, which translates Swedish news for an English-speaking audience. Sweden tops European rape league, data showed in 2009, but “Sweden’s image as an international forerunner in the fight for gender equality has been damaged by recent reports comparing rape statistics across various countries….”

The same prosecutors going after Assange for an ambiguous situation are doing worse in getting convictions today than they were forty-five years ago: “despite the number of rapes reported to the police quadrupling over the past 20 years, the percentage of reported rapes ending in conviction is markedly lower today than it was in 1965.”

Sweden’s horrific record in prosecuting all the accused rapists and men accused of sex crime in Sweden who are not Julian Assange drew consternation from as high up as the UN. UN rapporteur Yakin Ertürk warned in February 2007, that there is a shocking discrepancy “between the apparent progress in achieving gender equality and the reports of continued violence against women in the country.”

The actual number of rapes in Sweden in 2006 was estimated to be close to 30,000, according to Swedish data compilation. This number indicates that Swedish women have so little faith in their own legal system that 85-90 percent do not bother reporting the crime to the same police who are ankle-braceleting Assange, as a 2007 study showed that only ‘5-10 percent of all rapes are reported to the police’ — a reporting rate lower than the US and the UK, which have reporting rates of about 13-30 percent, a shameful enough set of numbers in itself.

The statistical survey by the Swedish organization BRÅ showed that of that five or ten percent of rapes that resulted in reporting — fewer than thirteen percent resulted in a police decision to start any legal proceedings at all. “The phenomenon of alleged offenses not formally being reported to the police or dropped before reaching court is termed ‘attrition’,” the report remarks sadly. “Amnesty slams the Swedish judicial system and the prevalence of attrition within it, concluding that, “in practice, many perpetrators enjoy impunity,” Heape writes. In other words, 1.3 women in a thousand who is raped in Sweden will not receive any legal response whatsoever.

In the US and in Europe, male-dominated media discussions seem to portray the Assange charges as a victory of Swedish authorities over the old canard that “date rape” is not prosecuted because of a tendency to “blame the victim.” But in fact, whenever they are not prosecuting Julian Assange, if you are raped on a date, Swedish police are unlikely to pursue your assailant. If the victim has been drinking, or behaving in a way that can be stigmatized as sexually provocative, no matter how clear-cut the rape charge, Swedish police typically leave such charges by the wayside. “In analyzing attrition and the failings of the police and judicial system, Case Closed draws attention to ‘discriminatory attitudes about female and male sexuality…Young (drunk) women, in particular, have problems fulfilling the stereotypical role of the ‘ideal victim’, with the consequence that neither rapes within intimate relationships nor ‘date rapes’ involving teenage girls result in legal action,” reports Heape.

“Helena Sutourius, an expert in legal proceedings in sexual offense cases, concludes that, in Sweden, ‘the focus appears to be on the woman’s behaviour, rather than on the act that is the object of the investigation.'” Swedish prosecutors and police don’t even keep proper track of their own rape issue and how their own police handle or mishandle cases. Amnesty accused Sweden of little scrutiny of or research into the quality of its own rape crime investigations, “a serious shortcoming that needs to be addressed immediately.”

Finally, remember that in the Assange case it is the State rather than the women themselves that is bringing the charges. The Swedish state — which has proven, in politically neutral cases that merely involve actual assaults against women — such a shameful custodian of raped victims’ well-being.

And then, conclude: shame on Sweden; shame on Interpol; shame on Britain. And lasting shame, given this farcical hijacking of a sex crime law that is scarcely ever enforced in Sweden in far less ambiguous contexts, on the United States of America.

NAOMI WOLF is a prominent feminist and social justice activist.

__________
ADDENDUM

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in Wandsworth prison in advance of questioning on state charges of sexual molestation. Lots of people have opinions about the charges. But I increasingly believe that only those of us who have spent years working with rape and sexual assault survivors worldwide, and know the standard legal response to sex crime accusations, fully understand what a travesty this situation is against those who have to live through how sex crime charges are ordinarily handled — and what a deep, even nauseating insult this situation is to survivors of rape and sexual assault worldwide.

Here is what I mean: men are pretty much never treated the way Assange is being treated in the face of sex crime charges.

I started working as a counselor in a UK center for victims of sexual assault in my mid-twenties. I also worked as a counselor in a battered women’s shelter in the US, where sexual violence was often part of the pattern of abuse. I have since spent two decades traveling the world reporting on and interviewing survivors of sexual assault, and their advocates, in countries as diverse as Sierra Leone and Morocco, Norway and Holland, Israel and Jordan and the Occupied Territories, Bosnia and Croatia, Britain, Ireland and the united States.

I tell you this as a recorder of firsthand accounts. Tens of thousand of teenage girls were kidnapped at gunpoint and held as sex slaves in Sierra Leone during that country’s civil war. They were tied to trees and to stakes in the ground and raped by dozens of soldiers at a time. Many of them were as young as twelve or thirteen. Their rapists are free.

I met a fifteen-year-old girl who risked her life to escape from her captor in the middle of the night, taking the baby that resulted from her rape by hundreds of men. She walked from Liberia to a refugee camp in Sierra Leone, barefoot and bleeding, living on roots in the bush. Her rapist, whose name she knows, is free.

Generals at every level instigated this country-wide sexual assault of a generation of girls. Their names are known. They are free. In Sierra Leone and Congo, rapists often used blunt or sharp objects to penetrate the vagina. Vaginal tears and injuries, called vaginal fistulas, are rampant, as any health worker in that region can attest, but medical care is often unavailable. So women who have been raped in this way often suffer from foul-smelling constant discharges from infections that could be treated with a low-cost antibiotic — were one available. Because of their injuries, they are shunned by their communities and rejected by their husbands. Their rapists are free.

Women — and girls — are drugged, kidnapped and trafficked by the tens of thousands for the sex industry in Thailand and across Eastern Europe. They are held as virtual prisoners by pimps. If you interview the women who spend their lives trying to rescue and rehabilitate them, they attest to the fact that these women’s kidnappers and rapists are well known to local and even national authorities — but these men never face charges. These rapists are free.

In the Bosnian conflict, rape was a weapon of war. Women were imprisoned in barracks utilized for this purpose, and raped, again at gunpoint, for weeks at a time. They could not escape. Minimalist hearings after the conflict resulted in slap-on-the-wrist sentences for a handful of perpetrators. The vast majority of rapists, whose names are known, did not face charges. The military who condoned these assaults, whose names are known, are free.

Women who testify to having been raped in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Morocco face imprisonment and beatings, and being abandoned by their families. Their rapists almost never face charges and are free. Women who testify to rape in India and Pakistan have been subjected to honor killings and acid attacks. Their rapists almost never face charges, are almost never convicted. They are free. A well-known case of a high-born playboy in India who was accused of violently raping a waitress — who was willing to testify against him — resulted in a cover-up at the highest levels of the police inquiry. He is free.

What about more typical cases closer to home? In the Western countries such as Britain and Sweden, who are uniting to hold Assange without bail, if you actually interviewed women working in rape crisis centers, you will hear this: it is desperately hard to get a conviction for a sex crime, or even a serious hearing. Workers in rape crisis centers in the UK and Sweden will tell you that they have deep backlogs of women raped for years by fathers or stepfathers — who can’t get justice. Women raped by groups of young men who have been drinking, and thrown out of the backs of cars, or abandoned after a gang-rape in an alley — who can’t get justice. Women raped by acquaintances who can’t get a serious hearing.

In the US I have heard from dozens of young women who have been drugged and raped in college campuses across the nation. There is almost inevitably a cover-up by the university — guaranteed if their assailants are prominent athletes on campus, or affluent — and their rapists are free. If it gets to police inquiry, it seldom gets very far. Date rape? Forget it. If a woman has been drinking, or has previously had consensual sex with her attacker, or if there is any ambiguity about the issue of consent, she almost never gets a serious hearing or real investigation.

If the rare middle-class woman who charges rape against a stranger — for those inevitably are the few and rare cases that the state bothers to hear — actually gets treated seriously by the legal system, she will nonetheless find inevitable hurdles to any kind of real hearing let alone real conviction: either a ‘lack of witnesses’ or problems with evidence, or else a discourse that even a clear assault is racked with ambiguity. If, even more rare, a man is actually convicted — it will almost inevitably be a minimal sentence, insulting in its triviality, because no one wants to ‘ruin the life’ of a man, often a young man, who has ‘made a mistake’. (The few exceptions tend to regard a predictable disparity of races — black men do get convicted for assault on higher-status white women whom they do not know.)

In other words: 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.

Keep Assange in prison without bail until he is questioned, by all means, if we are suddenly in a real feminist worldwide epiphany about the seriousness of the issue of sex crime: but Interpol, Britain and Sweden must, if they are not to be guilty of hateful manipulation of a serious women’s issue for cynical political purposes, imprison as well — at once — the hundreds of thousands of men in Britain, Sweden and around the world world who are accused in far less ambiguous terms of far graver forms of assault.

Anyone who works in supporting women who have been raped knows from this grossly disproportionate response that Britain and Sweden, surely under pressure from the US, are cynically using the serious issue of rape as a fig leaf to cover the shameful issue of mafioso-like global collusion in silencing dissent. That is not the State embracing feminism. That is the State pimping feminism.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




South American bloc adopts resolution on UK threats to Ecuador

A dispatch by RT News

The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of (L-R) Peru, Rafael Roncagliolo, Ecuador, Ricardo Patino, Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and Colombia, Maria Angela Holguin, answer questions to the press after an extraordinary meeting of the Council of Ministers of UNASUR in Guayaquil, Ecuador on August 19, 2012 (AFP Photo / Rodrigo Buendia)

The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has unanimously adopted a seven-point resolution supporting Ecuador’s right to grant Julian Assange asylum and condemning British threats to raid a sovereign state’s embassy in order to arrest him.

Foreign ministers of the 12-member bloc took part in an extraordinary meeting in Guayaquil, Ecuador’s largest city. A resolution was adopted just eight minutes after the session began, and was read out by Secretary General Ali Rodriguez.  Rodriguez’ readout of the resolution was met with loud applause.

The document reaffirmed the sovereign right of any country to grant asylum and condemned threats to use force, stating that the bloc’s foreign ministers had taken into account the aide memoire Britain sent to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on the eve of the announcement of the decision on whether to grant Assange asylum.

The resolution reiterated “the inviolability of embassies” and the Vienna Convention, saying that principles of international law could not be overridden by domestic laws, such as the Diplomatic and Consular Act of 1987, which grants the British Secretary of State discretion to revoke immunity to ambassadorial premises.

The organization vowed to encourage all parties to the Assange case to continue dialogue to find a solution within the framework of international law. The importance of refuge and asylum for the protection of human rights was also reaffirmed by the South American foreign ministers.

After the session, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino addressed the press.

He noted that while the United Kingdom was a country far more powerful military-wise than Ecuador, the small Latin American country had the high ground in terms of its understanding of international law.

“Reason does not call for force,” Patino stated. “The force may be as different and as distant as a small country and a country which has atomic bombs. But here, reason is with us.”

Patino thanked fellow Latin American nations for firmly supporting Quito on the issue and said he was pleased with the fact that Julian Assange knows that the region respects international law, the right to personal integrity and the freedom of expression.

He also said he was waiting for a resolution expected to be adopted at a similar foreign-minister level meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS), which is scheduled to meet next Friday.

Ecuador convened a number of regional meetings following the threat to storm the country’s embassy in London.

On Saturday, representatives of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) adopted a similar eight-point resolution condemning Britain for its “intimidating threats” to violate the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

On Friday, a special meeting of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States, which comprises countries from North, Central and South America, voted to hold a meeting of the member states’ foreign ministers in order to discuss the same resolution filed by Ecuador.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




America’s Emerging Single Party System

By Krell, RoundTree7

July 7, 2011 | with select original comments 

Regular Democratic rally: meeting of the deluded

Republicans and Democrats… to even suggest that they may be the same thing seems absurd to some, invoking strong debate or personal attacks by others. It’s “Us versus Them” for the political landscape and future of the country, right?

But if you look at the actions of both parties, the actual policies and voting records, the wide dividing line between the parties becomes narrow and blurred.

There is a saying that goes…  “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…”

Let’s look at the facts and try to separate the Ducks from the Mallards. Review some of the talking points that Democrats use to distinguish themselves from their “lessor” counterparts.

Labor

Of course, everyone knows that the Democrats are for Labor and Republicans are pro-business. It’s been that way for many years, right? But wasn’t Clinton the one who was responsible for NAFTA? Why should the manufacturing base stay in the United States when they can get the labor for 2 dollars per hour and ignore any benefits or environmental laws.

Sure Reagan fired the Air Traffic controllers with their labor strike but when has any Democratic president stuck up for labor in a dispute? Just where were those walking shoes that we heard about in the Obama campaign when Wisconsin was having its teachers and firemen being trampled on?

Social Issues (Poverty, Health Care, etc)

Again we can return to Bill Clinton for the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act” which dropped the bomb on about half of those on the assistance rolls.

Do I need to even mention what Social Security and Medicare is going through today? These hard-fought improvements to society are being put on the bargaining table mainly because of the three card Monte game that was played by Wall Street and the Investment Bankers.

Here’s an idea… why not make the ones that gained the most from the economic shell game pay the most to restore the nation and the middle class? Instead of the obvious, both parties are thinking of new ways to inform the nation of austerity.

Environment

The BP environmental disaster and the complete lack of updates for offshore drilling regulations and economic responsibility for those “green CO2 free nuclear reactors”  that Obama was so beholden to from his home state.  Of course,  Obama did sign a bill protecting more than 2 million acres of wilderness and miles of scenic rivers. But it was a bill that was started by the Bush administration and all Obama had to do was sign it.

Speaking of signing, who signed the “Clean Air Act” in 1970? Richard Nixon.  And here is a list of 17 Democrats that recently voted against enforcement of the Clean Air Act’s climate rules:

Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Begich (D-AK), Hagan (D-NC), Levin (D-MI), Brown (D-OH), Casey (D-PA), Conrad (D-ND), Johnson (D-SD), Klobuchar (D-MN), Pryor (D-AR), Stabenow (D-MI), Landrieu (D-LA), Manchin (D-WV), McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson (D-NE), Rockefeller (D-WV), Webb (D-VA)

Confusing, huh?

How about stripping protection for wolves in five Western states and actually undoing an initiative to protect public land that was put in the budget bill from his own Secretary of the Interior?

War

The clear distinction of who is most likely to use war as foreign policy is blurred beyond any noticeable difference with the Obama administration. With a political window of ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan after his election, he chose to proceed not only with both war fronts, but went on to create a few more.

When questioned about the constitutionality of his policies, this Democratic administration responded by trying to “redefine” what constitutes war, insisting that because remote-controlled drone missile strikes do not put US soldiers in harms way, technically it is not a war.

I wonder if China decided to do a drone strike on a Chinese dissenter in Chicago, killing several women and children in the process, if that definition would still be applied?

Foreign Policy

I could bring up countless documents from WikiLeaks that support the idea the that one of the State Department primary functions is to protect “National Interests”- like keeping wages low in Haiti for Levi Strauss Jeans, or suppressing reports of the use of child labor for making shoes.

A question I ask… If the government is not supposed to be in business, an idea that is screamed about by the Teabaggers, then what exactly does protecting ‘National Interests” mean? Interests is another word for resources and who gets those resources to market but corporations? Both parties use the nation’s diplomatic pressure and military might as the corporate policeman… or a more apt definition, the “corporate strong-arm.”

The New Corporate Constituency

With the recent Supreme Court developments such as “Citizens United” and the class action lawsuit being thrown out against Wal-Mart and the tremendous amounts of wealth being concentrated into a smaller and smaller percentage of the US population, a new powerful political dynamic of society has formed.

It requires enormous amount of money to even begin a political race. The amounts of money required to get elected has produced a situation where it is no longer a choice of taking corporate money, it’s an essential fact. The only choice to be made is what corporation to be beholden to. To whom does the political candidate sell his soul ?

So why do corporations give money? Is there anyone left in this country so naive as to believe that corporations and super political action committees don’t buy political process for their money? That the end “product” purchased is political favors and bias? Of course it is, why else would they do it?

So the vicious political cycle is formed. More and more money is required each election to get elected, which requires more and more funding from corporate interests. The reality of politics is that you have to play by these rules or you are not even in the game. A spiral that grows greater and greater in depth with each new election cycle.

The Republicans sell the corporatism as “freedom from government” to which false patriotism can play a part. While the Democrats sell the corporatism as denial, dangling the chance of those “crazies” getting elected as their only defense. Of course there will be some “issues” that will tie up the political election process. Some meat for the grinders and main stream media to setup the “big game” of election time. Meanwhile the actual results caused by the political circus keeps getting closer and closer to the same thing, year after year.

But make no mistake, the quacking noises made by both sides are producing the same results, while the pond is being drained right under our noses.

Three party system in America? Hell, I would settle for a 2 party system.

By the way, the inductive reasoning implied by the phrase “But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I’m certainly going to assume that he IS a duck.” was used by a Democrat during the McCarthyism era to label his opponent a communist.

SELECT ORIGINAL COMMENT THREAD 

Like Gwendolyn Holden Barry, Mike Stimpson and 75 others like this.

Filed Under: Commentary, corporate greed, Featured, History, Politics, progressives Tagged With: Claire McCaskill, Clean Air Act, Democratic, McCarthyism, Republican, Richard Nixon, United States, Wikileaks

Comments

  1. The Badger says:
    July 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm
    I get your point. The whole thing sucks. Career politicians whose only true interest is re-election. I happen to think that right now more than any other time we’re ripe for a third party. Actually depending on what Obama caves on with the “entitlements”. Look for Bloomberg to react to what Obama’s numbers are. Good luck America.

    REPLY 
    • Krell says:
      July 7, 2011 at 5:03 pm
      One of the points that I was trying to make is the inevitable convergence of both parties because of the amount of money that is required to even play the political game. With corporations gaining more power and the merging of companies into conglomerates, even the selling of ones political soul will become uniform because of the intertwining of corporate interests.
      Unfortunately, the least organized and financially able to contribute will be the disenfranchised majority that needs to have the “wool pulled over their eyes” to continue to get the vote majority. The extent that this can be done with each political cycle is going to become the “game plan” of the elections. More and more of the diversion with less and less of the solution.
      Personal lives of the politicians, sex habits, labeling, swift-boating, and sound bites of the stars is what we have to look forward to. Tactics that should never be under-estimated.

      REPLY 
  2. Keith Barger says:
    July 7, 2011 at 6:07 pm
    Public financing of all candidates and absolutely no private spending permitted is the only way to clear the air. Bulworth (movie) nailed this. The money makes it all go to shit. Because candidates need a massive amount of money to be “viable” (i.e. in the corporations back pocket) they have to spend all their time raising money. They then pay this corporate money back to other corporations who own the media to share their message. The airwaves should belong to “we the people.”
    To you reading this … if you are registered a Democrat so that you can choose the most liberal candidate in the primary, stop deluding yourself. The most liberal candidate will become just another corporate pawn. What we need is for everyone who knows this column to be true to register for a real party that is actually different. I’m a Green, a Pacific Green from Oregon. Our candidates are not for sale.

    REPLY 
    • Once a liberal says:
      July 7, 2011 at 7:49 pm
      You are right about the masses (especially people who think there is actually a difference in the parties) deluding themselves. To become viable they (politicians) must sell their soul to the corporate devils, and stay beholden to them unless they wish to lose office. Campaign Finance Reform will never be enacted because no one (but the people most powerless to change it) want the status quo to change. With the income disparity worsening every year, real reform may only be achievable through open revolt.

      REPLY 
    • Krell says:
      July 8, 2011 at 8:57 pm
      Keith, I am currently spending the weekend doing my investigation of the Green Party in my state. Although I live in a southern RED state, I am done with the politics of the Democrats or Republicans. I can no longer vote with a clear conscience to the present situation and “2 party system” and corrupt business as usual. Will I be voting for the winner in the near future? Certainly not in the near future and perhaps never. But I will be able to sleep at night knowing I did the right thing.
      Thank you for stopping by and giving your thoughts.

      REPLY 
  3. Mudge says:
    July 8, 2011 at 7:10 pm
    No news to me. I’ve been a Green for 14 years. The Dems & Reps are just playing good cop/bad cop with us.

    REPLY 
    • Krell says:
      July 8, 2011 at 8:59 pm
      Good cop / Bad cop or perhaps all bad pirates dividing up the loot. I’m beginning to feel that 14 years of being a Green is a 14 year head start on me. Thanks for your thoughts, Mudge.

      REPLY 
  4. Jack Jodell says:
    July 9, 2011 at 8:56 am
    Gore Vidal once said wisely, long before any of our current mess had developed, “”There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party . . . and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt – until recently . . . and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”

    REPLY 
    • Krell says:
      July 9, 2011 at 10:50 am
      I cannot think of Gore Vidal without picturing those epic “discussions” that occurred when he was around William F Buckley. In particular, when Gore Vidal called Buckley a “crypto Nazi”. Back then the fireworks were spontaneous and not “rehearsed” for the benefit of ratings. Although not as eloquent as Chomsky, Vidal certainly could express his opinion with the best of them.
      His saying there is no difference back then and seeing how much they have drawn together since then shows a trend that seems inevitable.

      REPLY 
  5. Gwendolyn H. Barry says:
    July 9, 2011 at 9:06 am
    The advances of The Great Society are lost on today’s culture. The ideals of leaders like Ike, LBJ … had a safe zone of being partisan while safely inviting and embracing a few supporters from the ‘other side’…they still represented….We are absent of true ethics, values, substantial political leadership…. really, since Teddy crossed…. besides the Independent Bernie S. we seem alone. The true leaders in politics are very few, very far between. It’s a UNIPARTY vying for the largest payoff in many cases. Some play it strategically safe, like Pelosi…. putting up her true liberal values only to sell them out to remain in power, in the end. Obama sold us out even before he took office. He was “The Candidate” finally come to us for test run. And the general population are so confused and so needful to have leadership that they ‘choose the lesser of two evils’ instead of resourcing their backbone and voting for a new candidate… it’s tragic and it’s our ending. Unless we stand up to this and bite back. I don’t think it deluded to reach out to the people who are dumbfounded and confused by the UNIPARTY politics and demand their attention. I think we are tying to do that on RT7. I think most like minded folks are reaching via the internet to make a wave build.
    Yeah, all bad pirates, Krell. All bad pirates. Let’s make them walk the plank. Or better yet… as I’m for the bloody, lets keel haul ‘em. Arrgh?

    REPLY 
    • Krell says:
      July 9, 2011 at 11:04 am
      Some would debate on the Obama selling out or Obama just being himself and his CAMPAIGN for election was the true deception. Regardless, IMHO… Obama put the nail in the coffin for a lot of new people reaching out for true change by way of the American political system as it stands today.
      The youth of today is smart, savvy, and technologically light years ahead of the previous generation. But what they don’t have is patience. If they cannot see the changes that they demand, they will seek out alternative methods and end runs to achieve it.
      I have come to realize that the lesser of two evils is just a lesser evil. Change is not going to be achieved by bumper stickers and political conventions with red, white, and blue hats. But change is going to occur! Forces such as WikiLeaks and Anonymous are just the top of a large glacier. The part that visible right now. But underneath the water is a LARGE mass of change just waiting to make it’s mark.
      Like minds bringing knowledge for the social consciousness. It’s the reason that RT7 was formed.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE
A TOOL IS USELESS IF IT’S NOT USED. Don’t just sit there…introduce a friend or relative to The Greanville Post and help us expand the reach of remedial ideas and information. If each of you brings merely ONE additional reader to the table, we will be able to double our circulation!

_______________________________________________________________

If you liked this article, why not support The Greanville Post by buying our T-shirt, a mug, a mousepad, or any other item now in our store? That way you donate a few dollars and also get a nice gift. It’s a win-win formula!

Created By CrankyBeagle for The Greanville Post
This and many other items at our store. Stop by today!




As Sweden Moves Right, The Country Suffers Its First Suicide Bombing

Is Sweden becoming rapidly toxified? 

DECEMBER 15, 2010

by Rob Prince | [print_link]

 

The news of two explosions in the heart of Stockholm – according to Yahoo!News the first suicide bombing in Sweden’s history – shook not only Sweden, but the whole Nordic region. Already fingers are pointing at Islamic radicals as the culprits, and this might very well be the case, although it helps not to jump to conclusions. Remember how the rush to judgment in Oklahoma City played out.

News of the bombing triggered a flow of personal memories of the country. I never lived there, but in the late 1980s traveled through Sweden repeatedly and got to know the different strands of its peace movement as they existed in those days rather well.

BELOW LEFT: Old street in the Gamla District of Stockholm

Communism – both as an ideology and as `really existing socialism’ – might have been collapsing as any kind of viable alternative model to capitalism, but at least there was Swedish social democracy – never really the `socialism’ that rightwing idiots in the USA claimed it was – but a state administered market economy with a strong social component. Yes, there was social distance between the rich and poor in Sweden, but more at the 10:1 rather than the 500:1 levels it was already approaching in the USA shortly thereafter. Probably not a model for the USA in someways – it’s hard to compare a culturally diversified country of 270 million with a largely culturally homogeneous nation of 9 or so million – but that said, we here could learn alot from the Swedes and how they set up their society.

I have fond memories of the place… among them

  • Attending the first open rally in Europe of a recently freed Nelson Mandela in Stockholm in March of 1990. Mandela chose
  • LEFT: The Vaasa, 17th Century Swedish warship that never made it out of Stockholm harbor. A reminder of the dead end that was Swedish militarism and imperialism in its earlier days

    Sweden for his European `entrée’ in gratitude for what was an extremely strong solidarity movement, not only in Sweden but throughout the Nordic countries, to end apartheid. Watching what I understood as the pure joy on the faces of so many blond and blue eyed Swedes at Mandela’s presence in their midst and the obvious love they felt for this Black former guerilla fighter, is the last time I can remember tears coming to my eyes

  • There was also the city of Orebro, in central Sweden, where I had a long talk with the mayor about the city’s program to integrate immigrants from Africa – as I recall they were from Somalia and Ethiopia – into the life of the city. There were programs like this all over the country – two years language training in Swedish, job training, and `cultural training’ (how to get on a bus, what to expect at the social services offices, etc..some of the not-so-obvious cultural rules and taboos of the Swedes). I wondered why other countries did not offer such thoughtful programs in cultural adaptation (or assimilation)
  • BELOW: Police examine the explosion site. The ultimate political message remains murky.
  • Then there was my friend Thorstein, who was arrested for hunting and killing a deer in `the Kings Forest’, the private preserve of Sweden’s King. It’s a country where virtually all forest land is public. I think Thorstein did a few months in jail for that; but he could not abide by the idea that a forest in Sweden was private property and thus Thorstein was willing to pay the price. In earlier times he would have been executed.

All that is more than 20 years ago. Haven’t been back since. But the memories linger.

A more sober view…

But even then, I suspected that the picture was too good to be true. This was after all a capitalist country with all the wonders and slime that entails. There had to be some rot, some decadence, somewhere hidden beneath those great social programs, its fine educational system, excellent public transportation and comprehensive healthcare system, although I was never there long enough to probe it.

During the Cold War, Sweden was often viewed as a neutral country. This was a bit exaggerated. Economically it was integrated first into what was called EFTA – the European Free Trade Association and then after the collapse of Communism, entered the European Union in 1995.

While it never had the same kind of security agreements with the USSR as did its neighbor (and for 750+ years, former colony, Finland) the fact that Sweden did not join NATO opened up opportunities for trade with Eastern Europe and the USSR that kept the country somewhat recession-proof during the 1970s when the Western European economies were floundering. If the country genuinely welcomed immigrants from Third World countries (much more receptive than neighboring Finland), it was not without some typical resentment and, as the decades wore on, increasing xenophobia.

throughout that period, arms manufacturing (Saab, Bofors) was among the country’s most successful industry and Sweden was selling arms up the kazoo to whoever would buy them, especially Third World dictatorships.

LEFT: The Saab JAS 39 Grupen jet fighter, a state of the art Swedish warplane. As guaranty to her independence, Sweden has tried to be self-sufficient in arms and defense technology for a long time. The size and overall power of her military is no match for the superpowers, but as a deterrent to adventurism, the posture may have worked.

More or less along the same right-wing militarist lines, while Sweden was `neutral’ during World War 2, and was able to avoid combat to its great credit, that it was forced to strike a deal with the devil and deliver – on the threat of possible Nazi invasion – all the iron ore that Hitler wanted.

Steig Larsson: He Hated Nazis

Even in the best of times, corporate fraud, hidden Nazi connections, ties between intelligence agencies, extreme rightwing racist hate groups and Eastern European drug rings were all there in Sweden lurking not that far beneath the surface waiting for the moment when they could take their pictures of Hitler out of the drawer. After the Soviet Union and Eastern European Communism had the nerve to collapse, leaving the West, for a moment anyway, without an enemy, the rightwing crazies in Sweden (and other Nordic countries) gained confidence and became bolder.

Two Swedish writers, Stieg Larsson (of the now famous `The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo’ series) and Henning Mankell, scratched below the surface of Sweden’s social democratic calm exterior, put the dots together, suggesting the rightwing forces so long and so patiently lurking in the shadows were about to have a coming out party.

It is likely that Larsson, who died of a heart attack just before his trilogy was published, would have had a field day with recent revelations of Sweden’s Queen Silvia’s Nazi family connections. The whole of Larsson’s professional life was dedicated to exposing and condemning the country’s hidden ultra right tendencies.


Burderus-Do-Brasil, Ltda that used slave labor. Then in 1939, Sommerlath moved to Berlin and took over a company called Wechsler and Hennig, which he bought from a Jewish manufacturer, one Efim Wechsler for a pittance of its value, which was typical of the times.

Signs have long been in the making.

  • With the shift in the strategic balance of power at the end of the Cold War, Sweden moved closer to the E.U. and the United States.
  • Although not yet formally integrated into NATO, it participates in what is called NATO’s `Partners For Peace’ program, which has included a series of joint maneuvers in the Baltic Sea and more recently, the sending of 500 Swedish combat troops to Afghanistan, a gesture which would have been unheard of 2 decades ago
  • While Sweden has long had an anti-immigrant ultra right party, it is gaining in strength. Just 3 months ago, the misnamed `Democratic Party’ gained an unprecedented 20 seats in the Sweden’s single assembly. Party members used to openly wear swastikas on their jackets, but have changed the party symbol to Sweden’s purple anemone to put a bit of make up on the corpse that is their political legacy in the country.

Larsson, Assange and WikiLeaks

Had he lived, there is little doubt that Stieg Larsson would be on the front lines defending Julian Assage’s commitment to releasing US State Department communiques to the general public through WikiLeaks. For Larsson and Assange shared many qualities. Larsson understood that `the need for secrecy’ essentially provided a veil for corporate and state crimes and that the kind of shallow jingo-istic hysteria which seems to be permeating the U.S. body politic at this moment is merely an excuse to take censorship here to yet another level.

Larsson would have had a very cynical view of the Swedish government’s little pathetic maneuvers to have Assange arrested on sexual misconduct charges for failure to use a condom in his sexual relations with two Swedish women who related with some excitement, their encounters with Assange to friends on Twitter.

And he, Larsson would have understood that Swedish government acquiescence to Obama Administration pressure by pressing charges against Assange is nothing more than an admission to the degree to which Sweden has drifted into the U.S. foreign policy orbit these last years and that the famous `Swedish neutrality’ has long been a dead letter.

(Thanks to Dr. James Roth for insightful suggestions.)

____________


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

New York City born and bred, (born Prensky-it became Prince when he was 3- he protested to no avail.) Prince graduate from St. Lawrence University in 1966 where he majored in French and minored in – of all things – Religion. On the day he returned home from graduation he received two invitations for foreign travel, both all expenses paid, one to Vietnam compliments of the US Army, the other to explore North Africa (specifically Tunisia) with the US Peace Corps. There wasn’t much existential angst about the decision. Preferring the option of building bridges rather than blowing them up, Prince chose the latter and served his country in Tunis and Sousse as a Peace Corps volunteer and staff member.