I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.
The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.
There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:
Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?
On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.
13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.
14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”
15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.
16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.
20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.
Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.
No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:
Either
Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.
Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.
Or
Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.
She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.
At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”
At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.
The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.
Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.
Conclusion
I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.
Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.
And Skipjack, it’s all right for you to point out that many genuine rape victims behave irrationally, but the police are supposed to follow procedures which are designed partly with the aim of ensuring that enough proper evidence is gathered, where rape really has occurred, for the rapist to be brought to justice – and you can say it’s common for this and common for that, but why were so many rules broken which practically any police officer with responsibility for interviewing alleged rape victims should have known like the back of their hand?
Ardin’s record looks very very CIA. That explains her actions. Bodstrom, Borgstrom, and Bildt are all CIA as well.
You talk about some rapes not matching the stereotypical case of rape by a stranger, which is a fair point, but why then use the word “survivor” in the present context – a word which calls up images of people being in fear for their lives or believing they are in danger of being gravely physically injured, which nobody is alleging applies to either of these cases?
Thanks Albanov I had forgotten about the blog entry. For those interested here are those steps:
7 Steps to Legal Revenge by AA
Step 1: Consider very carefully if you really must take revenge. It is almost always better to forgive than to avenge . . .
Step 2: Think about why you want revenge. You need to be clear about who to take revenge on, as well as why. Revenge is never directed against only one person, but also the actions of the person.
Step 3: The principle of proportionality. Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature. A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you. For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.
Step 4: Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures
for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him.
Use your imagination!
Step 5: Figure out how you can systematically take revenge. Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion.
Step 6: Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed. The ideal, of course, is a revenge as strong as possible but this requires a lot of hard work and effort for it to turn out exactly as you want it to.
Step 7: Get to work.
And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer.
Well, revenge is personal and in this case animus. The strange part is this lady has escalated her revenge to societal and invoked justice on weak evidence. Here lies the rub and why the prosecutor is silent. There is no judicial case yet Julian’s reputation has been destroyed already.
Zooming out of the JA story a little bit, I find myself slightly haunted by the last para of the post (“Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.”).
Note that “haunted” does not mean I disagree with it – just that it makes me think. If we distrust the courts even of our supposedly liberal democratic regimes – and I agree that after Guantanamo, Birmingham Six, possibly Lockerbie (I know too little about that case) et al. it’s very much arguable that too many mistakes happened in our courts – what is our alternative?
I.e. if someone is accused of something (and again, this is really not about Assange now), but we believe the courts will not give him a fair trial, what do we do? It’s not really possible to just “do nothing”, because then every murderer, fraudster, thief etc. would just be walking free forever. Yes, in theory there’s the possibility of democratic justice – the thing where your entire village/neighborhood assembles to judge you. Unfortunately, if you have a quick look at Switzerland, you’ll find that direct democracy can be pretty nasty as well (minaret ban…) – my personal guess is that “direct democratic justice” would just lead to hanging burglars and torture of kidnappers, but perhaps I’m too pessimistic.
Thoughts?
@ Michael
[Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged]
Michael,
I think we can trust our courts and our governmental institutions most of the time. It is the belief that the government is always benign which is crazed.
@Skipjack
Beyond all this, the obvious reason why AA didnt warn Sophia is that she will have known, as most survivors of rape come to realise, that if she claimed that a powerful and respected man such as Assange had raped her she would face aggressive and humiliating scrunity and examination of her character, her lifestyle and every decision she made in her relationship with Assange.
And what do you know? She was right.
No, she wasn’t. If this were logically true, the same thing would have happened to Sofia Wilen, which it hasn’t. The problem with AA is that her story is so obviously made up, including the claim of the torn condom tip, which turns out in fact to have been cut with a knife or scissors, all (supposedly) in the heat of a sexual interlude. And left lying there, waiting to be found by police a full 12 days later. A story which is, frankly, all but totally unbelievable.
Have you read the article I posted earlier at http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/ which details the inconsistencies in her various testimonies at different times, and conversations with her friends? (This article also, incidentally, gives a good account of Sofia Wilen as her statements are internally consistent and don’t change over time.)
I mean, are you defending AA for the sole reason she is a woman making an allegation of rape? Is no such person ever to be criticised? Even if they are making a false allegation? And, how is one to decide if it’s likely true or false?
If you take the position that it should be left to a judge and/or jury (never mind for the moment that Sweden doesn’t even have juries), then that’s dodging the question, as courts are also made up of human beings – so how are they supposed to judge the merits or otherwise of the case?
Or are we, as members of the public, just supposed to put up and shut up?
Of course, it goes without saying that women have been oppressed for centuries (millenia) by men, and that rape has been part of this process, and women are only in recent decades receiving the support they need to come forward and identify and prosecute their assailants.
I don’t think this discussion is about this at all – but about what seems to be a clear miscarriage of justice.
Craig
Your summary of Ardin’s case is both perceptive and accurate.
I had reached a similar conclusion, only in my case I spent half the night creating a spray diagram charting all the iconsistencies in Ardin’s acount of her relationship with Assange. When spread out on the floor the finished chart covers most of the carpet. That’s how silly Ardin’s account is!
Still, I got there in the end (though I had to use of lot of A3 paper in order to do it). 🙂
@JimmyGiro
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
-John Rogers
Since a partial lie is still a lie, then partial trust can not be trusted.
Craig, what an excellent question!
Mark, o. m. g. (Are there past lovers of AA who can testify to the aftermath of their affairs? It sounds like these are the scripts she loves to write and play in and has a history of.)
Here’s my followup question, though — could Sofia countersue Anna in Sweden for … I don’t know what you call it, reckless endangerment, or material support, or conspiracy or complicity in her “rape”?
It sounds to me like at the moment of truth when Anna could have warned Sofia but didn’t, Anna could have been calculating that she would get more sexual revenge satisfaction potential against Julian by using Sofia against him, that in fact it’s a kind of calculus she engages in and is proud of her prowess in, see Mark’s 7-step list. Step 4!
Not saying Sofia even needs to be able to prove anything conclusively or win a verdict to win the case — as Craig says, the accusation is its own reward. Maybe the best way for Sofia not to let herself be socially raped (what’s the best way to say it?) by Anna is for her to put Anna on the defensive? Maybe if Sofia can’t withdraw the charges by not signing the police statement, maybe she can enlarge upon them by including Anna as a defendant?
Maybe maybe maybe … ???
P.S. What kind of feminist lets another woman be raped? Me on the jury wants to know. And if I was me on the grand jury, would I have the chance to authorize charges against Anna?
JimmyGiro: and your conclusion from this is?
Craig: okay, fair. And I guess as a card-carrying member and supporter of several NGOs which spend most of their time and money on campaigning against governments, I’ve hardly ever thought that the government is “always benign”. My philosophical problem however really starts in those instances where we don’t trust the government:
1) Where do I draw the line? That is, if I believe that the (Swedish/British) government are making up fake charges against Assange for ulterior motives, and if I believe that our court system is not able to protect Assange from this, why should I believe that the government AND the judiciary will be more truthful in the case of John Doe from down the road, who was also accused of rape? Should I now mistrust the government on principle? And no, I can’t make a case-by-case decision because I don’t have the resources to read through all case files for all current criminal trials (in the way that you guys are reading through the Swedish JA case files) – and no newspaper will do that for me. 98% of the criminal trials in this country never even get more than a one-liner in the newspapers, if that
2) Again my question from above: Let’s say that we have a case where we established that gov’t and “establishment” (incl. judiciary) might have ulterior motives. Let’s say that Jane Smith is accused of murdering someone but at the same time we know that she is a former MI5 operative who (we suspect) may know too much about our government’s secret programs. So now we face a dilemma. We consider the UK courts to be biased and unfit. At the same time, can we really just say “Let her walk free, we figured out that the case against her is too shady”? In that case we just replaced “trial by court” by “trial by vox populi”, or at least that part of the vox populi who bothered to give a view on a blog etc. – we’ll probably never hear from the silent majority, not even if we did a referendum in every such case. Seriously, what would be the way forward?
@Technicolour
11 Sep, 2012 – 6:44 pm
For your information, and the benefit of others, my statement to Jon was a brief explanation, not a rambling essay or dissertation like so many other posts here. I didn’t post links or provide any further details because none is required. I am not debating anyone here, least of all some rabid feminist.
However, I will expand on one point I alluded to earlier. Feminists use rape as a propaganda weapon against all men. It is central to their identity as innocent targets of perpetual male aggression and to the casting of all males as a natural enemy in their ideological universe. And for this crime, they seek a special status for victims that is never afforded to victims of other crimes, including murder. Interestingly, feminists do not see rape as a criminal manifestation that combines the instense male sex drive with psychopathic violence. Rather, they see it as just one form of male expression of power and control over women that pervades their universe.
I’m not going to selectively post links that others could, justifiably, claim were chosen simply because they support my comments. Instead, I encourage readers to google the subject matter, read what’s out there and discern for themselves the accuracy of my observations.
The relevance of my comments relates ultimately to the motives of those who wish to destroy Wikileaks and a new found awareness that ordinary people can participate in the exposure of major crimes by our governments and private institutions.
Michael,
Absolutely the right questions, and the answers are not easy, and I think have to be developed ad hoc. Only advice I have is, where you do achieve certainty, fight with every fibre of your being.
The thesis that some people stay close to their aggressor in order to make it seem ‘ok’ is proven: both women and men can stay in abusive relationships/marriages for years, not just days. Age is not, I think, relevant: what one person will do at one age not only differs between people but between situations. Nor is abstract knowledge necessarily experience. I can also think of another reason why one woman would not warn another: they thought that it, whatever it was, was their fault; that they had somehow ‘deserved’ it; that it was a singular event, not a pattern.
To return to Assange: nothing has been shown to suggest that his behaviour is a pattern. But the case, if there is a case, does not surely depend on the nature of some of the attempted defences: these women were ‘sluts’, or they were effectively incapable of being raped – or sexually pestered, even. The case, if there is a case, should depend on forensic evidence and the evidence of both parties, and other witnesses. There is enough evidence that the US want to extradite Assange, and enough background on the attacks on whistleblowers, for it to be in the public interest that this case is heard in public, before a jury: I agree with Craig. However, it seems that this is not an option. What, then, is the next stage?
Which leads me to wonder, can Assange counter-sue?
Skipjack, these descriptions of the distress of genuine rape victims are true, of course. But there’s definitely a fit-up going on to try to destroy JA, and — if possible — to get him into the US gulag archipelago concentration camps. The two Swedish women, like anyone who may have suffered rape, deserve proper investigation and justice. JA deserves the same. Are any of them at all likely to get their deserts, looking at the huge media screechfest that’s erupted around them? And looking also at the obvious fact that criminal elements within the US, English and Swedish power-establishments are trying to render and disappear JA, and are quite willing to use the two Swedish women as expendable pawns in the process.
Commitment to intelligent and sensitive justice for vulnerable women in rape cases is excellent and essential. But so too is commitment to intelligent realism about black, criminal realpolitik. Which of course doesn’t give a damn about justice, democracy, the rule of law….
@Jemand, on a media that is biased in favour of social justice. I think I pretty much agree completely with your position – yes, ownership. I suggested law to lock in democratic accountability earlier, but equally a co-operative ownership model might do the trick.
Focussing on “truth, knowledge and accountability” – they would be good too. My approach was that if you can get people to care about strangers/humanity, in a deep sense, then wanting those other things in a media/political/economic system will become second nature. I wonder too about how what we are has been replaced by what we have, and hence reversing that trend might get people to connect a bit more. But, ultimately, we sound like we’re after precisely the same thing here – great!
Jemand: “Feminists use rape as a propaganda weapon against all men”
Jon is a self-proclaimed feminist (hope you don’t mind if I repeat that, Jon?) Do you think he uses ‘rape as a propaganda against all men’?
There has been this argument at length before, on a thread with Jimmygiro, in fact. He too failed to provide any backup for his extraordinary statements. The fact that a minority of very disturbed and abused women may have gone down this route does not make every feminist a man-hater or rape-cryer, any more than the sick men who rape make every man a sick rapist.
Surely that should be clear?
It might be instructive for some to appreciate the significance of Mr. Murray’s term: “useful idiots”, in regards to this case and to the subversion tactics deployed by the KGB in the west.
I’m convinced that feminism is a subversive evil, deliberately deployed to destroy the family and other aspects of our culture. Originally funded by Moscow [second wave feminism], it now is being deployed by our own State for precisely the same ends. The old soviet union used feminism to destroy Britain’s resolve to fight in NATO: c.f. Greenham common.
Our State continues the use of feminism to destroy our culture, so that the bureaucracy can take over without requiring democratic imput: c.f. dumbing down of schools, filled with feminist teachers, that use Ritalin on boys; advocacy of gay-marriage to devalue heterosexual family culture; the rise of the feminist dominated social services, that wilfully kidnap children from their heterosexual parents on the slightest pretext of ‘abuse’, only to foster them to same sex couples if they can, or dump them in state care, noted for its real child abuse. The feminist laws that favour employing women over men, is a means to destroy the culture of independent men, making them drastically less likely to marry and support a family. And once they have destroyed the family and hence the culture, the peoples capability to think for themselves is diminished, and the State assumes absolute control over all aspects of life.
The ‘useful idiot’ term applies here to feminists, as they need to believe they are doing what they are doing for some ‘greater good’, such as ‘equality’; even though misandry has nothing to do with fairness or justice. Once the feminists have destroyed the family and men’s financial independence, then the feminists themselves will be cut loose from the Nomenklatura, and dumped among the men to share their slavery.
For a one hour lecture from the ‘horses mouth’ regarding subversion, and why the Trojan Mare feminists are going to get dumped, once used, see the seven short clips by Yuri Bezmenov, of which this link is the first:
http://www.cosmolearning.com/documentaries/yuri-bezmenov-lecture-on-subversion-1983/12/
Skipjack: thank you for that link, I found it extremely moving and compelling in its honesty too. I agree that “the case concerns a powerful man and has been seized upon by state interests to use for political persecution”, and that this is no reason to resort to stereotypic tropes to discredit the women involved. I don’t see that Craig was doing that: he is questioning the apparent testimony of one of the people involved, and he is not his commentators (me included).
Jemand, on feminism:
Well, I’d start by saying there aren’t just two sides to feminism. Choose at random a set of views on (a) the rape issues raised by the Assange case, (b) the impact of the sex industry on women, (c) the impact of the fashion industry on women, (d) whether feminism can be defined and shaped by progressive people of all genders, (e) how to increase the number of successful rape prosecutions (etc) – and you have one particular strand.
I hear you when you say you’ve come across feminists of a certain stripe, but I think it is important not to tar all feminists with the same brush. Naomi Wolf is a tireless campaigner for women’s rights, but broadly comes out in favour of Assange – a decision which comes from balancing complex, competing legal and civil rights. I don’t get the impression – having read articles from her before – that she is “militant”. Ditto plenty of other feminists (of both genders).
To answer that point, let me first say this: I moderately agree with positive discrimination used as a tool to fix ancient wrongs, and if there is a small rebalancing (say, to the tune of 5%) in favour of women, black people, people of minority sexuality, older people etc, then that’s the price we pay for having permitted the injustice in the first place.
With that in mind, do I imagine that positive colour discrimination would be shut down when racial equality is obtained? Yes, I do – and I see attempts to balance gender discrimination (either in academic studies, or in women shortlists etc) in the same way.
Incidentally, a friend of liberal feminist views recently said to me that, in the UK at least, the term “Gender Studies” is now preferred rather than “Women’s Studies”. She felt it was a good development, since it reflected a more nuanced thinking:
* Men can be feminists
* Men are affected by changing the position/power of women in society
* Feminism needs to be inclusive, especially since all the other anti-discrimination movements “reached across the divide” years ago
In summary, I am sorry your experience of feminism has thus far been poor, but we are out there! Perhaps we don’t shout about how moderate we are enough 😉
By the way – @Technicolour has put forward views on feminism on this blog before, and they are certainly not rabid. I think you mistook her post for the angry brigade you mention, but if you were to engage/discuss, you’ll find that’s not the case.
@Jon, I bring a question over from the last thread, you asked,
“Aside from the predictable establishment/neoconservative perspectives, I wonder whether the bias in the Swedish media is due in some part to national pride?”
Yes definitely,
* The necon/lib big media and newspapers corporations have the same issue as i guess around the world
* The public service and left leaning media channels and blogs has been outraged about the rape accusations
* and absolutley everyone has been completly around the twist in regard to the percived challange to the Swedish national prestige.
Maybe just for the sake of curiosity’s, a recent investigation (Asp 2011, University of Gothenburg) into the political affiliations of working journalist in Sweden, showed that 72% have sympathies with “left” side in Swedish politics, either the social democrats, 16%, the communist party, 14%, or the green party, 42%.
In regard to public service, this ratio is even higher, above 80%, and public service i.e. Swedish Television and Swedish Radio still has a dominant postion in the Swedish media landscape.
@technicolour – ah, our posts cross in the ether!
That’s totally fine, yes – encouraging liberal feminist thinking in men, and challenging certain strands of feminism to accept it, is something that I find very interesting at the moment.
Jeez, Jon, it’s not just tokenism. Anything – common sense too – will tell you that including all parts of society equally in stuff is a good thing, for society, for the environment, for children, for all those rich white men too. If we’re just talking women, these surveys tell you:
“The stock prices of small and mid-size companies with at least one female board member have performed 17 percent better over the past six years than those without one, the survey found. The difference is even wider at large companies, where female-friendly boards perform 26 percent better.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/women-board-members_n_1725251.html
Simply put, more women leaders is correlated with higher levels of philanthropy as well as increases in other CSR areas, such as environmental CSR
Read more: http://thegrindstone.com/career-management/study-shows-putting-more-women-in-charge-at-companies-is-better-for-society-and-earth-too-602/#ixzz26CO119Lq
Sure there are doubtless equal surveys about the benefits of including dead people too – who could make a bigger mess of our economy and our environment than the current shedload? But the point is, this is not about suggesting a ‘takeover’; it is about just including more voices: 41 percent of companies globally have no women on their boards. Women still earn less than men in 90 percent of job types:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/08/four-decades-on-equal-pay-yet-to-come
And so on. What on earth is this about?
Craig: “I think we can trust our courts and our governmental institutions most of the time. It is the belief that the government is always benign which is crazed.”
Jon: “I suggested law to lock in democratic accountability earlier, but equally a co-operative ownership model might do the trick.”
If you do not trust the Government then why trust the state it engenders or the law it imposes?
Shoplifting is a crime but cheating parliamentary expense is against the spirit of an agreement. Fiddling your dole gets you disapprobation and a criminal record. Fiddling LIBOR gets you a promotion and an estate in the Bahamas.
Small crimes are penalised but large crimes are, well, not crimes.
Hi Tech:
I am pretty sure we’re in agreement, but I am not sure what I said that prompted that response. I want full opportunity for equality for everyone, across each of the discrimination divides.
Yep 🙂
Jon, it was this bit: “I moderately agree with positive discrimination used as a tool to fix ancient wrongs, and if there is a small rebalancing (say, to the tune of 5%) in favour of women, black people, people of minority sexuality, older people etc, then that’s the price we pay for having permitted the injustice in the first place”.
what I think I’m saying is that it’s ‘not the price we have to pay’, but the value society could be adding, and is currently discarding, at the cost of its own well-being.
I dont know how well known this is, but when the issue of Assange broke out in Aug 2010, he was actual on the verge of being contracted as a columnist for our biggest, and left leaning tabloid, Aftonbladet.
And the initial reactions and articles in all media after the story broke, were to my mind very correct, cautious and objective in treating the matter, at least in our big national morning newspapers, Dagens Nyheter (DN) and Svenska Dagbladet (SVD).
But already on the 26 of August 2010, “Expressen”, the opposite right leaning tabloid, had a fiercily indignant editorial that I think really changed the tone of voice. Some selected excerps, (my translation)
‘Which girls will dare to report? Foul young men and women in the blogosphere represents an acute threat aginst gender equality.’
‘At the same time as the super leaker is bewailed and hailed something horrifically is happening’
The author then reprints some comments she has come across on the internet…
‘ ‘On reasonable grounds suspected to have sprayed in the pussy!’ one bloggers laugh, and continues that ‘you do not engage the state just because you have had a bad sexual experiance.’
‘In reality only a few percent of alla reported rape allegations to prosecution, and the numbers that don’t register complaints – the unreported cases – are belived to be large.’
‘Net bullying will probably cause the the number of unreported cases to increase’
This touches on so many of the really highly charged political buttons in the Swedish gender and sexual political landscape, and was to my mind nothing but a sounding rallying cry for all the gender equality forces in Sweden.
This really marked the case, and also set the tone, or finally placed the case in the mind of many journalists and observers i believe, and it was from now on, if not soner, firmly seen as case in the fight for gender equality.
I too am a feminist!
Like many things, it comes down to defining a word. If you define feminism as “women who accuse all men of rape” then that’s not really me. But should you use “someone who likes a strong, free-thinking wench” then count me in.
Jon, perhaps we should get together and have a big girly night in. I’ll wash up. Do you like to discuss Marx by any chance?
Jon, ignore Phil – won’t do the washing up or Marx but will discuss Raymond Williams & pea soup. It’s your choice…
Phil, serious, right. Why would anyone define feminism, given its fairly recent history – struggle for votes, equal pay, property rights, right not be raped in marriage etc – as ‘women who accuse all men of rape’?