Naomi Wolf, Wikileaks and Inconsistency

Naomi Wolf has written a piece on the Huffington Post about the "lost cojones" of America's journalists who refuse to defend Julian Assange against the American government in the Wikileaks leaks issue. This post does not discuss the alleged sexual crimes Julian Assange is said to have committed, so I don't really have much of an issue with this post, in fact, Wolf and I are in agreement when it comes to a lot of this. She rightly points out that he is wanted for very similar things to what journalists often see as their work - exposing secrets of the government, acting as the watch dog against the powerful and the mighty in society, ensuring that they do not abuse their power.

As always, there are people who would be in disagreement with this view of the media's role, but the media can be an effective tool in exposing power abuses. The problem in that is that media in and of itself becomes a power player holding the sole power to expose scandals and shape the opinion of the people. Media, too, can become too powerful. Just take the Murdoch imperium, for instance, which owns a significant amount of the media in the US as well as the UK; media which is quite well known to engage in a lot of right-wing rhetoric and opinion building (Fox Entertainment Group, is one example).

But enough about that. Let's get back to Naomi Wolf.

After arguing about the hypocrisy of all the American journalist (apart from herself, I suppose), she asks the question:

So why do all these American reporters, who know quite well that they get praise and money for doing what Assange has done, stand in a silence that can only be called cowardly, while a fellow publisher faces threats of extradition, banning, prosecution for spying -- which can incur the death penalty -- and calls for his assassination?

A valid and interesting question, but not nearly as interesting as the answer she herself offers immediately after:

One could say that the reason for the silence has to do with the sexual misconduct charges in Sweden. But any serious journalist in America knows perfectly well that the two issues must not be conflated. The First Amendment applies to rogues and scoundrels. You don't lose your First Amendment rights because of a sleazy personality, or even for having committed a crime. Felons in jail are protected by the First Amendment. Indeed the most famous First Amendment cases, the ones that are supposed to showcase America's strength and moral power, involve the protection of speech most decent people hate.

Say what, now?

Once again, the frustrating woman has done what Jessica Valenti has criticised her for earlier: claiming not to read the internet, but somehow still find out all the criticism against her and then utterly fail to engage with it in her next piece but somehow try to correct it anyway. It is just that the woman never faces the criticism. She just ends up arguing against herself, as she is in this case as well.

Naomi Wolf has over and over managed to make Wikileaks and the rape charges against Julian Assange synonymous, which they are not, as I have written about over and over. I will try it one more time. Wikileaks the organisation is not Julian Assange the person, and everyone would do better in understanding this, supporters of Wikileaks just as much as the US government who are seizing the opportunity to bring Julian Assange to trial for completely unrelated accusations.

Back to the point. So Naomi Wolf is now criticising all the journalists in the United States of America for not being vocal enough about the horrific things that the US government might do to him (which they should criticise) because of their incapability to separate the sexual assault accusations against Assange from the organisation Wikileaks, while she has herself not been able to do that throughout the entire debate. I don't know if I should be happy it seems she has taken criticism to heart, or frustrated that she does in no way try to correct the blatant rape apologia she has been spreading. To be honest, I think that this new insight on her part will only last as long as it doesn't suit her purpose to write a provocative article again. As soon as the trial for extradition starts, I am sure she will be back to her rape apologetic self, calling the women jealous, petty and liars again.

What is more, and what is really, really relevant seeing as Naomi Wolf is a self-proclaimed feminist who has been held in quite high regard in feminist circles is her use of cojones in the headline. Cojones is a vulgar Spanish word for testicles denoting courage. While this word is relatively accepted and mainstream when it comes to talking about courage, much like 'balls' is, it is a word that refers to the male genitals meaning that females cannot in any possible way have these, i.e. courage. It is a word that is grounded in male/female gender roles with the male as the courage, active protector of the weak, passive, incapable female. Females cannot have cojones, nor can they have balls in the sense that they are being used synonymously with courage. Cojones and balls are not female, they are male, and exclusively so by biology. Courage is male, by biology, it implies, and it is physically impossible for women to gain it. It does not take a deep level of gender analysis to see this, and that Naomi Wolf has failed to do so is nothing but embarrassing. Granted, the headline could have been set by someone else, as often happens when articles are published, but in that case I really do hope that Wolf engages in a very long and heated lecture on why this particular word is inappropriate to use.

Someone mentioned in relation to her previous pieces and appearances on rape and Wikileaks (both separately and in relation to each other) that she is arguing what she is arguing in an attempt to revive a down-spiralling career. This latest addition seems to say so too. Unfortunately for Naomi Wolf is that if she doesn't engage with the criticism she is receiving, and respond to it appropriately, she is unlikely to gather much support. Judging from her performance on BBC World Have Your Say three weeks ago she is not likely to engage with anyone criticising her soon, but rather keep on patronising and ignoring them. It seems she is digging her own grave.

Let's Crucify the Rape Survivors

Naomi Wolf does it again. This time she has written an article in the Guardian calling for a forced outing of the accusers of Julian Assange using the stigma attached to sexual assault survivors as the reason for doing so. While there are some valid points to Wolf's argument, for instance that not identifying survivors feeds into the rape myths about how sexual assault/rape survivors should look like, act, be, et cetera, she seems to completely neglect the other side of the argument, that sexual assault/rape survivors should not be involuntarily outed because they need to be protected against, say, the mob. Instead Wolf talks about taking moral responsibility, facing the accuser and changing the perception of rape as a crime.

The real issue, however, becomes quite clear when Wolf starts talking about Assange and him being dragged before the public eye and voicing worries about this case, because of geopolitical tensions, standing little chance of actually being free and fair. These worries are very valid, and a lot of people who call against rape trivialisation are worried about exactly the same thing. There is little doubt in most people's minds that this is a politically precarious situation where the Swedish judicial system will have to seriously guard its integrity against the pressures of political giants like USA, but perhaps even its own government. These sexual assault allegations are being stretched to the point of distortion from both Wikileaks supporters and Wikileaks opponents to further their own political agendas. (Key here being Wikileaks opponents and/or supporters of the organisation which is, as argued before, separate from the person Julian Assange.) Making sure that the trial is, therefore, free and fair and without political motivations (meaning keeping the trial to the allegations made, not ones possibly made in the future) is essential not only to supporters of free speech, but also to feminists and other people against rape trivialising around the world.

Wolf has previously complained how these rape allegations have been made to further a political agenda and that the women doing so should be ashamed of themselves. She, along with other self-proclaimed feminists have called this entire case a slap in the face against all rape survivors, basing this on the fact that because rape accusations have in the past been made against politically powerful people, this case must be the same. As I have written before, just because states and other power players can benefit from this situation does not mean that they have orchestrated it. The logic saying it inevitably has to be so is severely flawed, indeed, there is no logic behind it at all. Powerful states, people, organisations or any kind of players have always benefited from unconnected situations that happen to play neatly into their agenda. They can simply be capitalising from a situation that occurred simultaneously. Is it a big coincidence this is happening at the same time? Yes. Does it mean that Julian Assange cannot be a man who sexually assaults and/or rapes women? No.

This entire article by Naomi Wolf is nothing more than to further her own agenda. She is obviously a strong believer in Wikileaks and what it does. So am I. The difference between us is that I will not crucify potential sexual assault survivors just because of it. I can still believe strongly in free speech and not trivialise rape. In fact, I think it is contradictory to do what Wolf does. These women deserve to be heard, they deserve to be taken seriously - they deserve to be able to exercise their rights to free speech without being ostracised, bullied and crucified for it. That Assange became a victim of the press who published the leak of these allegations (appreciate the irony here) does not mean that it is right to bring these women to a public trial as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, as it is said.

What still baffles me, though, is how Wolf fails to understand that what she is doing is just as much a slap in the face to rape survivors all over. She has consistently said that rape allegations should not be used to further political agendas, and she is correct. That states are using these accusations as some kind of proof that Assange (read Wikileaks) is a bad man (organisation) is nothing but wrong. That does not mean, however, that these accusations are false or that these women are simply pawns in some greater political game. These accusations could be true and these women could be used to further political agendas at the same time. None of those statements are mutually exclusive. What Wolf does when she completely dismisses these accusations offhand is to feed further into the rape myths. She is doing exactly what she claims she wants to prevent: she is setting the terms and boundaries of who can and who cannot be rape/ sexual assault survivors. Apparently, Wolf has decided, to qualify as someone who can be raped or sexually assaulted in another way, the accusations must be made against someone who does not have political power. Because if these accusations are made against someone in political power, especially someone working as a rogue self-proclaimed hero of the average person, that being noble and all, it inevitably means these accusations are false. I wonder what Wolf would have written if these accusations would have been made against some powerful political player who works within the nation-state apparatus?

It is just as important today as it was a month ago to be able to hold two thoughts at the same time. Using these accusations to further a political cause related to Wikileaks is nothing but wrong, and that goes for both sides. The beautiful irony in this entire series of debate articles that Wolf has written against states using rape accusations for their own purposes is that she is doing exactly the same. She is no better herself than the states that she is criticising. What is more is that it becomes more and more obvious for each article she writes. What is sad is that she is losing credibility among feminists, but perhaps it is all for the best. If Wolf is to continue trivialising rape and feeding into rape myths she may as well stay far away from feminism and the feminist base, as far as I am concerned.

I'm Disappointed, Michael Moore

Michael Moore, the well-known documentary film maker has stated publicly on his blog why he is posting bail money for Julian Assange. So far I'm with him, Wikileaks have done a great many good things and to want to post bail money for the front figure of the organisation is in no way a statement on being against rape and sexual assault accusations or saying that they do not deserve to be heard. I can understand why a lot of people think that Assange deserves to come out on bail and move about freely while extradition negotiations are underway as long as he does not try to escape the UK. It makes sense, people do not think he should be incarcerated before a crime has been proven. Swedish authorities have appealed this decision, according to Gemma Lindfield, representative of the Swedish authorities, because they believe there is a real possibility Assange might attempt to leave the country. A valid concern, I think, but perhaps not strong enough to keep this man locked up while the extradition is negotiated, a process that has been said could take weeks.

So when Swedish authorities appealed this decision to let Assange out on bail, Michael Moore tweeted the following:

I will be lying if I didn't say I expected better from this man, perhaps naïvely. Michael Moore has bought into these theories of a joint Swedish government/feminist and CIA co operation conspiracy. As a man who have produced documentaries that I have enjoyed immensely because of their capability of revealing things that have not been seen when looking at issues superficially, I would have expected him to do a little bit more critical thinking than that. Instead, it seems, that his hatred of the American government(s) and their power plays has made him automatically assume that this cannot be anything but a great puppet show with the US apparatus pulling the strings. I am disappointed.

I have said before and I feel forced to reiterate: serious accusations deserve to be heard and considered in an appropriate manner. Accusations of sex crimes, including rape, are serious, and therefore deserve to be heard. They do not automatically deserve to be believed without any critical thinking, but neither do they deserve to be dismissed as another one of America's great schemes in the plot to take over the world.

I can understand the willingness to defend Wikileaks and post bail for a man that has not been sentenced to any crime yet, but I cannot understand how a world renowned investigative journalist dismissed these accusations through such narrow thinking.

A Note on Feminism

Because of this whole Assange sex crime circus and the alleged feminist conspiracy taking place against him, or rather Wikileaks (which is not synonymous with Assange and important to keep in mind), it seems that there are several misconceptions about feminism. Feminists all over the place are being painted out to belong to a certain club that by proxy have taken a position against Assange and have accused him of committing the sex crimes that he is accused for. It is essential to separate between accusing Assange and simply pointing out that serious accusations should be taken seriously, which is what feminists have been doing. There is a lot of confusion over rape laws, consent and such things, and I have myself been guilty of assuming certain things about rape and the legislation surrounding it. What is important to note is that there is no such thing as "Sex by Surprise", it is an inappropriate euphemism that seems to have been (mis)communicated to Assange's attorney.

The entire circus upsets me, because it seems that feminists everywhere are getting the blame for Assange being accused of these crimes. It is as if people think our alleged man-hating, left-wing agenda is the perfect weapon for bringing down this popular man. It is also funny how this is alleged to have been in co operation with CIA as a joint international feminist/CIA/US-and-its-supporting-regimes crack down on Wikileaks, as Joan Smith at the Independent points out. Feminism usually is not associated with neo-imperialism, neo-liberalism or any such thing apart from being its opponent. That feminism and these ideologies now would co operate to bring down Wikileaks is quite far-fetched to say the least. That is not saying that one feminist could not have CIA ties, but it is probably not due to her feminist views that she would, then, co operate with CIA.

I expect a huge backlash against rape survivors, feminists and also women all over the world when this case is over. The statistics speak against Assange being sentenced to anything - Sweden has appallingly low conviction rates for sex crimes. I fear that once this is over those of us who spoke up against trivialising sex crime charges and smear campaigns are going to get this thrown in our faces in some sort of "I told you that a lot of women falsely accuses men for rape, just for revenge of some sorts." I also fear that this will lead to rape myths being reinforced in society and that it will belittle people taking women or men accusing someone of a sex crime. This is a plea not to let this happen. Any case should be considered in court on its own merits, and that is where the final verdict should come from.

Self-identifying as a feminist does not rob me, nor anyone else, of the capability to rational thought, nor does it make us by default 'radical' or 'militant.' Feminism is a broad approach that includes people from all over the political spectrum, although perhaps over-represented by people with certain political leanings. Point being, we are all individuals whose view-points and arguments deserve to be considered with the same respect and regard as anyone else's.

What we do have in common is an advocacy for women's rights. This does not, by proxy, make us man-haters or in any sense make us think that men's rights in the area where they are discriminated are just as important. Neither does it make us think that there should not be people advocating these rights as well. In fact, some feminists do, and some chose to focus solely on women's questions, some include sexualities, some have other issues they also advocate. It is a broad concept, and generalisations about what all feminists think about an issue based on one, or two, or some self-identifying feminists will often be wrong.

See this as a plea not to trivialise sex crime accusations both in this particular case with Assange, but also after this case is over. And please, do not drag an entire theory into this smear campaign, because that is simply not justified.

Feminist Conspiracies and Julian Assange

It is hard to avoid all this hype around Assange and Wikileaks. I know this will be my third consecutive post on it, but there is just so much that is off with the entire circus.

Today, another one of those anti-rape charge news articles were posted by Daily Mail. (I wrote about the AOL News article yesterday.) This one is not much better than the last one, and some of the bits made me close my eyes in disgust.

Once again, a lot of the emphasis is put on the fact that at least one of the women is a self-proclaimed feminist. In this article it is described as follows

An attractive blonde, Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes.
While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist ­academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.

She is this time not only a radical feminist, but a militant one, taking this description of aggression and rabidness to a whole different level than when she was simply described as 'radical.' It is also implying some kind of physical method of resistance, I suppose against the patriarchy, or men in general. I'm reiterating what I said yesterday: just because this woman is a feminist, radical, militant or whatever type doesn't mean that she cannot be raped or sexually assaulted in any other way. In fact, having manoeuvred the legal system in cases of sexual harassment before means that she is probably more knowledgeable about what rights she has and doesn't have. Likewise, it does not tell anything about the case that Assange has said that he will fight the extradition to Sweden.

Also, about some of the rumours about the power relations in rape cases. The legislation exists. But as far as I have gathered from reading about it, both in media and various discussions, it was passed because of different relations than the ones involved in this case. The legislation is, the argument goes, there for the protection of people that are essentially in a dependency position, for instance a boss and his/her employee. If the boss at one point indicates or expressly says to his/her employee that sex is needed for advancement, this would be counted as rape. The same goes for a situation with, say a university Professor and his/her student with regards to grades. If the person that clearly has more power over the other forces the other person through verbal threats, explicit or implicit, that if the dependent person does not have sex with him/her, they will not receive the promotion/grades promised. Note that this is not simply sleeping one's way up to the top, there is an element of coercion in this case. I don't know what allegation the women accusing Assange made in regards to power relations or anything similar, but I would think that this particular piece of legislation would not be applicable in this case, unless there is information that we do not know about that points to something like this. If this law can be thrown around on little to no basis at all, then yes, I agree with its critics, it needs to be seriously revised, but I would like to have a little more faith in the judicial system than that.

This whole business seems to me have turned into an affair of Wikileaks vs. the women. And I do not mean Wikileaks as in the organisation itself has turned against the women; I mean Wikileaks in the sense that people seem to have made Julian Assange synonymous with Wikileaks. Wikileaks is an organisation, not a person, and people would do very well to keep this in mind. There is no doubt that Wikileaks have done people good through releasing information; people have the right to know. However, just because Wikileaks, the organisation has done something good, does not mean Julian Assange the person cannot do something bad. This argument is applicable in the reverse as well for those who see this information leak as something negative. Just because Wikileaks the organisation did something you consider horrible, does not mean that Julian Assange the person will inevitably rape women.

Lastly, I want to point out that just because Sweden has a legal system that is equal, that takes into consideration women's needs in such cases as rape, where the conviction rates are appallingly low, does not mean it hates men or that it inevitably discriminates men. The statistics speak to the reverse, it is very hard to be sentenced for a rape crime. Besides, Sweden is not exactly known for its fierce punishments and long prison sentences. I would believe many people regard the Swedish legal system as 'soft' because of its focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

The Swedish state is great in many senses, it has been at the top of the list for democratic countries for a while, and is according to the previously linked index the most democratic country. This does not mean it is flawless, but it does mean that we do have a judicial system that is reliable. It does also point to the fact that there is no huge feminist conspiracy of this seemingly man-hating country in addition to the much-speculated government conspiracies. (By the by, I would like to set something straight here - feminism doesn't mean being against men; it means the struggle for equality between men and women and although there are man-hating people identifying as feminists, this is not the norm.)

Sweden is a country that respects women's rights, some would even argue perhaps not as much as it should, and I, as a native Swede, resent that this should be painted in a bad light. There is no anti-male bias, or an exclusive pro-female bias, but there is a will to reach equality between the sexes. This equality is completely opposite to the view that all men are rapists, so there is no logical basis that anyone should judge Sweden as a country who is anti-male, which is what all this talk about Assange "running afoul" of pro-feminist laws seems to imply (from the AOL News article cited in yesterday's post).

Also, keep in mind, Sweden is not charging Assange for any involvement he has with Wikileaks; they are charging him with the alleged rape, sexual harassment and duress against two women. This is not a trial of Wikileaks, this is a trial of a man who has been accused of sexual offences.

For any specific questions regarding Swedish rape law, a Swedish law student under the pseudonym Mortality has kindly offered to answer questions. If you are genuinely interested with the nuances and grey areas of Swedish rape law, contact this person with your questions. If you are just out to criticise Swedish rape law, I suggest you do not clutter this person's mail box.

"Sex by Surprise"

A friend of mine posted this news article from AOL News on Facebook. It tells that Julian Assange's UK based lawyer called what Assange was charged for "sex by surprise" and it is insinuated that this is a Swedish crime.

First of all, let me put this straight: there is no such crime as "sex by surprise" in Sweden. Assange is charged for rape, sexual harassment and duress, and this is, what is called in Swedish legal terms, on "sannolika skäl;" a classification that means that the prosecutor has enough evidence to make her believe it is likely the verdict will be in her favour. There is fairly strong evidence, then, it is not charge pulled out of thin air. "Sex by surprise" or överraskningssex as it would be translated in Swedish is slang for rape. It is a term that is used when speaking about rape, but jokingly, or keeping it light, a word that brings with it positive connotations, which makes the word inappropriate in itself, but it is nevertheless synonymous with rape.

What allegedly happened, AOL News reports, was

The woman and Assange also reportedly had sex. According to the Daily Mail account, Assange did not use a condom at least one time during their sexual activity. The New York Times today quoted accounts given by the women to police and friends as saying Assange "did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use."

Take a close look at the section I put in italics there. Assange did not comply with the woman's appeals to stop. It does not matter when these appeals were voiced, it matters that they were. By continuing having sex with the woman when she had voiced her wishes not to have sex with him, he had sex with her without her consent: rape by definition.
Note, that it isn't, as is also said in the news article, "Sweden's unusual rape laws, which are considered pro-feminist because of the consideration given issues of consent when it comes to sexual activity -- including even the issue of whether a condom was used." - it has to do with consent, and in this case, it was allegedly lacking, which is what the charges are based on. And no, it does not matter that they were having sex while she changed her mind, a person is allowed to stop a sexual act at any point (have a look at the rape myths below - "Myth: Once a man gets sexually aroused, he can't just stop - Fact: Men do not physically need to have sex after becoming sexually excited. Moreover, they are still able to control themselves after becoming aroused").

What really worries me with this whole circus is that it is panning out to be a popularity contest, as with so many other rape cases. There is the much-loved, at least by people not involved in the state, liberator of information against the allegedly rabid Swedish feminist. The article says about one of Assange's accusers:

She's a 31-year-old blond academic and member of the Social Democratic Party who's known for her radical feminist views, once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men and was once thrown out of Cuba for subversive activities.

This belongs to rape myths 101 - that a woman cannot be raped because she acts in a certain way, dresses in a certain way or said some things at one point or another. Just because this woman is a feminist who is interested in how to take revenge on men does not mean she cannot be raped or sexually assaulted, whichever one of the accusations she is behind. Following the same logic, it would mean that Assange is more than likely to be a rapist because he has been described as a chauvinist by Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Icelandic MP. Neither of these facts tell anything about whether or not Julian Assange has raped and/or sexually assaulted the women.

This is a matter for the courts. They have the evidence, they will reach a verdict. Do not make this a public trial. Read this instead (from the Roger Williams University webpage):

Myth: Rape is caused by lust or uncontrollable sexual urges and the need for sexual gratification.

Fact: Rape is an act of physical violence and domination that is not motivated by sexual gratification.

Myth: Once a man gets sexually aroused, he can't just stop.

Fact: Men do not physically need to have sex after becoming sexually excited. Moreover, they are still able to control themselves after becoming aroused.

Myth: Women often lie about rape or falsely accuse someone of rape.

Fact: Statistical studies indicate false reports make up 2% or less of the reported cases of sexual assault. This figure is approximately the same for other types of crimes. Only 1 out of 10 rapes are actually reported. Rapes by someone the victim knows are the least likely to be reported.

Myth: Women provoke sexual assault by their appearance. Sexual attractiveness is a primary reason why a rapist selects a victim.

Fact: Rapists do not select their victims by their appearance. They select victims who are vulnerable and accessible. Victims of sexual assault range in age groups from infants to the elderly. Sexual attractiveness is not an issue.

Myth: Sexual assault is a topic that only concerns women, and men do not have to be concerned about sexual assault.

Fact: According to recent rape crisis center statistics, men, both straight and gay, suffered 10% of the sexual assaults reported in the US last year. (Almost all were raped by other men.) In addition, men have wives, friends, sisters, mothers, and daughters who may someday need assistance in coping with sexual assault. Rape is a concern for everyone.

Myth: If a woman really did not want to be raped, she could fight off her attacker.

Fact: Even if the rapist is not carrying a weapon, the element of surprise, shock, and fear, or the threat of harm can overpower a survivor.

Update:
Here's a link to more information of what, exactly, it is Assange is being charged for. According to this article, it seems the condom incident is the molestation charge, the rape is based on the allegation that "Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner." Keep in mind, though, that with so many different versions of everything circulating the web, it is now more important than ever to not listen to rumours.

On Citizenship, Rights and Duties

Since there seems to exist an interest in reading my Swedish blogpost on Wikileaks, Julian Assange and Swedish government secrecy, I shall make an attempt to translate it into English. Here it goes:

Tonight Dokument Inifrån (Document from the Inside) was broadcasted on Swedish public service television revealing how evidence has been found in the latest Cablegate Wikileaks documents that the Swedish government were aware that the US government had been monitoring Swedish citizens and even encouraged it to facilitate the mapping of terrorist activity. Meanwhile, Julian Assange's native country is considering cancelling his passport. All these issues lead to uncomfortable questions about citizenship, its duties and the rights of citizens.

Where do you draw the line? Citizenship obviously comes with rights, something which is focused upon a lot in liberal democracies. We have human rights, legal rights, social rights, economic rights - all kinds of rights. Rights are important in a democracy. A democracy is based on its citizens, its participants, and if citizens do not have the means to participate in a democracy it cannot be sustained. But what about the duties?


There is an obvious obligation connected to citizenship. The relation within a democracy is a give and take one, not a unilateral form of decision making from either side. That is why there is an inherent duty to participate in a democracy after one's ability, as well as to contribute to society (often, in modern societies, this is in the form of taxes). Through meeting certain criteria, the state will reciprocate through giving citizens rights. The state ensures that the citizens have the means to contribute to society, that they can participate in the democracy. It lies in the interest of a democracy that its citizens participate, because without participation it will not be a democracy.

These rights to participation are relatively new when it comes to citizenship. When the theories were first formed, democracy was not, at least not in the form it is today, as certain. Instead the focus lay on the state's obligation to protect the citizen. Political philosophers such as Hobbes viewed this as a fair trade; give up some of your liberty and the state will guarantee to protect you against external threats. This is where the confusion lies in today's discussions. Instead, the chosen focus is on the obligations the citizens have to the state and what is offered are the new forms of rights. Citizens' most fundamental right, protection, is ignored.

The Swedish government's decision to let USA monitor citizens on Swedish soil smells of the old Moderates and of Beatrice Ask, our Minister of Justice, giving witness of an all too hard line with regards to crime in a society where Svensson and his friends will constantly throw a look over the shoulder in fear of the police state. The argument follows as such, that is, evidently, is better for non-criminals to live in a society as free of crime as possible. That is why hard measures are required to ensure that criminals will not be allowed to walk the street. There has been talk of purple envelopes being sent to accused (not sentenced) rapists, and not too long ago the definition of child pornography was widened to the extent where a man was sentenced for the possession of manga pictures of naked women/girls of a questionable age. It is a line that has been driven too far, and has begun to focus more on citizen obligations than their rights. This is exactly what has also happened in this case when the government knew about what was happening within the country borders and allowed their citizens to be monitored by a foreign power.

US has, the documents tell us, monitored Swedish citizens in the vicinity of their embassy in Stockholm with the purpose of preventing terrorist attacks. At least this is the reason being given. Beatrice Ask and the government have the entire time denied any knowledge of this, but as Dokument Inifrån has shown tonight, it seems that they have. This was probably justified, according to those who support this type of activity, since counter-terrorist measures will be to the benefit of us all. Certainly is this so, but are there any particular reasons why the US wanted to monitor Swedish citizens? Is there a reason to why they view the Swedish people as such a big threat that we need monitoring? That terrorism can be found anywhere is not an acceptable reason for our government to allow a foreign power to spy on us. Or government's duty is to protect us, not hang us out to dry. What is more, the reason being given for not disclosing this information to the Swedish people is that both the foreign ministry and the ministry of justice was aware that the political climate in Sweden was one against more monitoring. On what ground did they then, as popularly elected persons, believe themselves to have the mandate to sanction this?

Moving on to Assange. Apparently his native country sees his high position within Wikileaks as a justifiable reason to leave him over to a foreign power and deprive him from the documentation that can actually prove his existence. This is happening without a debate on whether he, through democratic grounds, has actually done mankind, including Australian citizens, a favour through highlighting certain international issues that have henceforth kept hidden to the very same people that elect people to govern on issues they obviously do not know their position on, or how they would act when presented with them. Instead Australia runs to USA like a good lapdog with the stick hanging out of the mouth. Where are Assange's rights, and where is the obligation of his home country to at least hold a serious discussion on the issue? (A fundamental obligation of the citizen toward the state is of course to adhere to the laws, and the state's right to punish a citizen who doesn't.) Should Assange not at least be tried within the Australian judiciary without the influence of America, which already has stated its position on this matter?

Assange said in an interview a couple of days ago that he had started to seriously consider what citizenship means. I can't help but wonder the same thing.

Update:
It seems that today (December 6th, 2010) the Australian government has issued a statement allowing Assange to travel home to Australia or to receive advise abroad, "just as any Australian citizen." Let's hope the Australian government does away with the blatant bias as well.

Let's get away from the fairy tales, shall we?

Those of you who can read my Swedish blog have probably figured out by now that I am not a big fan of monarchy. I think it is a thing of the past, something which is better left in fairy tales, allowing real people to deal with the real world.

With the Wikileaks cables there is more information out on the personalities and dealings of the prominent people in the world, and among them, of course, the British royalty. Some of the stories are just arguments that any person with anti-monarchy sentiments will take as an early Christmas (or other holiday) present, and this story on Prince Andrew, Duke of York is one of them.

This man seems to be completely disconnected from the world where people spend their everyday lives. He is rude, he is arrogant, he is pompous and he has no qualms about using up your tax money on helicopter rides to go to his golf club for an hour. He is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with monarchy.

It has never been clearer that monarchy is a system in which people are born into positions with a silver spoon in their mouths, as they literally live in castles and are treated as the royalty out of fairy tales, because that is what they are. They have no qualifications whatsoever (apart from DNA) to hold the positions they are in, and because of this, there is no guarantee they will do it well. You might get a King (of Sweden, for instance) that praises dictatorships, or a Prince (of Britain, perhaps) that has no manners at all. They are not representative of the people at large, because they have lived fairly sheltered lives belonging to the upper-crust of society and probably have never stood in a queue in a bank in their entire lives. If they are the crème de la crème of the royal family they also do not have to pay tax or fines. This is how the Crown Princess of Sweden racked up an impressive amount through parking all over Stockholm city.

What is really worrying, though, is how this man, and other members of the royal family rely on the average tax payer to fly them around in private jets and helicopters. It would be acceptable to some extent if they used it within reasonable limits, but when they start (as the Duke of York in the article above) to use it to fly to and from golf club functions which they only attend for an hour, because they want to avoid the traffic, it is just short of spitting the tax payer in the face.

One thing I think the Guardian failed to mention was the huge disservice this particular member of the royal family has done to the environment. Not only is he chewing through people's hard-earned salaries, he is also probably increasing global warming by 50 per cent just by himself.