Sweden, a Feministic Banana Republic?
I received a mail from a person by the name of Millan. She wondered if Sweden should be concidered a feministic banana republic. Indeed a justified question.
Millan:
"Sweden has become a real feministic banana republic, and is more and more showing obvious symptoms of a characteristic feministic police state without legal security of person for men, women are permitted to beat rousingly without any significant risk of consequences, however when they self are beaten the hell is braking loose with the total lack of legal security of person in our courts."
Millan was referring to an article at the webpage of the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.
Aftonbladet:
"The study was astonishing by the fact that 40 per cent of the men at one time or another have been injured by their female partners."
"An old point of view is that women act in self defence, but that is not true. Half of the fightings were initiated by the women."
A special thank to Millan for the tip.
Aftonbladet:
40 per cent of the men are beaten by their women (in Swedish)
34 kommentarer:
Det är inte ofta jag hör eller läser om män som blir misshandlade av kvinnor. Det är konstigt, eftersom 40 procent är ganska mycket.
Jag undrar varför de kallar sig feminister. Borde de inte kalla sig jämställdhetister? :P Om det nu handlar om jämställdhet.
I have heard something like this from friends who were visiting Sweden a couple of years ago, but first I wasn’t really sure about it.
What about legal security in your criminal cases concerning charges with rape? Are they likewise rotten?
Gerard Wilson
Gerard Wilson:
"What about legal security in your criminal cases concerning charges with rape? Are they likewise rotten?"
The legal security of person is unfortunately even more rotten in cases concerning charges with rape. The Swedish-Chilean opera singer Tito Beltran was recently convicted guilty of rape in a very old case. The sentence was based only on the victim's story. During the trial Swedish blogs and newspapers revealed abuse of justice. The victim's lawyer, Thomas Bodström, lied about his relationship with a woman called Monica Dahlström-Lannes. According to a witness, the famous Swedish pianist Robert Wells, Dahlström-Lannes committed a crime herself during her prosecution of people somehow involved in the case. Wells claimed that Dahlström-Lannes falsely pretended to be a prosecutor. Wells testified about all this, but the judge ignored Dahlström-Lannes criminal behavior.
I hope that people all around the world will have information about the Swedish abuse of justice.
Boy, you must be kidding me? Your courts are working the same way they did in the Middle Ages, if the case you mentioned is true. What about the rule of "beyond reasonable doubt"? If your story is true, then that rule doesn't apply in your courts. I didn't realize that your courts where operated by a bunch of ignorant yobos. If they don't apply the beyond reasonable doubt formula, then your courts are just as criminal as, or even more criminal than the men indicted of sexual crimes. Your court system seems to be in serious trouble my friend. Especially when the courts criminal acts result in a long time in the slammer. In the Common Law countries the beyond reasonable doubt is a basic right of the defendant in criminal cases.
You really must go worldwide using the Internet for instance, to reveal the shortcomings of your court system. I had no idea that the Swedish court system was in such a bad condition. Now I may have to basically reconsider my view of your court system.
Best regards
Gerard Wilson
Gerard Wilson
Its not rotten corts in Sweden this taliban only hate women,thats rtten. And our court is not your problem, or?
anonym:
Or what? So you seriously mean that if I go visiting Sweden, and whereas I'm staying over there I might all of a sudden be charged with a criminal offence, then your legal system would simply let me walk away? Come on, grow up you moron! Unless you belong to those sleazeballs in your courts who are obviously disregarding basic human rights.
John Berg:
Why don't you use your news media, for instance the global media? I will definitely blow the whistle on this if I get a chance.
Gerard Wilson
Gerard Wilson:
"What about the rule of "beyond reasonable doubt"? If your story is true, then that rule doesn't apply in your courts."
No, the rule of "beyond reasonable doubt" isn't applied in our courts. A man has to prove himself innocent otherwise it's more likely that he will be judged guilty of charges.
The anonymous person above, who called me a taliban symbolizes the attitude of the Swedish authorities. A leading Swedish politician and lawyer, Claes Borgström, even accused Swedish men to be talibans! Do I have to mention that Borgström and the former Minister of Justice, Thomas Bodström, are close friends?
"Why don't you use your news media, for instance the global media?"
It is very hard to use common media because the journalists in Sweden are to close to the potentates. Therefore Swedish newspapers seldom publish information concerning the Swedish feminist issue. I will try to spread my message through this blog. I have been blogging about the feminist problem for several years. My former posts are mainly written in Swedish. I will further on publish a lot of articles written in English too. Sweden is desperately in need of help solving the feminist problem.
If the conviction in the legal action mentioned by John Berg is based on the plaintiff's statement only, then the court must simply have reversed the burden of proof. In that legal action the defendant was evidently presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is a brutal breach of fundamental human rights according to the European Human Rights Convention (that surely is ratified by Sweden) as well as according to the US Constitution.
In most western countries the burden of proof in criminal processes is placed on the prosecutor. This emanates from the principle "presumption of innocence", a natural principle in most cultivated legal systems. A defendant should normally not be obliged to present exculpatory proofs for instance.
Unfortunately it's not upheld in all western legal systems. But countries that have adopted the European Human Rights Convention are bound to uphold this judicial standard, as well as the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Otherwise the case must be dismissed, due to failure in presenting enough evidence to meet the standard burden of proof.
Failure to meet the burden therefore means that the defendant is presumed innocent. This is the US standard, that was established by the US Supreme Court back in 1979, Jackson case, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
There may still be a doubt, but then only to the extent, that it wouldn't affect a reasonable person's belief that the defendant is guilty. Violating such human right in criminal trials and placing the burden of proof on the defendant, will under the 6th amendment to the US Constitution, as well as under article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention be deemed a serious breach of this fundamental human right.
I suggest that you go on blogging about this issue so that people worldwide might learn about this judicial taint in your legal actions.
Richard
John Berg:
I don't think that feminism is all to blame, but of course I could be wrong. Don't get me wrong, I don't argue with you about the gender problem. Feminism obiously have some affection on your legal system. But lawyers are a bunch of sticky nosed people, which is pretty well described through the Tito Beltran case!
If you touch the legal principles in one type of criminal cases, the result will eventually affect other types of criminal cases. What about copy right crimes for instance? Do you reduce the requirements of proof or put the burden of proof on the defendant in criminal cases regarding sexual crimes, then this will eventually be a pattern in for instance copy right crimes, as well as robbery, theft, burglary, assault, battery, and so on.
I wasn't aware of the fact that your court system is that lousy.
Gerard Wilson
What do you mean moron? You dont know me. A lots off women in Sweden are afraid to go to the police after a rape. They are afraid that the police wont believe them. Because men are animals.
Tito Beltran is world famous for his interest for young women, and he was correct convicted
You are really something! Do I have to draw you a picture or what?
How can you claim that Swedish women are afraid of going to the police because the police will not believe rape victims? The authorities seem to take your side in rape cases. I don't understand the stuff referred to, but some of my friends who went to Sweden a couple of years ago told me about this issue. Then I wasn't sure. Now I am most definitely sure that something is rotten about your legal system.
You say that Tito Beltran is wellknown all over the world of his interest in young women. But I have never heard of him before entering this discussion. And furthermore, his reputation is no excuse for violating human rights conventions. If you do so, then your country is way out of line. If anyone shows the character of a taliban, I'd say it's you. A real toffee-nosed talibimbo, I would say.
Gerard Wilson
"Tito Beltran is world famous for his interest for young women, and he was correct convicted"
The court didn't provide any evidence. The victim's words stood against Beltrans words and the court judged Beltran without any real evidence. Beltran couldn't prove his innocence so the court sentenced him. Furthermore Bodström lied in court and the former police officer Dahlström-Lannes falsely pretended to be a prosecutor during her private investigations. Beltran was absolutely not correct convicted. Not a chance!
"Because men are animals"
This was exactly what the chairman of ROKS, Ireen von Wachenfeldt, said when she defended Valerie Solanas SCUM Manifesto. By the way, the chairman of ROKS, is also a member of the former Swedish communist party. Is this a coincident? I don't think so.
Talibimbo. That sure is funny!
But what about changing the headline to: Sweden, a Feministic Tali-Banana Republic?
Brian
My point exactly. How could Beltran be fairly convicted if the sentense was based only on the victim's statements?
Gerard Wilson
Gerard Wilson:
"I don't understand the stuff referred to, but some of my friends who went to Sweden a couple of years ago told me about this issue. Then I wasn't sure. Now I am most definitely sure that something is rotten about your legal system."
I promise you, the legal security of person in Sweden is in a very bad state. As a man you must prove your innocence otherwise you are likely to be sentenced. This is the truth!
"A lots off women in Sweden are afraid to go to the police after a rape. They are afraid that the police wont believe them."
You forgot to mention that a majority of all false accuses in Sweden are accuses concerning rape. The police know this, but the police officers have to deny the facts, otherwise the could easily become unemployed.
Brian:
"But what about changing the headline to: Sweden, a Feministic Tali-Banana Republic?"
No, that headline would be very confusing. Sweden is definitely not a taliban republic.
Gerard Wilson:
When we are talking about the legal security of person in Sweden above, then we are talking about when a man is accused of a crime against a woman. In other cases the legal security of person is better, but as someone mentioned above, it's getting worse even in other cases.
A sentence should be based on facts, and on concrete proof. Otherwise the case should result in a dismissal. That's standard procedure of criminal cases in the common law system. Otherwise you are going towards a totalitarian legal system. The court system of the Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's operated the same way.
Gerard Wilson
If you are thinkning about going worldwide on this matter, then discussions such as this is probably the right way. Many of these discussions are becoming findable in the search engines promptly. If true, this story is definitely hot stuff, and a scoop for the global media.
By the way, I was only joking about the headline:=)
Brian
Brian:
"By the way, I was only joking about the headline:=)"
I thought you did. ;)
Wilson is quite right. "A sentence should be based on facts, and on concrete proof." Virtually all facts, especially in criminal cases, should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to avoid a dismissal of the prosecution. Provided that the legal system doesn't disregard the human right principles.
The possibilities to act beoynd reasonable doubt are very limited. That should at least require a material witness, and then only if there isn't any fact at all to consider in favour of the defendant. In my opinion a conviction based only on the victim's statement would never be allowed in the Common Law System. That would be a formal procedure error which would result in a judgment in favour of the defendant. If not, you don't have a fair court system. Sooner or later such a system tends to make the population taking the law into their own hands. On the other hand, if most defendants are legally exculpated, despite them being guilty, the victims might tend to do the same thing. That would mean that courts have to balance between rights, but every in facts however, should be considered in favour of the defendant.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest level of burden of proof, and this standard applies to criminal cases.
Richard
"Sweden is desperately in need of help solving the feminist problem"
What's the hitch? Feminism is a global phenomenon. I don't see any slightest problem with feminism affecting the society. You must realize the difference between partial influence and total domination. Feminism has no total domination in no country. Hence follows the fact that a pretty small number cases may be the outcome of normal human error. Something that you just have to live with, and take under consideration. Surely there are lots of culpabel felonies going free, and that number is probably bigger than the number of wrongfully convicted persons whatsoever.
Melanie Reynolds
Reynolds:
Basing conviction on the victim’s story only might be the reason why people are wrongfully convicted. In a human rights society, it’s disgraceful to convict every potential criminal just in order to be sure that every actual criminal is out behind bars. Either way, there will always be felonies walking free, and what have we gained from that? A small number of persons going to jail for something they didn’t do! What if partial influence on a long term becomes a total influence? Have you really taken that under consideration?
Richard
Should partial influence on a long term become a total influence, then we are dealing with total domination. Once again, there is no country in modern history and up till now in the world under the total domination of feminism, in other words no dictatorship ruled in accordance with feminism. Name only one country that is, an we can reason about it. Is it really that difficult for you to comprehend? Let's face it, feminism is here to stay as one of many political ideas, whether you like or not! If you like to prevent the propitious outcomes of feminism, believe me, I most certainly won't stand in your way. But then you'd either put up or shut up!
Melanie Reynolds
Reynolds.
I just wonder. How do you cope with yourself? I mean really? Why are you taking the discussion aside the topic? Dictatorship is not the issue here. It's the lack of legal security in some of the Swedish courts. Find that difficult to read?
Do you honestly believe that a blog would bring this issue, if it wasn't true that something is seriously wrong in Swedish courts? And do you honestly believe that this blog would let on to others than the Swedish population, if it wasn't true that there might, just might, be some dreadfulness going on like i.a. violation of human rights, to think that a "minor" political doctrine has absolutely no piece of the action in Swedish courts?
If there are cases brought before some courts that result in different punishments depending on whether the convicted is a male or female person, there is no way that you can talk about equality and fairness in the legal process. If that's the fact, it's not unlikely to think that feminism has become a ruling power of great significance in Swedish courts. Someone above, John Berg I think, also pointed out the fact that Swedish mass media are ignoring the problems. Why? Because they just might be a part of the problem, that's why!
Richard
Amen va är de här för smörja. är de en svensk blogg, eller.
helt rätt! En Svensk talibanblogg!!! En kvinnofientlig mansgrisblogg!!, se bara alla män som ifrågasätter vår trovärdighet
Richard:
"Someone above, John Berg I think, also pointed out the fact that Swedish mass media are ignoring the problems. Why? Because they just might be a part of the problem, that's why!"
Yes, I pointed out the fact that Swedish media are ignoring the situation. A majority of Swedish journalists are left wing sympathizers and pro feminists. They seldom write about the lack of legal security of person. Lawyers and a couple of freedom fighters, Pär Ström for instance, are the only ones defending the human rights of men. Ström actually got an article published in a Swedish newspaper yesterday. Ström revealed how the tax funded radio station Sveriges Radio, SR, manipulated an investigation concerning inequalities between Swedish men and women. SR wanted Swedish citizens to belive in non existing inequalities in order to debase the health care of men. I promise you, I am absolutely truthful about all the information given.
I found some newspaper articles concerning the Tito Beltran trial. The articles are written in Engslih.
"Tito Beltran was sentenced to two years in prison for a rape that occurred back in 1999, with testimony by two other Swedish celebrities playing a pivotal role in the case.
The verdict was controversial because Beltran was convicted without any physical evidence."
"Legal expert Pelle Svensson used Expressen's ‘Page 4’ editorial to question the fairness of the verdict, calling the trial a "full blown witch hunt."
"He pointed out that the multiple duties of the plaintiff's lawyer, Thomas Bodström, may have compromised his integrity in the case. Bodström, a former Minister of Justice, currently chairs the Riksdag's judiciary committee as well as the board of an organization working against sex crimes."
Mixed reactions to Beltran verdict and interest rate rise:
http://www.thelocal.se/9995/20080215/
Tito Beltran found guilty of rape:
http://www.thelocal.se/9960/20080212/
Now I got the picture. Now I fully understand what an incredibly indecent court system you are up against over there. I wasn't really aware of the fact that this Beltran fellow was accused of an 8 year old rape? Conviction based only on two witnesses? Are they material witnesses? If not, they wouldn't have any importance in our courts.
Following one of the links you can read as follows: "On the eve of the verdict, Aftonbladet's Monica Gunne reminded readers that a previous case in which Beltran was freed on charges of molesting a 7-year-old had inspired the victim in the current case to come forward in the first place". In my opinion there must have been another trial before the current one, and only because of the Beltran guy going free there, suddenly the act from back in 1999 had turned into a rape? And furthermore: "Otherwise evidence appears to have been evaluated much the same as it would in any other rape case. There are much more exceptional cases than this one, he said" Jesus Christ, your legal system is in a very very deep trouble here, that much I can tell you. The verdict has however been appealed to a higher court, then the verdict hasn't entered into legal force yet. This cannot be the end in that case. Do you have a well operated court system, then the Beltran fellow goes free, it's as simple as that. Otherwise, you must make a complaint about this to the European Court in Strasbourg.
From what I know of, such a case is very likely to result in a dismissal in Common Law courts, that means in Nations that belong to the Commonwealth, and in US courts. I would say, a vast majority of the jury members would very very likely have found this Beltran fellow not guilty as charged. No guarantee of course, but very likely. That's my opinion. Calling such a system a witch hunt is however very flattering, simply because witches got a trial, you don't get a trial under those circumstances, since you're regarded guilty already before the sentence is considered and passed. You may not find such a lowlife court system nowhere, with the exception of authoritarian political systems, such as China, and other villain states. But that Pelle Svensson guy seems to be very wise.
You must keep blogging about this subject, it's very very important, because it might just be the only short term way for you to make a change. The disgusting communist block fell apart with a great deal of helping hands from outside the block. But those changes didn't come easily. They emerge over a few years, but with assistance from the outside. The same policy ought to apply to tour circumstances.
So just keep blogging about this issue, I'll be watching it closely. I believe that your stuff is getting searchable very promptly as well. Hopefully some media editor finds this blog, and regards it as a scoop. So you're simply doing the right thing, spread the word over the world.
Richard
Richard:
Tito Beltran may be guilty. I don't know. The court doesn't know either. Nobody knows, but Beltran and the young woman. Beltran may also be a sex addict, but that wouldn't be enough evidence, would it? By the way. Two or three witnesses testified in Beltran's favor. I don't remember whether it was mentioned in the articles.
Well, Beltran is just one person among others. Beltran's case is only special because of his stardom. As for the rest it could be any man living in Sweden.
I will surely continue blogging about this problem. I have written posts about the feminist issue for years, but unfortunately not in English. I will try to translate some of my older posts into English in the future. Thank you for your support!
John Berg:
A normal court system deals in probabilities only, not in actualities. Repeat the reqiurement of evidence standard loud to yourself: A criminal act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't have with anything to do with actuality (truth), but with probability (what may be true). Theoretical, in a legal process, there can be only one true version but an uncertain number of versions that are untrue. Otherwise the reqiurement of evidence standard would be: A criminal act must be absolutely proved. Change the words "beyond reasonable doubt" to "absolutely". Then nobody would be convicted. Truth can only be 100 per cent, otherwise it's no truth. Probability to at fact on the other hand is to be found somewhere between 0 and 100 per cent. It is very unlikely to be 100 per cent.
Since normal court system deals in probabilities only (beyond reasonable doubt), and not in actualities (absolutely), some persons are convicted in criminal cases. But that should only be the case if there isn't any "reasonable doubt" about the criminal act or a part of the criminal act, such as personal quarrels for instance. Then the court (if operated under human rights) should consider that a reasonable objection resulting in favour of the defendant. Meaning that he goes free. To convince the jury, you must meet the requirement of evidence, or the defendant goes free. The fact him being a "sex addict" has got nothing to do with this perticular case, not in a modern court system claiming to act under human rights. Every court case must be evaluated on an individual basis.
If this is a standard procedure in other court cases dealing with sexual crimes, then you really must do something about it, before it get's out of your hands, body. It seems that your courts are beginning to operate like the courts in Germany in the 1930's. That's dangerous, very very dangerous. In the US for instance, courts operate without interference by the political power. It's called power sharing.
It would be a very efficient way to blog about this subject in English. It may take years to get results, but you have to start now, or this goes from bad to worse. History can tell us a great deal about that. Don't let your court system fall into the hands of the political cocktail, then the worsening might be very very difficult to stop.
Your English level is by the way very good, way beyond average. I find it very easy to understand what you've been written so far in this discussion so you just keep on blogging in English, body.
Richard
Undras vad den här sexige engelske Talibanen jobbar med??????
Faan en sån köns förrädare du är å jaga efter talibaner!!!!!!!!
Skicka en kommentar