The Minister of Injustice, part 2

What has to be Sweden's least popular politician at the moment, the notoriously incompetent, spiteful and integrity-hating minister of (in)justice Beatrice Ask (M), has gone ahead and done it again. The video below speaks for itself, as this sorry excuse of a politician goes on record suggesting that the families and neighbors of suspected sex buyers should be informed what they might have been up to:



Mind you this is a suggestion to penalize (no pun intended) potentially innocent persons in the most barbaric, medieval way for a petty crime that has no victim. We're not talking about trafficking, rape or child abuse, those crimes are taken care of by other and much harsher laws. We're simply talking about consenting adults exchanging favors for money that Swedish politicians only recently decided were morally unacceptable, and thus should be criminalized.

Today, after days of increasing criticism, Ask herself comments on her ridiculous suggestion:

- Ja naturligtvis och javisst gör jag en pudel. Det var klumpigt uttryckt eftersom det kan och har missuppfattats.

Say what? She's sorry her suggestion was misinterpreted??? Does she think the Swedish public are that stupid? The message was loud and clear Ask, without room for any kind of misinterpretations: We should put the presumption of innocent until proven guilty to the side and permanently stigmatize anyone suspected of buying sex from a consenting adult.

That's the Swedish (not the Iranian or Chinese, in case you were wondering) Minister of Justice, ladies and gentlemen.

A conviction at any cost

Have a look at Peter Sunde's blogpost on how the dutch branch of the entertainment mafia, Brein, are committing a serious crime fabricating evidence in a desperate attempt to convict some people of something that shouldn't even be considered a crime, in a country these people have no connection to whatsoever.

So, what's worst? Fabricating evidence to get people wrongfully convicted, or possibly aiding in copyright infringement by providing an infrastructure that lets people communicate and share files with each other? Who should really be on trial here?

Of course the outcome of this ridiculous case is already given. Brein's fabricated evidence will be accepted without and questions by a court consisting of people with close affiliation to copyright lobbying organizations, and another miscarriage of justice will be committed.

If anyone's interested the documents are available at wikileaks.

Democratic (Banana-)Republic of Sweden

The chance of the guys behind Pirate Bay ever getting a fair trial in the "Democratic (Banana-)Rebublic of Sweden" look slimmer than ever. As if a corrupt police investigator and a legally incompetent judge wasn't enough in the first trial, two of the judges in the upcoming trial, Kristina Boutz and Ulrika Ihrfelt, are involved in entertainment industry lobbying organizations. Which is perfectly fine by Svea hovrätt, even though they contradict themselves quite a bit:

Samtidigt konstaterar dock rätten att SFIR, som Kristina Boutz är medlem i, ser efter rättighetshavares intressen och rättigheter.

Trots det har det "inte framkommit några konkreta omständigheter som tyder på att SFIR har ett särskilt intresse av utgången i just detta mål eller att SFIR engagerat sig i de konkreta frågor som ska prövas i målet"

I guess you'd have to be on the entertainment mafia payroll to get the reasoning. One of the defendants, Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, sums it all up pretty well:

"Men det var ju såklart inte oväntat, det verkar finnas en lag §13.3.7 som säger att "i tillfälle pirate bay anmäler för jäv, så stämmer inte detta. Jäv får enbart utdelas i tillfälle målsägande sidan så bestämt"

By default any claim by the defendants is completely ignored by Svea hovrätt, and everything put forward by the claimants is instantly accepted - no questions asked. It's pretty obvious who's calling the shots, to say the least, and I don't really see the point in hosting another mock trial wasting a lot of tax money when we'll just get a default ruling for the claimants anyway. I have to say I'm completely fascinated by the fact that this miscarriage of justice is so blatantly being carried out here in Sweden. I mean, had it been Congo or Iran or something, but Sweden?