The Injustice in Gothenburg
bob arctor | 28.08.2002 06:50
The events in Gothenburg came as a chock for most Swedes, who of us has actually been able to digest what happened? Since then something more shocking has been going on, namely the Gothenburg trials.
The Injustice in Gothenburg
(Based on an article by journalist Erik Wijk in Aftonbladet, translated by Vivi Löfstedt and Mike, roughly updated by the author.)
The events in Gothenburg came as a chock for most Swedes, who of us has actually been able to digest what happened? Since then something more shocking has been going on, namely the Gothenburg trials, the biggest judicial scandal of our time, where people can be found guilty without any apparent logic, with unreliable police witnesses, with falsified or non-existent evidence, preferably in groups, hopefully even with political connections. And they are given hard sentences.
What we are witnessing is how confrontation is replacing consensus as the basis for the social contract. It is as if the courts no longer want to establish justice , they want to set examples. And the police? Well, think about the basic clause of the police-law about "furthering justice and security" and compare that with the National Police Force´s evaluation of their efforts during the EU summit: "About 1100 people were deprived of their liberty during the EU assignment. Many of these were arrested and jailed. According to information from the police authorities in Western district, by the 12th of December, 38 sentences had fallen for crimes committed during the week of protests. The results of the investigation by the police must be considered successful".
Are the courts suffering from the same obsession with results? It seems so. Let me mention some of the characteristics of the Gothenburg trials:
1. Incredible harder sentences According to my latest summary 45 people have been convicted of "violent rioting" after the events in Gothenburg. On the average their sentences were 12 months in prison. By comparison the 20 people convicted for the same offence between 1994 and 2000 received roughly about 1 month sentence. You would expect a motivation for such an increase. The verdicts refer only to the riots as "planned", "taking place in the centre of a big city", as "being so violent that the police were forced to use live ammunition to protect themselves"(sic!). One of the most common arguments used is that the "riots were an attack against the EU summit or democracy". The Swedish Supreme Court decided to hear an appealed case on April 29th and reduced the sentence by 80%. But by then already 40 others were convicted and sentenced with no possibilities of a new trial.
2. A lack of judicial logic The case heard by the Supreme Court examined only the sentence, not the conviction itself. The 19 year old threw a rock and two sticks against the police, without hurting anyone. But he was convicted of inciting and leading a violent riot, as well as destroying property. The first court convicted him of incitement at Spot A, while the higher court found him guilty of incitement at Spot B - where the police witness claimed his actions had no effect on the crowd. It appears that a major trial error took place. In the biggest case after Gothenburg, the Supreme Court lowered sentences for the 8 young people who participated in the "information center". The court found no grounds in the only concrete connection between the "center" and "the rioters" - the four SMS messages and a 20 year old contact person in the city. Yet they were given two years in prison for "abetting a violent riot" . Their guilt "must be assumed" and "appears obvious", the court ruling vaguely states. Especially since the 20 year old was convicted of "leading a violent rioting" in another case. Do I have to add that the conviction of the 20 year old referrred strongly to his connection to the "information center". Talk about circular reasoning!
3. Infallible police witnesses The case of the 20 year old was very dependent on an undercover police who testified that at a pre-meeting the 20 year old "encouraged people to fight", "was aggressive in his tone" and "declared that there would be trouble if some 'bloody cops' stopped them". This meeting was actually filmed, including the undercover policeman. The 20 year old never used the term "bloody cops", never talked about fighting, but only described the well-known plans of the "white overall demonstrators" to symbolicly and non-violently break into the summit conference site. The undercover policeman is about to be accused of perjury. There are many more examples of unreliable and contradictory testimonies from police witnesses.
4. Suggestion instead of proof In many of the trials a series of film clippings from many of the disturbances were shown, even if the accused was presnt at the event at all. The film about the information center and the SMS messages included a shot with a masked demonstrator aiming his weapon against a policeman. The picture was from Germany!
5. Manipulated and misplaced evidence. The most famous example is where the police added a sound track (with chanting accusing the police of acting like Nazis) to the film footage of Hannes Westerberg, the demonstrator who was shot by the police. A number of policemen have "lost" or misplaced photos taken during the events in Gothenburg.
6. Group trials Seven Danes were convicted as a group, 5 Danes in another trial, 8 Swedes in the "information centre" case. In 5 further cases more than one defendant has been charged. What is most serious is the lack of individualisation in the description of the crime, the question of guilt or the sentence. The court held that the 8 Swedes "should be seen as equally participatory".
7. Political grounds If the Prosecuter has found any "extremist material" on the bookshelves or in the computers of the accused, this is reported to the court. I am just as guilty of having material, whether it be left or right, RAF or NSDAP material, that can be used as evidence in a political trial. Only in 1 case was the sentence lower and different from the others who were sentenced according to the new "praxis". The court found that "the defendant lacked any deeper political commitment"!
8. Total one-sidedness Over 100 demonstrators or activists have been indicted or are awaiting charges. Official complaints have been lodged against lots of police, but only four police officers of low ranking has to-date been charged, for minor offences at the storming of the Schillerska school.
Recently a record was set when a young man was sentenced to 5 years in prison for participating in several of the riots in Gothenburg. He didn't cause any serious harm, he was not masked and doesn't belong to the black block or other organisation. He went through a psychiatric examination and was found to have suffered from psychic disorientation and having a tendency to "follow the crowd". The court payed no attention to this.
The events in Gothenburg came as a chock for most Swedes, who of us has actually been able to digest what happened? Since then something more shocking has been going on, namely the Gothenburg trials, the biggest judicial scandal of our time, where people can be found guilty without any apparent logic, with unreliable police witnesses, with falsified or non-existent evidence, preferably in groups, hopefully even with political connections. And they are given hard sentences.
What we are witnessing is how confrontation is replacing consensus as the basis for the social contract. It is as if the courts no longer want to establish justice , they want to set examples. And the police? Well, think about the basic clause of the police-law about "furthering justice and security" and compare that with the National Police Force´s evaluation of their efforts during the EU summit: "About 1100 people were deprived of their liberty during the EU assignment. Many of these were arrested and jailed. According to information from the police authorities in Western district, by the 12th of December, 38 sentences had fallen for crimes committed during the week of protests. The results of the investigation by the police must be considered successful".
Are the courts suffering from the same obsession with results? It seems so. Let me mention some of the characteristics of the Gothenburg trials:
1. Incredible harder sentences According to my latest summary 45 people have been convicted of "violent rioting" after the events in Gothenburg. On the average their sentences were 12 months in prison. By comparison the 20 people convicted for the same offence between 1994 and 2000 received roughly about 1 month sentence. You would expect a motivation for such an increase. The verdicts refer only to the riots as "planned", "taking place in the centre of a big city", as "being so violent that the police were forced to use live ammunition to protect themselves"(sic!). One of the most common arguments used is that the "riots were an attack against the EU summit or democracy". The Swedish Supreme Court decided to hear an appealed case on April 29th and reduced the sentence by 80%. But by then already 40 others were convicted and sentenced with no possibilities of a new trial.
2. A lack of judicial logic The case heard by the Supreme Court examined only the sentence, not the conviction itself. The 19 year old threw a rock and two sticks against the police, without hurting anyone. But he was convicted of inciting and leading a violent riot, as well as destroying property. The first court convicted him of incitement at Spot A, while the higher court found him guilty of incitement at Spot B - where the police witness claimed his actions had no effect on the crowd. It appears that a major trial error took place. In the biggest case after Gothenburg, the Supreme Court lowered sentences for the 8 young people who participated in the "information center". The court found no grounds in the only concrete connection between the "center" and "the rioters" - the four SMS messages and a 20 year old contact person in the city. Yet they were given two years in prison for "abetting a violent riot" . Their guilt "must be assumed" and "appears obvious", the court ruling vaguely states. Especially since the 20 year old was convicted of "leading a violent rioting" in another case. Do I have to add that the conviction of the 20 year old referrred strongly to his connection to the "information center". Talk about circular reasoning!
3. Infallible police witnesses The case of the 20 year old was very dependent on an undercover police who testified that at a pre-meeting the 20 year old "encouraged people to fight", "was aggressive in his tone" and "declared that there would be trouble if some 'bloody cops' stopped them". This meeting was actually filmed, including the undercover policeman. The 20 year old never used the term "bloody cops", never talked about fighting, but only described the well-known plans of the "white overall demonstrators" to symbolicly and non-violently break into the summit conference site. The undercover policeman is about to be accused of perjury. There are many more examples of unreliable and contradictory testimonies from police witnesses.
4. Suggestion instead of proof In many of the trials a series of film clippings from many of the disturbances were shown, even if the accused was presnt at the event at all. The film about the information center and the SMS messages included a shot with a masked demonstrator aiming his weapon against a policeman. The picture was from Germany!
5. Manipulated and misplaced evidence. The most famous example is where the police added a sound track (with chanting accusing the police of acting like Nazis) to the film footage of Hannes Westerberg, the demonstrator who was shot by the police. A number of policemen have "lost" or misplaced photos taken during the events in Gothenburg.
6. Group trials Seven Danes were convicted as a group, 5 Danes in another trial, 8 Swedes in the "information centre" case. In 5 further cases more than one defendant has been charged. What is most serious is the lack of individualisation in the description of the crime, the question of guilt or the sentence. The court held that the 8 Swedes "should be seen as equally participatory".
7. Political grounds If the Prosecuter has found any "extremist material" on the bookshelves or in the computers of the accused, this is reported to the court. I am just as guilty of having material, whether it be left or right, RAF or NSDAP material, that can be used as evidence in a political trial. Only in 1 case was the sentence lower and different from the others who were sentenced according to the new "praxis". The court found that "the defendant lacked any deeper political commitment"!
8. Total one-sidedness Over 100 demonstrators or activists have been indicted or are awaiting charges. Official complaints have been lodged against lots of police, but only four police officers of low ranking has to-date been charged, for minor offences at the storming of the Schillerska school.
Recently a record was set when a young man was sentenced to 5 years in prison for participating in several of the riots in Gothenburg. He didn't cause any serious harm, he was not masked and doesn't belong to the black block or other organisation. He went through a psychiatric examination and was found to have suffered from psychic disorientation and having a tendency to "follow the crowd". The court payed no attention to this.
bob arctor
Homepage:
http://www.manifest.se/upprop
