A political prisoner in Sweden
Filed under:General | Add comments
Poor Rebiya Kadeer, when she was convicted and sentenced in China for “leaking state secrets”, the indignant people accused China of prosecuting people for political crimes and “suppression”. Now, we learn of yet another poor old Uighur, this time a 62-year-old man named Babur Mehsut, who has been arrested and jailed for “unlawful acquisition and distribution of information relating to individuals for the benefit of a foreign power.”
In Sweden. The arrest was made by Säpo, that country’s secret service.
What was his crime? He passed some information about Uighurs abroad to some Chinese journalists. Right…
You can read about this case here, here and here. The last one is a BBS in Xinjiang.
So what is the point here? Well, when we call somebody charged with a crime a political prisoner or dissident, we inadvertently make a political statement. To me, Rebiya Kadeer and Babur Mehsut are no different at all, except one is liked by Uighur separatists and one is not, and so they ratted out Mr. Mehsut and fêted Mrs. Kadeer. At the end of the day, the question is simply, which side are you on? China has her own core and necessarily selfish interests — stability and order, territorial integrity and sovereignty, obtaining benefits for its own people — that any country worthy of existence would and do pursue. On those core interests, you are either with China or against China. You are not a friend of China, just because you gave notice ahead of time that you will screw her out of her core interests, or attempt to use other elaborate ruses such as human rights to screw her. Chinese are not stupid.
To observant people not prejudiced by Western propaganda and Cold War rhetoric, it is clear that China is not a categorically different beast in the world. It is but one of hundreds of imperfect countries trying to make its place in the world. It is well known that China has serious problems endemic to developing societies, the lack of accountability and incomplete legal system being chief among them. However, these are not ideological problems, except to those who want to make them ideological problems. When China is viewed with a normal lens uncolored by ethnocentrism and elite prejudice, its problems become normal ones that are universal to much of the world, especially outside the Western world, and the country becomes that much more accessible to real understanding.
There are currently 1 comments highlighted: 65014.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:00 am
One person’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist, one person’s spy is another’s source. One person’s protester is another’s rioter. But they are never the same. Our incident is never a massacre, theirs always are. What can anyone say except double standard?
BTW spot on about RFA. It is funded by US Government via the BBG.
March 9th, 2010 at 4:06 am
I wish China would stop being so quick to perceive racism and prejudice against it. I understand China wishes to defend its national interests, but understand that the West sees legitimate grievances on both sides in China’s “internal” Tibet and Xinjiang situations. The interesting thing is that, in my experience, inside China, people think they understand how the west works–“we watch their movies!” And then these same people fervently believe that there’s no possible way any Westerner could ever penetrate China’s 5000 years of history to understand its situation. In the west, at least average people don’t say they understand China, though it’s not for lack of desire….
The fact is that very, very, very few on either side really understands the other. Maybe both should start listening.
March 9th, 2010 at 4:43 am
Hey m,
I like the earlier version of your comment better.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:02 am
This case is over blown, but then again all spy cases are over blown…
All countries on planet Earth operates a spy ring from their embassy compounds. An official embassy personal with diplomatic immunity pulls few strings and calls few favors for insider information, and if they get caught with something sensitive, the host country just ask the old spy master to leave and a new spy master replaces him…the same pattern repeats over and over and it is just a diplomatic normality between the countries. CIA does it, MI5 does it, KGB/FSB does it, the lists goes on…
Which begs the question…why do Chinese spy operation always gets all the attention? I mean, CIA normally has few back doors in China for information (for example, tagging Hong Kong businessman traveling to mainland), you don’t see Xinhua keep drumming up news on catching the evil American spies ever since the end of Cultural Revolution. The news says this case is important because China use its spies to gather information on dissent groups…well isn’t that what all spy agencies in the world are built for, to gather information on everything by any means necessary?
The old Chinese saying goes: “make a noise in the east, attack west”…Either the Swedish government is too naive to understand the concept of spying or another big money news item on human rights packaged with Cold War paranoia.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:47 am
I wish the west would stop being so quick to perceive isolation and subversion against its refugees. I understand the west wishes to defend its notion of human rights, but understand that the China sees legitimate grievances on both sides in West’s “external” meddling in other countries’ situations. The interesting thing is that, in my experience, inside the west, people think they understand how china works–”we’re more democratic and have a free media that finds all the truths! They are evil communists and human rights abusers!” And then these same people fervently believe that there’s no possible way any CCP member could ever penetrate the west’s holy “democratic” election systems to understand its situation. In china, at least average people don’t say they understand the west, though it’s not for lack of desire….
The fact is that most of the protestors and china bashers in the west are either ignorant baffoons brainwashed by their western media and their silly, yet hypocritical, notions of democracy and human rights, or war profiteers hoping to get rich(er) by starting WW3.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:20 am
Hi, Everybody, I have never been to China and I am quite ignorant of most things about China. But for the longest time this is the type of comments I hear from the Canadian media and commentators:
“””Mike
March 5th, 2010
Chinktalk,
I have an inkling with where your heading with this. But until you say something I think it’s irrelevant to the above discussion. But maybe you should consider making your own blog posting . My point is simply that the Han majority and/or Chinese government has consistently discriminated against minorities whether it be a visible minority, religious minority and/or political minority. If you are looking for evidence of this endemic and systemic discrimination, check all the above links. Anecdotally, all you have to do is walk down any street in China and/or make friends with any ethnic minority and you will find the truth. This deplorable environment is reason enough for us to not focus too much on comparing Canada to China. We won’t find anything new there, just what not to do.
Like or Dislike: 1 0
Reply to this comment”””
http://www.uglychinesecanadian.com/?p=304&cpage=1#comment-3148
Since I have never been to China and this guy Mike says that he’s been to every province in China, it makes him a much more credible witness than me and that he knows what he is talking about, but why is it that what he says sounds so much like premeditated propaganda.
I don’t want you to argue for me, but I just need to be informed so that I know what the truth is.
Thanks
March 9th, 2010 at 7:57 am
Here is an excerpt from the court ruling, as published in Swedish on this website:
http://frianyheter.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/62-aring-domd-for-grov-olovlig-underrattelseverksamhet/
“Ruling of Stockholm District Court [B 8976-09]:
* Babur Maihesuti, 1949-01-02, registered in Bandhagen [suburb of Stockholm, my comment], to prison for one year and four months for illegal intelligence activities, serious criminal offense.
The information was handed over by Babur Maihesuti to a Chinese diplomat and a journalist of the People’s Daily, who in fact was a Chinese intelligence officer. The activity has been conducted in secret utilizing special systems for telephone dialing. It has also been conducted deceitfully by Babur Maihesuti as he did not clarify to the Uyghurs that he was acting on the behalf of the Chinese government.
The offense has been assessed as serious because the activities, that among other things have involved Babur Maihesuti infiltrating the highest international political leadership in the World Uyghur Congress, may cause significant damage for Uyghurs in and outside China. Also, the activities have been extensive. The District Court also considers the risk for damage in that a foreign power that carries out espionage on refugees can establish an information network in the country that can be used for other forms of espionage. The District Court finds the offense particularly serious because the information activities have served a great power that does not fully respect human rights and also have resources to carry out its policies.
Babur Maihesuti claims that he has had contact with the diplomat and journalist as a means of conducting secret negotiations with China, on orders from the World Uyghur Congress. He has also claimed that the aim of the contacts have been to get back a large amount of money the Chinese state owns him. The District Court, however, has determined that the prosecutor’s evidence is so strong that the objections must be rejected. The evidence mainly consists of extensive phone tapping and examination of Uyghur witnesses residing both in Sweden and abroad, as well as employees of SÄPO.
Travel ban
Babur Maihesuti will be subject to a travel ban with an obligation to give notice until the sentence is formally ratified in terms of responsibility. The travel ban amounts to Babur Maihesuti not being authorized to travel outside the district of Stockholm and having to register his whereabouts every Wednesday at 17 pm, by the latest, at the police station on Kungsholmsgatan 45, Stockholm. If the travel ban is violated or the obligation to give noticed not adhered to, Babur Maihesuti shall be taken into custody, except in the case where there are no obvious reasons.
Addendum
Uyghurs are a Turkish people originally from the Xinjiang province of China.”
Sorry if the translation is bad; legalese in Sweden is different from the Anglo-Saxon tradition.
In order to assess whether Rebiya Kadeer is any different from Babur Mehsut (or Maihesuti as he’s called in the verdict) you would need to compare the court rulings, and the crimes they are charged for. Does anyone know the ruling in the case of Kadeer? Was she also spying for a foreign power, and handing over information about citizens to an intelligence officer in another country? These are not rhetorical questions, I’m just curious if somebody has that info.
Also, whether China’s problems are ideological or not, I’m willing to discuss later. What constitutes not being “prejudiced by Western propaganda and Cold War rhetoric,” we can discuss too. First, however, any data on Kadeer to compare with?
March 9th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Wukailong,
Thank you for the translation. Regretably, this text does not carry much more than what the newspaper articles describe, so it looks like the reporters did their homework and read the verdict. For one, we still don’t know what kind of “information” Mehsut provided, what was “illegal” about this information (which I don’t think is any state secret of Sweden), or what was “illegal” about talking to a Chinese diplomat or a journalist from People’s Daily (except that Sweden thinks they are spies for whatever reason), why does it matter that it affects the World Uighur Congress or not and why Sweden cares, or how the form of government that China has — democratic or not — bears any relation whatsoever to the seriousness of the offense. I’m sorry, but without knowing the details, this sounds incredibly political and subjective to me, and if it happened in China, would be called “politically motivated prosecution”.
As for Kadeer’s case, we know well that Chinese courts in general do not publish verdicts online, and certainly not in 1999 when the internet wasn’t even that well established there. Transparency in the Chinese judicial process would be welcome, but that is not what concerns us here. Kadeer’s case has a written verdict and even if we do not have internet access to it, and despite her trial repeatedly getting labeled “secret”, members of US Congress who lobbied for Kadeer’s release and the New York Times have both somehow seen it. We know this much, she was arrested in 1999 en route to a private meeting with a US Congressional aide in Urumqi and later charged with the offense of “illegally providing state intelligence to a foreign organization” (向境外组织非法提供国家情报). This is what the New York Times of April 28, 2000 says:
According to the March 10 verdict of the Urumqi People’s Intermediate Court, Ms. Kadeer collected local newspapers for her husband.
She purchased 27 months’ worth of the Kashgar Daily, published from 1995 to 1998, the court said, and marked speeches and other news relating to the government’s fights against separatism and terrorism. She also bought an unspecified number of copies of another public newspaper, the Xinjiang Legal News.
In June 1999, Ms. Kadeer tried to mail these newspapers to her husband, the court said, but the package was intercepted by authorities. Subsequently, the verdict states, Ms. Kadeer also collected 10 back issues of the Ili Daily and the Ili Evening News for her husband and gave them to a third party to hold.
Ms. Kadeer’s final transgression, according to the court, was to try to deliver to the visiting Americans a list of 10 people who had run afoul of authorities for their pro-Uighur activities…
There is probably more to it, but this is a start.
March 9th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Wukailong, thanks for the translation and your views!
Nimrod, this is an interesting comparison, but we have to remember the differences between Kadeer and Maihesuti.
Kadeer has been accused of committing crimes against China/the Chinese government. It is also the Chinese authorities that would try/have tried her. There is a question of how “guilty” of serious crimes she really is. She may be, but we simply don’t know whether she is labelled a criminal because the authorities have ordered it as they view her as a threat, because the laws are overly restrictive such that free speech/free assembly/etc can be a crime, or she really is a criminal.
In contrast this guy was arrested and convicted in Sweden, a country with a good reputation when it comes to justice, for something that did not set him against the Swedish government. There is no suggestion that he was arrested and convicted because the authorities didn’t like him. Therefore at best I think that we can only say that there may have been a miscarriage of justice. To call him a political prisoner would imply he has been arrested for his political views. Yet I see no evidence of this.
So, Nimrod, why did you use the term “political prisoner” and why do you feel the matters warrant comparison?
On those core interests, you are either with China or against China.
But it is subjective as to what actions benefit China the most. Even supporting the Chinese government’s activities can be to the detriment of China or some/all of its peoples. I don’t think that it’s helpful in trying to make things so black and white.
March 9th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
@Nimrod: Thanks, this is a start and I would like to look further into the case. It seems odd to me that someone would be sentenced for sending newspapers abroad; a long time ago there was a separation in “internal publications” and others, but certainly that had been abolished by 1999?
I will try to find out more about the verdict against Mehsut, especially what constitutes “illegal intelligence activities.” In the complete verdict there should be a list of the laws specifically used for the sentence.
It might seem on the surface as it’s subjective what system a country has, but Sweden receives one of the highest numbers of political refugees every year, so in part it’s also an economic and political question.
March 9th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Hey ChinkTalk,
Just ignore that guy Mike. He is full of it. He is just regurgitating things that had been fed to him.
Most ethnic minorities in China are Mongoloids (hate to use the word). That means they don’t look too much different from each other or you and I for that matter. I ran into quite a few Chinese people and never knew they were minorities until they told me. The only few racially visible minorities are those with Caucasoid features. I have a feeling that he thinks that minorities in China are much more racially distinct / visible as is the case in the US and Canada.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/EthnicGroups/126822.htm
You should ask him about the places he visited. Which minority did he meet? How were they discriminate against? Like detailed personal experiences.
March 9th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Only the stupid spies get caught, meeting with their handlers and such and out of all people reporters and Chinese embassy officals. However, I’m just curious the guy leaking ‘state secrets’ is not about Sweden at all.
March 9th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
It’s interesting to note that charge is illegal “intelligence activity” against a non state organization…this got to be a world first.
I’m wondering what law in Sweden that actually implenmented this offense? Normally the counter-intelligence laws is used against gathering information on the state, while the charges for the breach of privacy in used against private spying…spying on WUC count as illegal “intelligence activity” sounded like this incident somehow compromised the Sweden national security…
March 9th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
WKL @ 7, thanks a bunch for the translation.
From what you wrote it appears no Swedish state secrets were involved. The private phone conversations Maihesuti had were conducted vountarily and no one was kidnapped or tortured. If the phone conversations were recorded, it is done at Maihesuti’s own private property. Any information Maihesuti may have obtained from WUC, a self-proclaimed NGO on matter of public interest, has no relation to the Swedish state or any secrets at all. No Chinese government payments to Maihesuti were in evidence.
So where’s the punishable crime? That he talked to people may have connections with the Chinese government? Following the same logic, that talking to People’s Daily reporter is an offense, it appears consistent with Chinese government’s position that people talking to VOA, RFA, media groups & NGO funded by US government, too, can be seen as an offense against the state.
Some of the people indicted by Chinese court even had evidence of foreign sponsorship against them. Liu Xiaobo took over $750,000 from US government via the NED, verified from NED’s own China grant publication. Hu Jia took over 150K and testafiled in US Congress on political matters, in aid of US government’s indictment against the Chinese governemnt, creating harm (per logic demonstrated by the Swedish court.)
The Swedish verdict also stated creating a network within Sweden (but other participants of such network is not named) that may be used for other activity is punishable. Again this logic is consistent with Chinese court verdicts.
For example the Chinese activist Tan Zouren, praised in the West, who was recently sentenced to 5 years. Tan’s court verdict cited similiar activity he had, in cooperating with overseas Falun Gong (an illegal sect in China) and Wan Dan (a known Taiwanese intelligence asset in US, wanted in China.)
So why is one case so easily rationalized and accepted, while the other is rejected wholesale? Why is some “activism” so lauded, while others are censured? Seems local laws applied with state’s self-interest is the only consistency.
So if we do it ourselves, what right do we have to fault the Chinese?
March 9th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
So if we do it ourselves, what right do we have to fault the Chinese?
*YAWN*
Charles, this is what you say all the time, regardless of which country it concerns. You are not Swedish, you are American. If you want to say America should butt out of China’s business, that’s fine. But that doesn’t apply to every country and you don’t have the right to say that no one can criticise anything about China because some countries are imperfect.
There is no evidence that this guy was charged and convicted because he offended the Swedish government (whereas annoying the Chinese government can get you locked up), and I have yet to see anything that suggests he did not receive a fair trial. I doubt that Sweden is a country most people asociate with biased courts or lack of justice.
If, however, there was a miscarriage of justice then it should be rectified – just as every miscarriage of justice in China is wrong and should not be accepted.
March 9th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
@my mother, thanks for your help, mom.
March 10th, 2010 at 3:45 am
I agree with Nimrod that there we ought to collect more information both about this case and Rebiya Kadeer’s to really see where the similarities and differences are. It’s not that I require court documents of the case if they are difficult to get to, but I believe more information than #8 is available on the net. Also, I’ll try to find out more about the Swedish case, perhaps even the full court verdict. Verdicts are public information which means that you can get them from the institution directly but I’m not sure they are published on the internet.
I have two comments, though:
* Mehsut didn’t just give information to a journalist. The journalist was an intelligence officer, and Mehsut used a special system of contacting him that was obviously not a normal channel.
* He was giving away information about Swedish citizens to a foreign power.
I agree that it’s odd that a Swedish court would base its assessment on how Uyghurs in China would fare if the intelligence was delivered. That is a political part of the decision. However, spying on the citizens of a country for the sake of another is most probably a serious offense anywhere. So there is a political edge here, but I don’t agree Mehsut will be a political prisoner (I saw “will be” because the case is bound to get to a Court of Appeal)
I will try to find out the definition of “(serious) illegal intelligence activities.”
March 10th, 2010 at 4:10 am
I also agree with Nimrod #8 and WKL. Until we know the details of the trial, everything else is just speculation. Fortunately for us, if anyone can find the Swedish transcripts it’s WKL so I’m hopeful more will be known over the next few days. Sweden’s legal system is transparent and mature, so those details should be released pretty quickly. Maybe one of us can find a report where the reporter actually did his homework and wrote about the specifics.
Nimrod, thanks for that information you dug up from the NY Times. Hopefully there is more we can all dig up to make a comparison between the two a little more realistic.
March 10th, 2010 at 4:11 am
It is a crime in Sweden to secretly or “by deceitful means” collect personal information of other people and hand it over to a foreign power, and it falls under “illegal intelligence activity” (my boldface):
“Chapter 19. On crimes against state security
(…)
10 § Whoever, in order to provide [information] to a foreign power, performs activities in the country for the acquisition of information pertaining military or other conditions, whose revealing to the foreign power might cause harm to the security of another foreign power, or here in the country assists in said activity that is not entirely temporary, is sentenced for illegal intelligence activity to fines or prison limited to one year.
The same sentence will also be carried out to whoever, in order to provide [information] to a foreign power, here in the country secretly or by deceitful means either carries out activities to collect information about others’ personal conditions or assists in said activity that is not entirely temporary.
If the offense in this paragraph is considered serious, the sentence will be prison, at least six months and at most four years. Law (1993:207)”
Swedish source: http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3911&bet=1962:700
March 10th, 2010 at 4:36 am
I just found the court ruling. It’s on 38 pages and can be downloaded from this place:
http://politisktinkorrekt.info/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/03/B-8976-09.pdf
Please give me some time to do the translation. 🙂 It seems this is only the verdict – there are some attachments that are not published in the PDF, one even secret by orders from SÄPO. Also, news flash: one of the witnesses in the case is Rebiya Kadeer, and Zhou Yongkang has been mentioned in the telephone calls that were tapped, so there might be a reason diplomats were “exchanged.” To be continued…
Sadly, as a side note, I notice that the blog publishing the case is an anti-immigrant one.
March 10th, 2010 at 6:20 am
Here’s a blurb I’m able to use translator on (page 4):
Babur Maihesuti have access to the data by making use of fraud; so that he claimed to sympathize with the
ethnic Uighurs, attend conferences and meetings with them and conceal that he submitted information about them to the representatives of the Chinese State.
So he collected information about Uyghurs in Sweden by attending WUC meetings and conferences, then pass the information to representative of the Chinese State. Doesn’t appear any Swedish state secrets were involved, only private information pertaining to a NGO open to all Uyghurs.
Okay, then I must say the verdict Chinese court handed downn were also valid, since the cirdumstances are similiar. If a Western country like Sweden can have laws like this, why can’t China?
It doesn’t have to be state secret, rather any information given to another country can substantiate “illegal intelligence”.
March 10th, 2010 at 7:08 am
translate.bing.com seems to do an okay job. Here’s what page 7 of the verdict document said about people Maihesuit talked to:
Zhou Lulu was at the time of the defendants acts commerce secretary and
head of the consular and political departments of the Chinese Embassy in Stockholm.
She is married to Lei Da. Lei Da has officially been a journalist at the People’s Daily,
but by the Swedish secret services considered to be the intelligence officer
So the Swedish court decided that the People’s Daily jounalist is an intelligence officer, based on not actual intelligence, but that he is married to a consulate official.
If Sweden can substantiate foreign agency relationship based on it’s own belief of governmental connection, why can’t China?
March 10th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Actually, I would translate the part mentioned in #21 as:
“Babur Maihesuti have received the information by using deceitful means, in that he has claimed to sympathize with the ethnic Uighurs, take part in conferences and meetings with them, as well as withholding [the fact] that he was submitting them to representatives of the Chinese state.”
I’ve read through the whole verdict now and I recommend that it be read in full, but please give me time to the end of the week to translate it. At least to me, the impression I got when I read the full verdict was more substantial than the shorter quote above, which does sound more subjective.
I was surprised that there was a law specifically prohibiting handing out personal information to representatives of a foreign state, but I don’t find it unreasonable, specifically to guard against it being done in a deceitful way. Was Rebiya sentenced for the same crime, and does China have such a law? Any information is welcome, but I’ll keep my contributions to the Swedish part.
Charles:
“It doesn’t have to be state secret, rather any information given to another country can substantiate “illegal intelligence”.”
No. I described a law above, chapter 19, paragraph 10. Military information or one that, if given to a foreign nation, would harm another foreign nation, is handing over illegal intelligence. Also, personal information given secretly or by deceitful means to an intelligence officer of a foreign nation, constitutes illegal intelligence activities.
“So the Swedish court decided that the People’s Daily jounalist is an intelligence officer, based on not actual intelligence, but that he is married to a consulate official.”
No. That’s not what it says. If you read further you will see that the final conclusion that Lei Da is an intelligence officer was based on information by SÄPO which was gathered by surveillance over a long period of time. The court did not reach that conclusion on a whim.
I recommend not just translating bits and pieces like this and then drawing conclusions.
March 10th, 2010 at 7:32 am
WKL, I am trying to read the whole document. For example page 8 it stated;
In a search of Babur Maihesutis home, police found a total of approximately
110 000 SEK in cash in a blazer and a jacket, both of which were in a closet.
But it doesn’t say if this money came from Chinese government or not. But money as qualification for establishing foreign agent status is quite reasonable. Foreign Agent Registration Act in US also states taking money in whole or part makes one a foreign agent.
This is the same rationale Chinese court cited to establish foreign agent status for Liu Xiaobo. The prosecution produced bank records showing an account belonging to Liu’s wife received, and withdrawn, foreign remittance.
March 10th, 2010 at 7:53 am
@First, however, any data on Kadeer to compare with?
Did anyone record Kadeer and US congressional closed meeting after Xinjiang riot?
March 10th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
@19
“Chapter 19. On crimes against state security…”
Well, this is an odd point…
Technically the court ruling decleared that WUC is a Swedish organization…maybe a lot of WUC memebers are Swedish? I mean normally spy cases on private organizations are not cover by state security law precisely because state security protection implies that a private organization is sanctioned and supported by the government. Given that WUC is an private international organization, isn’t the situation a little extreme here?
Is there any specific Swedish victims pointed out in the ruling? Or the ruling is just on spying the WUC’s Swedish branch? Is WUC based/originated in Sweden? Questions and questions.
The point here is not to argue who is wrong or not, but rather why the Swedish government decided to de jure throw their full support behind WUC?
March 10th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Yes it would be nice to know if there’s a copy of Kadeer’s original verdict (its been many years) so translation can start.
@WKL, I’ve read thru page 10 by using Bing translator. End of page 9 and 1st half of page to talked about him giving the Chinese embassy information on Uyghur protest schedule (open information so public may attend), notes on WUC meeting and data on it’s leaders (personal information on public figures?) and travel schedule (open information so public may attend speech, etc.) Page 10 also covered things you mentioned in 23, including the 110 000 SEK is from the Chinese government.
It appear no state secret (most of the WUC info are public) were involved. One of the criticism levied against the Chinese government on prosecution of Hu Jia is that Hu didn’t give any state secret to US embassy personnel (where intelligence assets are masked).
It appears such criticism isn’t valid in light of the Swedish case where proseution occured without national security being involved. If an enlightened Western country like Sweden can apply laws this way, why can’t China?
Back to the Swedish case. On page 11 the public defender pointed out Swedish Criminal Code Chapter 10 section 19 is rarely used, and only on offences against State security. It’s very arguable how does information like NGO protest schedule harm Sweden’s security. It may beneift the Chinese embassy (or reporter covering the embassy) to know this, but unless Swedish government is involved in such protest, it has no relation to state security.
March 10th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Thanks for taking the time to make translations. Looking forward to it, including what, if anything, Rebiya Kadeer had to say in the case. Seems like an odd witness.
If I’m not mistaken, I get the impression that the “information” was “collected” at some WUC meeting in Washington, D.C., not in Sweden. It may be as Wukailong says, that Sweden has an refugee/asylee industry to protect, and in this case, some of the refugees are Uighur “enemy combatants” shipped from Guantanamo Bay, i.e. terrorists according to the US. China has been asking Sweden for their extradition for trial in China. Instead Sweden granted them asylum. So there is this diplomatic background to consider.
March 10th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
@ “China has been asking Sweden for their extradition for trial in China…”
Thanks for this insight, now since that there are lives of the Swedish residents on the line, it is much clearer on why the national security law is invoked.
March 10th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
@ Wukailong: Thanks for taking the time to translate the entire document. We’re all looking forward to reading an accurate translation this weekend when you’re finished, and lucky we have a trilingual (or greater) Swede in our midst. 😛
March 10th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
And for those who don’t wish to wait, or want to help verify the translation, can use either translate.bing.com or translate.google.com. Just copy/paste each page of the PDF into the translator.
As to this news’ reception, IMHO it is a stark contrast to the automatic demonization of China and lauding of dissident/activists we’ve seen. Basically this man’s activism wrt terrorist group like WUC is unappreciated because we’ve taken side with these “freedom fighters” in order to enforce an official narrative of China.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:26 am
@Charles Liu
I am reluctant to get involved in this debate, but I give my two cents. The states that the information that the defendant provided to the Chinese gov with has been gathered deceitfully (by pretending to be sympathetic to WUC), which qualifies the act as illegal collection of information on behalf of a foreign power. The gathering has taken place for a long period of time (two years), for personal gain and the verdict states that information can be used to violate human rights of concerned individuals and lead to personal harm. Each of the elements in this chain has been defined in the court document.
You can be prosecuted in Sweden and many other countries for harming people in a third country and the fact that the case involves a regime that is known for harming human rights makes it a serious case in the eyes of the court. Sweden is a signatory to a number of HR conventions and is a willing participant in int’l human rights organs, so this is part and parcel of the Swedish legal system. You don’t have to agree with the assessment of China as a human rights violator to see this point.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Hemulen,
What you describe, at most, qualifies as “violation of privacy,” which is a civil offense, not a criminal offense, in all Western countries.
What the information was intended for, has nothing to do with the violation of privacy, which is premised on “expectation of privacy.”
Frankly, if the information here, schedules/etc., were publicized among a group of people, (and not to mention WUC is supposedly a public NGO), then there is NO expectation of privacy.
Then, gathering such information, even if by “deceit,” is not a violation of even any individual rights.
(1) Governments do this all the time in the West: if you throw your information into the garbage, the government agents can go through your garbage and get at your information.
(2) what is this “deceit” you speak of? That 62 year old Babur Mehsut didn’t openly announce that he was working for the Chinese government, or that he intends to sell the information to the Chinese government?!
In that case, did WUC ever ask everyone of its members what they intend to do with the information of schedules/etc. that they get?
How is it “deceit,” when no one is asked about where the information is going to?
March 11th, 2010 at 12:58 am
Hemulen, I don’t necessarily think Maihesuti’s prosecution is unjustified.
I do agree each nation has it’s own laws (such as FARA in US) and right to regulate collection of information on behalf of a foreign power, including China. Yet such right doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to China’s prosecution of people violating similiar law. We are ready to give some activist the Nobel prize, yet this man who’s, according to description, infiltrated a terrorist group, is a criminal.
Take Hu Jia as an example. You can check what the expat China blogs said. I remember reading some blogpost that Hu shouldn’t be prosecuted because no state secrets were given to US embassy personnel. So Hu obviousely collected information on behalf of a foreign power, and the Chinese government prosecuted him under relevant Chinese law.
Why such disparaging view on overtly similiar foreign agent activity?
March 11th, 2010 at 1:02 am
Another point is that a most of the coverage of this incident is confused. The defendant has not been convicted of “espionage” and has not been accused of being a “spy” or for having “leaked state secrets”. He has been convicted of “illegal gathering of intelligence” and and nothing else, which carries a maximum prison sentence of four years. For the definition of the crime, please read WKL’s translations at #7 and #19 carefully.
The point of “deceit” here is central and the prosecutor makes that case in the verdict, where he makes a clear distinction between legitimate and legal collection of intelligence and deceitful collection of evidence on behalf of a foreign power. If I take copies of newspaper articles and other public information and hand it to the Chinese embassy, no one will prosecute me. There are companies that provide that kind of service in Sweden, but in China that can be construed as a crime, as in Rebiya Kadeer’s case. If I hang out with Chinese refugees under the pretense of being sympathetic to them and had that information over to the embassy, things are different. So the parallel between Kadeer and this guy is superficial.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:16 am
@Charles Liu
I have responded to most of your comments under #35. Your assertion that WUC is a terrorist organization has been rejected by the Swedish court, which takes recognition of the labeling of ETIM as a terror group. Even if the defendant was a suspected or proven terrorist it would be difficult to extradite him to China because Swedish laws prohibits the extradition of defendants that risk capital punishment, regardless whether that country be the US, Japan or China.
@raventhorn
This is not a question of violating someone’s privacy, read the verdict.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:24 am
Hemulen,
So you are saying the crime rests on proving “intent”? Because the issue of “deceit” is entirely subjective. It is entirely possible for someone to be sympathetic to the WUC, and then have a falling-out later. So is changing one’s mind illegal now? And if one’s intent can be prosecuted, then Kadeer’s intent certainly can be called into question. Did she tell the newspaper vendor from whom she bought bundles of back issues that she was going to disclose it to the WUC, or was she buying them under the pretense of reading them for enjoyment? Or if it is not a matter of intention but clandestine information passing, then when Kadeer wanted to pass on names of locals to Congressional delegates who wanted to investigate China, did she not do so clandestinely? I don’t think it’s superficial.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:32 am
@Nimrod
I am not going to repeat what I wrote, but as any law professor can tell you “intent” is one element of a criminal act. And the act committed by the Swedish Uighur and Kadeer were different in nature, as I have explained. Read the verdict.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:36 am
Hemulen wrote:
@Charles Liu
Your assertion that WUC is a terrorist organization has been rejected by the Swedish court, which takes recognition of the labeling of ETIM as a terror group.
+++++
Everybody knows WUC is like Hamas, wherein the terrorists take cover in the big tent of a seemingly more innocuous organization. At the end of the day, it’s a political judgment on the part of Sweden on how closely to associate with the WUC.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:42 am
I can’t recommend using a machine translation tool to argue the fine points of the verdict, since these are usually trained on corpora containing standard language. Court verdicts, especially when describing the laws involved in making a decision, use a language quite different from newspaper articles or discussions like these, at least in Sweden. If you have to use them, be aware that the translation might be wrong and may be arguing a point made by computers over at Microsoft or Google, not the court verdict itself.
Also, when it comes to terms like “by deceitful means” (svikligen in the original, an unusual term) or something similar in the US, misrepresentation, semantic discussions based on everyday usage is not going to lead anywhere. They don’t mean the same thing in a legal context.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:09 am
Hemulen,
Any first year law student in criminal law class can tell you that “Intent” is merely 1 element. The question is whether there is some “criminal act” beyond the “intent.”
And you obviously can’t find such a “criminal act” in your assertion.
Case and point: if a bankrobber INTENDS to rob a bank, and crosses a street to a bank, but finds the bank closed, he cannot be convicted of “crossing the street with intent to rob a bank.”
That is simply a ridiculous charge.
Case here, It is obviously a flimsy trumped up charge. What “deceitful means”? That the 62 year old man is a Uighur who sold information to China?
Is there a law in Sweden forbidding information sales to China? Is Sweden boycotting information commerce with China?
If this is the way Sweden runs its legal system, so much for the vaunted “rule of law” in the West.
…and apparently, West is learning the Chinese way of doing things.
Thanks for proving that China was right after all.
next time, I guess the “human rights advocates” should read the Chinese verdict more carefully.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:24 am
WKL,
Even if it is something similar to “misrepresentation,” it still amounts to nothing more than a civil offense, not criminal offense.
I am in awe that Sweden managed to conjure up a criminal statute interpretation that fits this “crime.”
I eagerly await Sweden’s wholesale convictions of all Swedish companies/newspapers that provides any economic data that ends up in Chinese Government’s hands.
(Or should I suggest that this 62 year old man was perhaps convicted because of his ethnicity?)
I mean really, if some White Swedish male reporter got hold of all the same information and decided to publish it for the world to see, (including the Chinese government), would Sweden convict that man for the same crime?
I think not.
But in this case, apparently, it is OK that the Uighurs wanted blood from one of their traitors, and so Uighur justice is meted out under Swedish laws (translated of course).
March 11th, 2010 at 3:31 am
@r v
Your argument is over the top…if that 62 year old Uyghur sell information that could harm Swedish nationals, how come it is not a breach of Swedish national security?
March 11th, 2010 at 3:42 am
WKL,
I still cannot see anything “deceitful” or “misrepresentation” in what that 62 year old man did.
If WUC wishes to keep those information private, it should have screened its attendees more carefully.
But as far as we know, its meetings are public, not secret.
There is no “confidentiality agreement” with its attendees to prevent them from distributing information.
Indeed, WUC probably wanted the attendees to spread the information to others.
the only “deceit” I can see, is that WUC was deceived by itself in the belief that all Uighurs would follow it and not distribute information to China.
As for the verdict, it’s more based upon circumstantial evidence and fear-mongering.
For one, even if that Chinese journalist is really a spy, who proved that the 62 year old man knew that he was giving information to a spy and not a journalist?
Are we assuming that every Chinese journalist is a spy? Or that every Uighur can tell a Chinese spy from a Chinese journalist?
So, where is the “criminal intent”?
Does Sweden now see a Uighur giving information to a Chinese (Han) person, and legally presume that some type of espionage hand off is occurring?
March 11th, 2010 at 3:45 am
Jimmy,
We sell all kinds of information that “could harm” someone somewhere.
Knowledge itself “could harm” someone somewhere.
Should all teachers and journalists be locked up?
March 11th, 2010 at 4:05 am
Tsk tsk tsk…talk about going to the extreme.
So basically you are saying that since everyone’s action “could harm” another, then the concept of crime in a society is absurd? Is this argument even relevant to this case here?
In case you forgot, knowledge can hurt people, that is why privacy law exists. Now if that breach of privacy is used to benefit another party, then it’s against the law, pure and simple. If that breach of privacy is used to benefit another state, then it’s call illegal intelligence gathering. Teachers and journalists offers knowledge that is not obtained by breach others’ privacy…how could they be thrown in jail?
Look, I just don’t know why people still trying to sidestep the spy charge here. All I see here is a normal intelligence operation got botched, Sweden trying to protect it’s own citizens, and media misinterpreted the situation as China is trying to take over the world. If there is anything to blame, is the media for fanning the Sinophobia by portraying the news as China’s “War on Human Rights” instead of just a normal intelligence operation out of millions conducted by every country on the planet. But saying the Swedish ruling stepped out of the line is completely unjustified.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:11 am
@r v: As I’ve said I’m going to translate the verdict, and if you want to argue about the intent, Swedish laws or whatever, then argue from that information. Several of your questions in #44 can be answered using the more detailed information in the document.
Since you say “[a]s for the verdict, it’s more based upon circumstantial evidence and fear-mongering,” you have obviously read it in full. Do you know Swedish or did you use a translation service? If it is the latter, see my comment in #40.
I will come back here after I’ve done the translation (probably the verdict first, then the attachments), so please have some patience.
@Others: Nimrod made a comparison with Rebiya Kadeer’s case. I think that was an interesting comparison, so is it possible to get more info about it? Thanks.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:39 am
Hemulen, Nimrod, I should clearify that WUC is a terrorist group under Chinese law and in the eye of the Chinese government. Depends on your POV Maihesuti’s activism can be seen as helping fight against terrorism in China and globally.
But since that’s not our narrative, Maihesuti is not going to be trated as a hero or nominated for the Peace Prize.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Jimmy,
I think you are the one going too far. My whole point was that all criminal laws are based upon the legal concept of “proximate cause,” which is to say that criminal intent and acts must be close enough to foreseeably or actually CAUSE harm.
You are hypothesizing “could harm,” that’s about as concrete as the possibility of me “could be harm” by you breathing oxygen.
Well, I am a lawyer, so that kind of logic won’t fly in any sensible court or law school. So much for Swedish justice.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
@r v
A lawyer..I should have know…only a lawyer would actually argue over the legal definiation of the crime instead of actually refuting a crime.
The point is simple, Mr. Mehsut breached a Swedish national’s privacy for the benefit of another party…why shouldn’t the Swedish court rule him guilty?
March 11th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Jimmy,
“only a lawyer would actually argue over the legal definiation of the crime instead of actually refuting a crime.”
And I thought the West presumes a man’s innocence, rather than have him “refute” his own guilt.
Shocking.
Like I said, so much for Swedish justice.
The point is even more simple, now according to you, “Mr. Mehsut breached a Swedish national’s privacy for the benefit of another party.”
Does the “benefit of another party” mean “harm” to you now?
“a Swedish national’s privacy”?
Please, enlighten us with your definition of “privacy”.
I do not consider schedules of meetings, etc. of a PUBLIC NGO to be private information, since WUC obviously openly distributed the information to anyone in the public who wanted it, as a necessity to its public meeting functions.
… But then again, I observe that “human rights advocates” have the habit of crying wolf without bothering with the basic “definitions.”
March 11th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
For a lawyer, not to bright either….
First of all, did Mr. Mehsut get a fair and open trial? Well, given everyone here can actually read the court records, is there any reason that the court forbide Mr. Mehsut’s to defend himself?
Second…isn’t any breach of privacy law a criminal offense in any criminal code on planet Earth? And by legal defination, isn’t any breach of criminal code means harm is done against the society? In case you still say the information he gather is public knowledge, the law did say a breach of privacy means “intercepting communication without consent”. So even by legal arguement, you are still miles off.
Finally, given that Sweden is trying to protect Uyghur refugees within its border, so they shouldn’t fall under the Swedish jurisdictions?
Given a lot of Uyghur refugee is affiliated with WUC…what doesn’t make sense about Sweden kills a spying operation in WUC to protect its own refugees?
March 11th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“is there any reason that the court forbide Mr. Mehsut’s to defend himself?”
I don’t know what this is supposed to mean.
“Second…isn’t any breach of privacy law a criminal offense in any criminal code on planet Earth?”
Actually, NO. I said it before, it’s a civil offense against an individual, not a criminal offense.
“In case you still say the information he gather is public knowledge, the law did say a breach of privacy means “intercepting communication without consent”. So even by legal arguement, you are still miles off.”
please, define “intercepting communication.”
If the information is public knowledge, there is no “intercepting.” It’s simply being received from public distribution. You can’t broadcast information in a public forum, and then accuse people who happen to receive the information as “intercepting communication.” That’s simply illogical.
If the information is public, then there is no expectation of privacy.
“Finally, given that Sweden is trying to protect Uyghur refugees within its border, so they shouldn’t fall under the Swedish jurisdictions? Given a lot of Uyghur refugee is affiliated with WUC…what doesn’t make sense about Sweden kills a spying operation in WUC to protect its own refugees?”
Sweden can protect whomever in its border, but not by stretching the law. Jurisdiction doesn’t alter the nature of the information as public, not private.
If Sweden wants to protect its refugees, then it should defend the right of a 62 year old who distributed PUBLIC information to people whom he could hardly be held responsible for.
What Sweden does here is nothing less than political convenience by sacrificing 1 old man.
That’s fine, if Sweden wants to make its domestic laws political to international issues.
But so is declaring WUC a terrorist organization. Bring on the National security and privacy laws in China.
At the end of the day, Sweden is locking up a 62 year old Uighur, and China will lock up some other Uighurs.
For politics, for face. Who wins, who loses?
And people say Lawyers don’t have hearts.
I’m “not to bright.” I’m bright enough.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
@Charles Liu #48
Mehsut is a Swedish citizen, not Chinese. He obtained Swedish nationality by claming refugee status from the Chinese government. If he old possessed information on global terrorism, he should have contacted SÄPO in the first place, not the Chinese Embassy.
@raventhorn
It is interesting to see how you just turned into an expert on Swedish criminal law. The verdict will probably be appealed at the court of appeals, I think you should take on this case pro bono.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Hemulen,
“If he possessed information on global terrorism, he should have contacted SÄPO in the first place, not the Chinese Embassy.”
Is there a law in Sweden that forbids him contact with the Chinese Embassy regarding global terrorism?
I rather think that’s his choice, who to contact first.
*And I claim no expertise on Swedish criminal law, for what Swedish criminal law is worth.
But I like to see someone explain to me the validity of this Swedish criminal law under the Western notions of “rule of law” and “human rights.”
(1) what makes this information “private”?
(2) what is the “deceitful means”?
(3) who proved that Mr. Mehsut even knew that he was talking to a Chinese “spy”, and not a Chinese journalist?
(4) what is this “could harm” business in Swedish criminal law? (because I was never taught such a term in my law school. I was taught that people are liable under the law for what they caused in harm in the past, and not for what could/might be caused in the future.)
(5) When did invasion of privacy go from a civil offense punishable by fines and damages, to a criminal offense punishable by jail time?
March 12th, 2010 at 3:21 am
@Raventhorn
WKL has translated both the verdict and the legal basis for the sentence, and I have tried to explain some of the concepts behind the verdict, but you keep throwing my words back at me as if it was I who handed down the sentence. I don’t really have time or interest to engage in that kind of back-and-forth discussion. If you are really curious about the case, just read the documents and if you can’t, wait for WKL’s full translation. Most of the answers are there, but not all.
March 12th, 2010 at 3:34 am
Hemulen, Hu Jia is Chinese, not American. But that did not stop him from passing information to US emnbassy personnel, and taking hundreds of thousands US government money via the NED.
To the Chinese Maihesuti’s activism in helping fight terrorism against China is contrbution in global security.
Like I said, this is not our narrative, so no Nobel.
March 12th, 2010 at 4:47 am
@Charles Liu
Post the verdict here, so we can compare what Hu Jia to Maihesuti. I am not completely satisfied with the verdict of Maihesuti, but he did get legal counsel from one of the major law firms in Sweden, which cost Swedish taxpayers USD83,193.62. He also has the possibility to appeal the sentence.
No one denies that the Chinese government has a legitimate interest to fight illegal gathering of intelligence, but it is applicable to Hu Jia? How?
The fact that Maihesuti reportedly worked for a government he claimed to flee from does not raises serious questions about his intention to settle in Sweden in the first place, and I don’t think there are any winners here.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Hemulen,
I am merely asking questions that no one wants to give any direct answers to.
If the answers are in the “verdict”, surly it would be easy to point them out.
Direct and relevant quotes would be fine.
But if the basis of the Swedish “verdict” is merely Swedish law on its own, then I don’t think “human rights” is what it is concerned with.
What I see, is simply that a 62 year old man is caught in the middle of a political question, and Sweden chose to bear its power for 1 of the 2 powerful sides, rather than side with a single old man who has no powers.
That is not “human rights.” That is abuse of a refugee for political purposes.
So apparently, if in China, Maihesuti must choose the Chinese side, and in Sweden Maihesuti must choose the WUC side.
And damn it, Swedish law will make certain at least the 2nd part!
Glad we cleared it up!
March 13th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
@ Hemulen (54)
Mehsut is a Swedish citizen, not Chinese. He obtained Swedish nationality by claming refugee status from the Chinese government. If he old possessed information on global terrorism, he should have contacted SÄPO in the first place, not the Chinese Embassy.
Absolutely, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
It is interesting to see how you just turned into an expert on Swedish criminal law. The verdict will probably be appealed at the court of appeals, I think you should take on this case pro bono.
raventhorn is an expert of everything, you’ll find that out soon.
@ r v (59)
If the answers are in the “verdict”, surly it would be easy to point them out.
Are you fluent in Swedish? If not, wait for WKL to fully translate it. There is no obligation for courts around the world to hand down their decisions in English, nor to publish them on the internet. That we may be able to discuss the full decision here is a tribute to Swedish justice and the dedication of people like WKL.
What I see, is simply that a 62 year old man is caught in the middle of a political question, and Sweden chose to bear its power for 1 of the 2 powerful sides, rather than side with a single old man who has no powers.
Maybe I’ve missed your point, but what is that conclusion based on? Are you suggesting that if he had been doing this on a different ethnic/exiled group he would have got away with it? As far as I can see he was convicted because of what he did – changing the parties would not have changed the outcome.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Raj,
Sarcasm against my character is hardly any kind of sensible answer to my questions.
And if I am to wait for WKL’s full translation, then why is Hemulen telling me that the answers already exists?
Hemulen must have a translation already, I just want him to point out the answers and explain them.
your explanation seems to be conflicting with his explanation so far.
March 14th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Raj, why do you still waste time here? Your work is done. After the initial pretensions of being a place for open debate, Fool’s Mountain is now just a rapidly withering racial supremacist cesspit. Leave Raventhorn, Charles Liu and the others to rant pointlessly into the ether…
March 14th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Barny,
You are at lease partially right that FM is loosing its relevancy. However, I don’t think you understand the main reason, it takes a blind and ossified ideologue to still argue against the success of the current Chinese system. Although there are no shortage of such ideologues, most of their attentions are probably drawn somewhere else — Tea Parties, for example, for or against.
March 14th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Wuming,
Success is often hated and mocked and envied.
The ungifted look upon the successful and wonder, “why is that imperfect being more deserving of good fortune than I am?”
But the ungifted never bother to see that all are imperfect, but some simply work harder and smarter than others.
March 14th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Hemulen,@ 58. Hu Jia also had the right to applea. It is reported that he choose not to. A survey of old news and blogs doesn’t seem to turn up translation or reporting of the Chinese verdict, only cries of injustice.
I really wonder if anyone had an interest in the verdict itself before deciding the verdict is unjust? I think you question is leading to another example of how these cases treated very differently.
March 14th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Of course, what is interesting is the fact that Sweden has a lay-judge judicial system that is seldom used. Here, it appears that a pure bench trial by judges was used.
State appointed judges, state security provided evidence (which of course the judges refused to question the authenticity of).
Sounds legal enough, except for the lack of explanation on some critical elements of the crime.
For which, I will gladly await for the more precise translation of the verdict, since the explanations I have received so far do not conform to known legal definitions and standards.
March 14th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
rv, unlike you I’m actually willing to accept the Swedish court decision. As a layman I’m really in no position to question it. I would only ssay that this cas has parallels with Chinese court decisions that we seem to have rejected wholesale.
To me, there seem to be quite a bit of exceptionalism. Do we not have political decisions and incorrect court verdict? Yet when it comes to China, a few isolated cases seem sufficient to render China’s judicial system insufficient and uhjust, as a whole.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:39 am
Charles,
You judge me too harshly.
I merely question on the basis of the legal systems as they define themselves.
I am a lawyer. I am oath bound at least in 1 legal system to uphold the courts’ decisions, no matter how distasteful the decisions might be to the people.
By corollary, I regard myself as equally bound to uphold the courts’ decisions in each nation’s locality.
Thus, my cold hearted logic does not question whether I should “accept” a court’s decision. A lawyer is in no position to NOT accept it.
What’s done is done, and I have no interest in changing any nation for my sense of logic.
In law, we are used to all kinds of exceptions to the rules.
*but it is interesting to see some people try to “explain” the Swedish “verdict”.
🙂
Look at it this way, I am far more questioning these people’s own moral righteousness and their own sense of right/wrong, than the Swedish system.
March 17th, 2010 at 3:09 am
I finished the translation of the verdict yesterday, but need to proofread. So it might take another 1-2 days.