11A056 None So Blind by Jim Davies, 2/25/2011    

Governments operate what they call "justice systems" and "courts" to fool the public into supposing that they are providing justice; that decisions rendered are rendered impartially, with no more regard for the wishes of that government than for those of the opposing party. It's a seductive myth.

The British system is the blueprint for our own, so it's more than usually interesting to note how it handled the hot potato of Julian Assange. Yesterday, the result of the hearing about a Swedish request for extradition was announced. Two weeks ago in Assange in Court I named a few slender reasons why the political masters might find it in their interests to get this matter quietly buried, but alas they did not prevail. As mentioned there, Assange's defense ran to 35 pages, and made it clear that the extradition warrant was indeed "mistaken" in numerous ways; it was thoroughly botched. Yet without rebutting any of those numerous ways and arguments, Judge Riddle simply said it wasn't.

So unless his appeal to the UK High Court should succeed, Julian will shortly be shipped off to a closed-door trial in Sweden, where he could be convicted of rape only if his judges are card-carrying FemiNazis. Unfortunately, that is quite possible.

I've been puzzled all along, though, about why it's considered easier for the FedGov then to extradict him from there (for eventual possible execution) than from the UK. Brian Palmer, an Uppsala U lecturer, is puzzled too, but said "The Swedish government has shown itself to be more pliant than the British... and the Swedish press has been... less vocal in defending WikiLeaks than many people and many newspapers in Britain. So I think he is safer there." Palmer adds "Sweden [is] so eager to host NATO military exercises in the North, to share intelligence information at the very high level with the US and NATO that [Conservative Prime Minister] Fredric Reinfeldt was so very eager to visit Bush."

This is very sad. Sweden has for almost a whole century been terribly Socialist domestically, but its governments have pursued a relatively enlightened foreign policy; they avoided entanglement in two hot wars and one cold one, and Sweden has been known as a haven of anything-goes free expression. Now, at the very time when free expression, thanks to Assange, is gaining an explosive new dimension and when the US-USSR cold war (during which Swedish support might have been useful) is well and truly over, its government wants in. I'm still puzzled. My best guess at present is that, drugged by nine decades of socialist statism, the Swedish population has crossed the line into total dependency and will will back government against all critics, regardless of political color. If so, it's right out of phase with the rest of the world and will eventually suffer withdrawal pains.

The coming zero government society will not so much improve the function of disinterested justice. It will introduce one, for the first time ever. All through human history and never more than in London this week, courts have been run by hypocrites who are blind because they will not see.

Your feedback, please!

  Had enough GOVERNMENT yet?    www.TheAnarchistAlternative.info