Reykjavík Grapevine - 17.06.2011, Síða 10

10
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 8 — 2011 Is former PM Geir H. Haarde guilty? Should he have been pros-
ecuted for ‘failing’? Or was he 'just doing his job'. We are actually
fairly interested in what you think about that.
News | Politics News | Paul Fontaine
Last September, the Icelandic parliament
took the conclusions of the Special Inves-
tigative Commission (SIC) under advise-
ment and voted on whether or not four key
political figures of the previous govern-
ment should be charged with negligence
and mismanagement: former Minister of
Finance Árni M. Mathiesen, former Min-
ister of Business Björgvin G. Sigurðsson,
former Foreign Minister Ingibjörg Sólrún
Gísladóttir and former Prime Minister
Geir H. Haarde. In the end, all escaped
unscathed except for Geir, who parlia-
ment decided (by a 33-votes-to-30 majority)
to put on trial for his part in the 2008 eco-
nomic crash.
The vote was an historic one, and
marked the first time in Icelandic his-
tory that a prime minister had ever
been charged with negligence. This also
marked the first time the national court
would be called together since its incep-
tion in the early 20th century.
The reactions from the right and the
left were immediate and decisive. Geir has
consistently professed his innocence, say-
ing that there was nothing he could have
done to prevent the crash, and that he was
not the only one who enjoyed the benefits
of the over-inflated banks. This is a far cry
from the SIC report conclusions, which
portrayed Geir as woefully incompetent,
unaware of anything that was happening
in the Central Bank, and frankly terrified
of the then Central Bank chair, current
Morgunblaðið editor, and all-around con-
servative grand poobah Davíð Oddsson.
Support from around the world...
Geir's defenders were also quick to jump
to his aid, with many conservative figures
stating that the trial is nothing more than
political revenge initiated by his long-time
opponents. This culminated in the forma-
tion of Málsvörn.is, a website that purports
the dual purpose of collecting signatures
of those who believe Geir is being unjustly
punished and raising money for his de-
fence fund. The site boasted hundreds of
signatures within its first two weeks, but
at least one person—author Arngrímur
Vídalín—claims his name was put on the
supporters list without his knowledge or
consent (the petition also lists Adolf Hitler
and Benito Mussolini as supporters).
The outspoken nature of his support-
ers may explain Geir's breezy attitude
about the trial, which began earlier this
month. He recently told attendees of a
press conference that he has received flow-
ers at his doorstep, and added, “We will
win this case”. He also said that he often
bumps into the MPs who voted in favour
of pressing charges, who then—possibly
out of politeness—try to greet him in a
friendly way, which he takes issue with.
"They have demanded a two-year prison
term for me. And they think they can just
walk up to me and kiss and hug me like it's
no thing. 'No, sir', I tell those women who
try".
Yeah but is he guilty?
Not everyone is buying it, though. Left-
Green MP Björn Valur Gíslason respond-
ed to the oft-repeated criticism from Geir’s
supporters that the trial is baseless, and
merely political revenge from political op-
ponents.
"Has it occurred to no one that Geir is
guilty of that which he is being charged?",
he wrote on his blog. "Is the [Special In-
vestigative Commission report] forgotten?
Wasn't it one of the report's conclusions
that Haarde showed negligence on the job,
and neglected to act, with disastrous con-
sequences?".
By Icelandic law, a government min-
ister found guilty of negligence or mis-
management can face up to two years in
prison. Whether or not this trial—which
isn't going to be drawing to a close any
time soon—will end in a conviction or
an acquittal for Geir, the trial does mark
a new chapter in Icelandic politics: at least
one elected representative is being held ac-
countable for his actions—or lack thereof.

Justice Or Revenge?
A little more than a year ago, sever-
al Icelandic bankers were arrested
and kept in custody in relation to
the Special Prosecutor's investiga-
tion into the 2008 economic col-
lapse, its antecedents and causes.
Appearing in political TV talk show
Silfur Egils shortly afterwards,
French-Norwegian magistrate Eva
Joly, who at that time served as
the Prosecutor's special assistant,
talked about how society does not
expect—and has problems to deal
with politically and economically—
powerful people being arrested, in-
terrogated and possibly sentenced.
Eva Joly was right. And the reason?
Habit. Whether a journalist, police offi-
cer, lawyer, judge or a powerless citizen,
in a civilised society based on dualistic
ideas of good and evil, one is most likely
unable to recognise well-dressed and
eloquent people—with possessions and
power in their pockets—as anything
other then good. During the interview,
Eva compared those people with drug
users and dealers that are brought to
court, who generally are immediately
seen by society as criminals deserving
to face “justice”. Another rightful com-
parison would be political dissidents.
JURIDICAL MILESTONE OR POLITI-
CAL WITCH-HUNT?
In September of last year, the majority
of Alþingi decided to charge former
Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde for negli-
gence and mismanagement during the
prelude to the 2008 economic collapse.
After heavy parliamentary debate on
the options to charge either four former
ministers, a couple of them or none, the
decision, based on the renowned Spe-
cial Investigation Commission report,
was to charge Haarde alone. Crying
“political witch-hunt!”, was his and his
comrades' first reaction, particularly
ironic as he himself was one of the main
advocates for the investigation leading
to this decision.
On June 6, the case was filed in front
of Landsdómur, the national high court
that now assembles for the first time in
Iceland's history. While some consider
it a juridical milestone, Geir and his
supporters stated that the filing marked
the beginning of “Iceland's first political
trial”. Regardless of one's opinion about
the legitimacy of this particular case,
it is impossible to overlook the con-
centrated attempt, embraced in such
a statement, to openly deny not only
the juridical system's political nature
but also the fact of how controversial
state policies in Iceland—concerning
economic, energy and refugee issues,
to name a few—have evoked such fierce
opposition that the state's only answer
has been to arrest and accuse, threat-
ening people with up to a lifetime in
prison.
MORE EqUAL THAN OTHERS
It is remarkably interesting to look at
the rhetoric surrounding Geir Haarde's
case in comparison with other court
cases. On one hand Geir is a “criminal”,
on the other a victim of “political per-
secution”. The latter definition comes
from a team of supporters who up until
now have not seen a great deal of rea-
sons to criticise the status quo's great-
est watchmen, the courts. But now, as
their teammate has got caught in the
unimaginable, they have shown a com-
pletely different side in their criticism
towards the system.
Let’s be clear from the start: there is
a slight difference as Geir’s case takes
place in front of a particularly rare set
of judges whereas all other defendants
face their fortune in front of the stan-
dard courts. At the same time, Lands-
dómur is the only platform where the
authorities can be brought in front of
the court of law, counterbalancing the
aforementioned difference. Addition-
ally, the rhetoric around Geir’s case is
not limited to it alone but was also pre-
dominant during the above-mentioned
bankers' arrests one year ago. At that
point lawyers, judges, politicians and
media editors raised their voices, high-
lighting what in theory is considered
to be the maxim of the constitutional
state: that everyone is innocent until
proven guilty.
And now, when Haarde's case has
commenced, we get to hear the same
clichés all over again. How his reputa-
tion has been damaged and his family
and friends been affected by the pub-
licity surrounding his trial. That Ice-
land's parliament has been misused for
a political assault. That the accusations
are built on sand, which still does not
allow us to underestimate the serious-
ness of being accused in the first place,
regardless of the case's final outcome.
That the law articles concerning Lands-
dómur are outdated. How hard and ex-
pensive it is for a defendant to defend
himself against the prosecution—an in-
stitution with a bunch of paid workers,
and now even an entire website!
Yeah, yeah—this might all be true.
But when compared with the discourse
surrounding the majority of court cas-
es, where the charges come from above
and head hierarchically down the social
staircase, the fuss around Geir’s case
reveals itself as a simple tragicomedy. If
one believes that some sort of a univer-
sal concept of justice exists, and that a
particular institution of politically hired
judges is able to reasonably execute
this justice, the above-listed arguments
must apply to all defendants.
But they don't.
This we know e.g. from recent cas-
es against political dissidents where
charges have been in complete contra-
vention of the cases' evidence, inves-
tigations, the laws and Iceland's con-
stitution. During one of these cases,
against the so-called ‘Reykjavík Nine’—
who were accused and finally acquitted
of “attacking parliament” in December
of 2008—media editors, lawyers, police
officers, former and current ministers
and members of parliament amongst
others, did their best to get the de-
fendants sentenced before the actual
court proceedings took place. Another
case would be the one against anti-
war campaigner Lárus Páll Birgisson,
whose civil and constitutional rights
have repeatedly been violated by the
police by the demand of the U.S. em-
bassy in Reykjavík. Lárus has already
once been sentenced for refusing to
obey the police who illegally ordered
him to leave a public pavement in front
of the embassy. Another case is going
on right now, based on the exact same
nonsense.
Neither of these cases nor most
other court procedures in this country
have been of any concern to the re-
cently uprisen human rights guards of
Geir H. Haarde. In the comparison crys-
tallises George Orwell’s ominous saying
that all animals are indeed equal, but
some animals are more equal than oth-
ers.

THE BITTER TASTE OF THEIR OWN
MEDICINE
In his recent book, titled ‘Bankastræti
Núll’, author Einar Már Guðmundsson,
one of Iceland's most critical present
time authors, actually compares these
two cases—the one against Geir and
the one against the Reykjavík Nine—
and accuses Geir’s supporters, which
he calls the upper class elite, of lacking
all unity. “Of course all the other minis-
ters from the collapse-government and
the bureaucrats around them should
demand to undergo the same trial”, he
says and refers to a petition in support
of the Reykjavík Nine where hundreds
of people said: “Charge all or none! We
all attacked the parliament!”.
The argument in that case was that
no one had literally attacked parlia-
ment, and if those who were charged
for it actually attacked then everyone
who took part in toppling a government
during the winter of 2008-9, would be
guilty of that same attack. Haarde and
his supporters say the same, that he is
not alone responsible for the economic
collapse and crisis and should there-
fore not be on trial. And they are right.
Geir H. Haarde is not alone responsible
for the sufferings of people living under
the über-power of the ruling capitalist
civilization. It is the system itself—its
structure, values and its definition of
“justice”—that bears the responsibility.
But like all other systems, there are
people behind this one and Haarde is
one of them, not more or less respon-
sible than any other authority figure.
Sustaining and maintaining the sys-
tem's mechanism requires repressive
methods, including political persecu-
tions in the form of court procedures.
Geir Haarde's case demonstrates an in-
cident that happens extremely rarely—
but luckily once in a while—when those
people are forced to sample the bitter
taste of their own medicine. There is
not much to say except: Bon appétit!
THE REYKJAVíK ONE
“In September of last year, the majority of Alþingi
decided to charge former Prime Minister Geir H.
Haarde for negligence and mismanagement during
the prelude to the 2008 economic collapse”
SNORRI PáLL JóNSSON úLFHILDARSON
GúNDI
The trials and tribulations of Geir H. Haarde