Reykjavík Grapevine - 02.12.2011, Blaðsíða 16

16
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 18 — 2011
justice | For all?
For The Greater Glory Of… justice?
Is our government about to collapse and vanish into thin air? Does this mean we'll get a new government? Do we even
want one? Couldn't we just... vote on stuff by Facebook liking it? Iceland has almost no history of mass hysteria!
Criminal court cases, waged by The
State against political dissidents for
acts of protest and civil disobedience,
can be understood in two ways. Firstly,
the juridical system can be seen as a
wholly legitimate platform for solving
social conflicts. Such a process then
results in a verdict delivered by Lady
justice's independent agents―a ruling
located somewhere on the scale be-
tween total conviction and absolute
acquittal. According to this view, it is
at this point only that a punishment
possibly enters the picture. And only if
deserved.
Secondly,―and herein lies a fundamental
difference―the original decision to press
charges can be seen as a punishment in
itself, regardless of the final verdict. With
these two points of understanding in mind,
two recent verdicts, which have not re-
ceived much attention, are worth observ-
ing.
yOU SHALL NOT RUN
Number one is the case against Haukur
Hilmarsson and Jason Slade who in June
of 2008, while attempting to prevent an air-
plane from departing―and thereby deport-
ing Kenyan asylum seeker Paul Ramses to
Italy,―ran onto a closed-off area at the Leifur
Eiríksson International Airport. To shorten
a long and complicated story (covered at-
length in our issue 14, 2011) their political
sprint snowballed into protests of all kinds,
eventually bringing the asylum seeker back
to Iceland where he and his family were
granted asylum.
During the case’s most recent court
proceedings the two accused attempted a
moral defence, speaking solely of the act for
which they are charged and which they jus-
tified with a reference to the asylum seek-
er’s desperate need and the large-scale
impact of their actions. But neither pros-
ecutor nor judge were willing to discuss
such things, focusing instead on fences and
the possibility of destroying an aeroplane's
engine by being sucked into one. Eventu-
ally, the two were found guilty of violating
air-safety regulations and air-traffic laws,
and ruled to pay a fine, lower than what The
State pays for executing the trial.
yOU SHALL NOT STANd
Number two is the case against Lárus Páll
Birgisson, who was recently sentenced for
disobeying police orders―and this is in fact
his second sentencing in a year due to ex-
actly the same scenario: Lárus stands on
a sidewalk in front of the U.S. embassy in
Reykjavík, holding a sign bearing a mes-
sage against war. Police arrive after a com-
plaint from the embassy and order him to
leave the sidewalk. Lárus refuses, citing his
legally and constitutionally protected right
to protest, and official data regarding the
sidewalk's public status. He is then arrest-
ed, charged and finally sentenced.
And what is it, so heavy and hazardous,
that undermines his right to protest in pub-
lic? “It is well-known,” says in the judge's
verdict, “that embassies worldwide have in
recent years and decades been targets of
perpetrators and hence it is not strange that
their staff is on alert regarding traffic in the
most nearest surroundings.” And not a sin-
gle additional word. The justification starts
and ends in one and the same sentence,
referring to something “well-known”―a
concept as blurry, insignificant and out-of-
context as “public opinion” and “common
sense.”
yOU SHALL bE PUNISHEd
On the surface, these sentences per se
are of no heavy-weight importance for The
State (actually minor enough, according to
recent rules, to not be published officially,
which might explain the little-to-no atten-
tion the cases have received). And while
the defendants would obviously have pre-
ferred different results, the relatively low
fines are certainly not equivalent to physical
imprisonment.
To begin with, such verdicts give the
police a further green light to give illegal
orders and arrest those who disobey in the
name of their rights. Probably more impor-
tantly, they clearly determine the precedent
that it is worth forcing political dissidents
into long and costly court cases,―in these
two cases, keeping people inside the court
system for years and repeatedly charg-
ing the same man for the same completely
harmless act―even when the final results
amount to be mere small-talk. An ongo-
ing and ever-hanging threat of sentences,
fines and jail-time, is more than likely to
keep people away from resisting oppres-
sion―meaning that the threat is a form of
silencing, itself a form of oppression.
FOR MINE IS THE STATE, THE POWER
ANd THE jUSTICE
Regarding the first way of understanding,
it might be worth wondering if these court
cases possibly manifest a resolution of so-
cial conflicts. In order to do that, the dis-
cussion in court would have had to be free
from anything like “well-known” or “public-
good” and instead deal with the tough tug
between status-quo―such as airport rules
and fences, or the police's right to order and
be obeyed―and people's legal, ethical and
natural rights to directly and spontaneously
interfere with their up-front reality.
But as Haukur Hilmarsson said during
his procedure, one of the most humiliating
factors of being dragged through the courts
is to have a dialogue based on The State's
premises. No matter how willing the defen-
dant is to speak about his action and de-
bate its over-all legitimacy, in such context
Lady Justice just does not seem to weigh a
challenging argument. The weighing-scale
might be broken… or is this―punishing via
prosecuting―maybe what solving social
conflicts and doing justice is essentially
about?
Governments | Collapse
In many countries, the above
question might lead to pundits
punditing and even stock mar-
kets crashing. In Iceland, the
possibility is taken in stride, and not just
because we no longer have a stock market
to speak of.
In fact, it has been asked pretty relent-
lessly ever since the current government
took power in the aftermath of the ‘Pots
and pans revolution’ of January 2009.
And it has often been close. Even though
this is the first left-wing government in
this country in recent history, sometimes
more seems to divide the parties than
unite them. And this despite accolades
from almost every foreign observer on
their handling of the crisis.
UNEASy bEdFELLOWS
The Social-Democratic Alliance (Sam-
fylkingin) are still held in disgrace by
many after having formed a ruling coali-
tion with the conservative Independence
Party in the years leading up to the eco-
nomic collapse. It took the largest protests
in Icelandic history in early 2009 for this
government to resign. Even under a new
party leader, Prime Minister Jóhanna
Sigurðardóttir, many of their former min-
isters are still in office, the party leader
included. This is not the new beginning
many had hoped for. Some party leaders
from smaller towns have resigned from
the party, either claiming the party has
ventured too far left, or not left enough.
Their partners, the Left-Green Party
(Vinstrihreyfingin—grænt framboð),
have a clean slate when it comes to pre-col-
lapse guilt, having been out of power since
the party was founded in 1999. This led
to some success in the post-collapse elec-
tion, but ever since the party seems like
it has been falling apart. In fact, three of
their MPs left the party last spring, bring-
ing their Parliamentary strength down to
twelve. This is in addition to twenty rep-
resentatives of the Alliance party, out of
the sixty-three members in the Icelandic
Parliament in total.
This led to Independence Party Chair
Bjarni Benediktsson, who had been weak-
ened in his own party after supporting
the government in the Icesave dispute, to
try for a vote of no confidence last April.
The government barely hung on by a ma-
jority of one. This means, in effect, that
members of both ruling parties can hold
the government hostage if they so choose.
This is particularly difficult for the Left-
Greens, where party discipline seems non-
existent.
THE TROUbLESOME TWO
Two ministers in particular are known for
going their own way. One is Minister of
the Interior Ögmundur Jónasson, who has
already left the government once (over the
ever-present Icesave dispute) before being
brought back. He recently caused a furore
with the coalition Alliance Party when
he refused to grant an exemption to al-
low Chinese investor Huang Nubo to buy
land at Grímsstaðir to build a luxury ho-
tel. Some claim that the land is a strange
choice for a hotel, being quite remote,
while questioning Mr. Nubo’s finances
and suggesting he might be acting for the
Chinese government instead. Mr. Nubo is
a former roommate of the husband of for-
mer Alliance Party Chair Ingibjörg Sólrún
Gísladóttir and thus well connected to that
party.
Ögmundur, while arguing that he was
simply following the letter of the law by
denying land purchases to citizens outside
the European Economic Area, is hardly
unbiased himself, saying that he also op-
poses land sales to non-Icelandic EEA
citizens. The Left-Greens have proclaimed
themselves to be in favour of Ögmundur's
decision, further angering their coalition
partners.
A SHAKE-UP IN THE WORKS?
As if this wasn’t enough, the Minister of
Fisheries and Agriculture, Left-Green Jón
Bjarnason, is also acting on his own ac-
cord. One of the major goals of the current
government is reform of the so-called quo-
ta system, which leaves control of Iceland’s
fisheries in the hands of a few individu-
als. Jón had his own committee propose
changes, which are not seen as going far
enough, without consulting the govern-
ment. The Prime Minister then decided to
take the matter out of Jón's hands. In this
case, the Left-Greens have declined to sup-
port their minister.
According to recent updates, Jón may
soon be removed from his post, and Min-
ster of Industry Katrín Júlíusdóttir of the
Alliance will soon go on maternity leave.
This would lead to a considerable shake-up
in ministry posts as both parties start to
prepare for the next elections, due in the
spring of 2013.
THE TROUbLE WITH EUROPE
The question then is whether Jón will
withdraw his support for the shaky major-
ity. In this case, the government will have
to rely on Guðmundur Steingrímsson, an
MP without a party (voted to Alþingi as
member of the Progressive Party), who
has pledged his support.
Another major disruptive factor is EU
membership, with the Alliance strongly
in favour and the Left-Greens opposed.
However, with Europe’s current economic
troubles, the membership talks have little
support from the nation and might not be
concluded before the next elections any-
way.
So, will the government hold up this
time? As always, the situation is tenu-
ous, but the fact is that neither party sees
much hope in going elsewhere. Any new
government would probably have to rely
on the Independence Party, and neither
one wants to go there. The Alliance is still
reeling from their last collaboration with
the conservatives, and the Left-Greens are
even less willing to work with their ideo-
logical opposites, even if they now happen
to agree on Europe. The government coali-
tion might therefore hold up for a while
yet, if only due to lack of alternatives. Then
again, who can tell? It might burst by the
time this goes to print!
VALUR GUNNARSSON
SNORRI PáLL jóNSSON úLFHILdARSON
Is The Government
About To Collapse?