Reykjavík Grapevine - 12.08.2011, Blaðsíða 20

20
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 12 — 2011
Why do we build monuments? Who are we really building them for?
When Helgi Hóseasson passed
away two years ago, he had since
the 1930s fought a harsh fight to get
the National Church to revoke the
baptismal covenant that was forced
upon him as an infant in 1919. Us-
ing a vast variety of methods—from
draining all possible juridical chan-
nels, including the European Court
of Human Rights, to throwing tradi-
tional Icelandic dairy product skyr
on the Icelandic power elite—Helgi
was systematically denied his sim-
ple demand, but was instead met
with repeated arrests and forced
to spend time at a mental hospital,
along with other forms of humilia-
tion. All on offer by the state pow-
er—glued together with the words
of former bishop Sigurbjörn Einars-
son—was that by a proper examina-
tion no one can doubt the existence
of God.
Following his death, a few thousand
people signed a petition for the con-
struction of a monument on a street cor-
ner in Reykjavík where Helgi often dem-
onstrated his highly anarchic ideology
on religion, the Church and State. The
monument was built, but his struggle—
which highlighted, analysed and decon-
structed the superpower of the State
over all breathing life, from its first day
to the last—was gone. The news of his
death recalled a question, asked by an
outraged viewer of ‘Iceland's Protester,’
a documentary about Helgi—a question
still as relevant today: Why were the
authorities not willing to meet with his
demand?
A NIGHTMARE, INDEED
That same question awoke recently
when Sævar Ciesielski, one of the de-
fendants in Iceland's most historical
criminal court case, passed away. In
1977 Sævar, then 25 years old, was sen-
tenced to lifelong imprisonment (which
was three years later scaled down to 17
years), for the murder of two men named
Guðmundur and Geirfinnur (both Ein-
arsson, but not related at all). The two
of them were actually never proven to be
dead at all, let alone murdered, but both
disappeared within ten months in 1974.
Sævar and several other young people
were soon accused of responsibility for
the alleged murders and were, before
the actual trials, isolated (Sævar for 106
weeks) and tortured by the Icelandic
State.
This treatment,―which included sleep
deprivation, submersion of the head in
water, beatings, threats, medication and,
in the case of the only woman accused,
sexual violence, eventually led to several
confessions, a well-known result within
the science of juridical torture. But as
the bulk of them were soon withdrawn,
as well as the majority of witness state-
ments, the Icelandic authorities im-
ported a German pensioner named Karl
Schütz, who before retiring had served
as an investigative police officer who
specialised in State security. He was
asked to tie the knots in a way that, ac-
cording to his own words when back in
Germany, saved Iceland's government
from toppling. “A national nightmare
has been averted,” said juridical minister
Ólafur Jóhannesson early in 1977, fol-
lowing Schütz's announcements about
the mystery having been “solved.” Yet
the sentences to follow were based on
the withdrawn confessions alone.
Sævar spent nine years in prison
before being released. On the exact
day when 17 years had passed, he and
his lawyer, Ragnar Aðalsteinsson—who
still today is Iceland's most ambitious
human rights lawyer—turned in thou-
sands of pages of content, the work of
a whole year, asking the High Court to
pronounce the rehearing of the whole
case. To shorten a long and complicated
story: The court ruled against their wish-
es, arguing that no “new source mate-
rial” had been provided, athwart Sævar's
and Ragnar's arguments that the ex-
tensive concept of “new source mate-
rial” not only applied to actual evidence
concerning the two Einarssons’ alleged
murders but also material that touches
on new material concerning guilt and in-
nocence, new interpretation of already
existing material, information about the
condition when confessions were made
and the illegitimacy of the case's re-
search methods—only to mention a few
of them. Sævar's demands—to quote his
own words: “to be freed of the accusa-
tions and compensated the humiliation
he went through”—were never met but
instead passed away beside him.
WHOSE MONUMENTS?
Following the news of Sævar's death, a
very understandable anger has arisen.
Many people ask themselves the rightful
question why his case was never taken
up and some have encouraged the cur-
rent Minister of the Interior to rehear the
case now. For certain this would be to
honour the memory of Sævar, and not
only his memory but also his and Rag-
nar's passionate work, aimed towards a
situation where the word “justice” would
maybe gain an actual meaning. Re-
hearing the case now, in the shadow of
Sævar's demise, would at the same time
stand on a thin line between justice on
the one hand, and demagogy and popu-
lism on the other. It is always easier to
fight someone's cause when that same
one is not among us any more—and
it is always easy to build monuments.
But whose would the monument be?
Sævar's or the State's?
During parliamentary debate in
October 1998, when Davíð Oddsson,
then-Prime Minister (later Central
Bank director, now editor of Morgun-
blaðið newspaper), asked for the case
to receive proper treatment, as it would
be very hard for “us” to live with such
a “miscarriage of justice.” These are
strong words, but note that they were
said after the Supreme Court's decision,
which Davíð Oddsson stated had been a
personal disappointment to him. Noth-
ing ever happened; the Icelandic State
did not treat the case properly, but Davíð
built himself a monument so huge that
now, when the case is discussed, people
mention that “even he” wanted it to be
reheard in court.
Let’s say that this would happen and
the whole case would be reheard, tak-
ing into account new evidence, informa-
tion about the torture and so forth. It is
not unlikely that the court would come
to another conclusion than it did thirty
years ago. This would then again af-
fect the history books and free five in-
dividuals from a horrible judgment. But
a clear conclusion lies already in front
of us, namely that these young people
were picked out and arrested, tortured
and forced to confess, sentenced and
imprisoned, and finally refused rehear-
ing—all this by the one and the same
State. Rehearing might result in the
pardoning of these people but this par-
doning would come from the same State
responsible for the whole affair. More
importantly the pardon would be too
late for Sævar Ciesielski. This conclusion
may not be forgotten because it brings
forth the essence of the State, sharply
articulated in between words in the al-
ready mentioned question: Why can the
State not meet with the demands of their
own victims like Helgi Hóseasson and
Sævar Ciesielski?
THE ANSWER IS NO
Entailed in that question is the idea that
not only should the State apologise and
compensate their victims but also learn
from its wrongdoings and not do them
again. But then another question arises:
if it actually is in the nature of the State
Powers to apologise and undergo fun-
damental changes. Judging by Sævar's
case, the answer is no. A good example
is the career of Valtýr Sigurðsson, a law-
yer who was in charge of the investiga-
tion that finally led to Sævar's impris-
onment. After his work as an agent of
Keflavík's town sheriff, he was awarded
with one good job after another, as a dis-
trict judge, town sheriff, director of the
prison and probation authority, and fi-
nally in 2007 as the State Prosecutor. As
State Prosecutor, he stated things such
as that victims of rape should go beyond
‘freezing and staying passive when be-
ing raped,’ because in court it would
not be ‘recognised as a ‘proper protest.’
Nevertheless Valtýr enjoyed this job until
early this year when he retired in great
style.
And this seems to be a standard.
When Chinese president Jiang Zemin
officially visited Iceland in 2002, mem-
bers and supporters of Falun Gong—a
spiritual movement whose members
have systematically been persecuted by
the Chinese authorities—flocked to Ice-
land to protest. By request of the Chi-
nese, the Icelandic authorities drew a
plan to keep even the tiniest opposition
away from the President's eyes, meaning
that Falun Gong members were to begin
with given certain free-speech-zones in
Reykjavík but later denied arrival and
kept imprisoned in a school close to the
Keflavík airport. Icelandair was handed
a list of people not to be let on board to
Iceland and particular hotel guests were
kicked out of their rooms in Reykjavík.
The one officer mostly in charge of the
execution of this plan, Stefán Eiríksson,
who was then the Ministry of Justice’s
office manager, was later rewarded
with an even higher position that he
still serves today, as the police commis-
sioner of Reykjavík capital area. Now, a
little less than a decade later, Iceland's
authorities have apologised to Falun
Gong—building themselves a monument
for history, which anyway does not alter
any of the already performed violations.
IN THE WAY OF FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGES
Sævar Ciesielski once stated that in a
state governed by law, admitting juridi-
cal mistakes should not be a source of
embarrassment. But not everybody
would agree that Sævar's and the other
defendants' imprisonment was a mis-
take. In his recent biography, entitled
‘November 19,’ former detective Haukur
Guðmundsson states that the sentences
were ruled against innocent people,
meaning that the case is still today com-
pletely unsolved. Questioning the rea-
son for the High Court's decisions not
to rule in favour of the case's rehearing,
says Haukur, leads one back to the pro-
tection of the State's interests. Ironically,
this former police officer has answered
the question above: The State's interests
stand in the way of fundamental chang-
es. And without detailing those inter-
ests, it is certain that people like Sævar
Ciesielski, Helgi Hóseasson and Ragnar
Aðalsteinsson do not come under that
category. Full success in their struggles
would create a rip in the concrete wall
of State Power—too huge for any dema-
gogic monument to ever fill.
Iceland | Monuments
SNORRI PÁLL JóNSSON úLFHILDARSON
JóNA þóRUNN
Too Huge For A Monument
“Another question arises: if it actually is in the nature of
the State Powers to apologise and undergo fundamental
changes. Judging by Sævar's case, the answer is no”