Talk:Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

Break; the lead

Toverster started asking some very pertinent questions here 18 February 2020‎. After 10(!) days none of the questions have been answered.

However two editors, User:Gamesmasterg9 and User:Grandpallama have repeatedly undone changes, without using the talk-page.

If someone doesn't start addressing the questions, I will revert in 24 hours, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Toverster initiated an ANI discussion; that moved the focus of discussion. I am not a content contributor to this page, but anyone knows a giant wall of text is difficult to respond to, as is a wall of text that's interspersed with series of allegations and declarations about personal knowledge. You specifically advised Toverster to introduce changes one at a time, and that was sage advice. Grandpallama (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, perhaps he initiated that ANI discussions because nobody responded here? As for personal knowledge: Scandinavian countries are tiny (each with the population of a US city): of course many/most in one profession will know about other "notables" in that profession. Also, it wasn't Toverster who started flinging allegation around, AFAIK, that was started with the first revert here. (But yeah: I agree: we should do without that.)

Anyway, I would suggest we start with the lead, the sentence

• "Despite claiming to have independent views, the organization is viewed by mainstream organizations as a Russian propaganda site"

...and the refs allegedly backing that up (2 to 8). Toverster countered that here

Any comments? Huldra (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, as exactly no-one has countered the above objections, I will change the lead (only) of the article. Huldra (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Break; the "Organization" part

Presently, the "Organization" part has parts that clearly does not belong there (Ie, the things about Marcello Ferrada de Noli belong in the Marcello Ferrada de Noli article, and not here). And the stuff about Dr. Leif Elinder does not belong here, at most we need a link to sv:Leif Elinder

Comments? Again, if there are no objection, I will remove/rewrite that section in a day or so, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Huldra (talk): Instead of removing the all section, I suggest the following uncontroversial text. The references cited are all WP:RS, with own articles in Wikipedia (English and Swedish).

Organization

Swedish Doctors for Human Rights was founded in 2015 by Marcello Ferrada de Noli, a Swedish professor emeritus, singled out by Swedish mainstream media as left liberal. [RS 1] [RS 2] Ferrada de Noli and two other members of the foundation board, Professor Anders Romelsjö [RS 3] and pediatrician doctor sv:Leif Elinder [RS 4] were active in the mainstream media debate of Sweden since before the foundation of SWEDHR.

The majority of the organization’s members are medical doctors, but in the organization also participate professors and doctors from diverse medical-related disciplines.

The organization publishes a magazine online called The Indicter. [link]

RS = Reliable sources

[RS 1] = Dagens Nyheter Dagens Nyheter. (“The professor has sailed in dangerous waters”). “Professorn har seglat i farliga farvatten”. 23 July 2008. [1]

[RS 2] = Ystads Allehanda Ystads Allehanda. (“Prisoners camp to nice hall”). “Fångläger till finsal”. 25 July 2013.

[RS 3] = Dagens Nyheter Dagens Nyheter. [2]

[RS 4] = Göteborgs-Posten Göteborgs-Posten. [3]

[Link to The Indicter] = The Indicter.

@Huldra:

Toverster (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the above changes, except the sentence " singled out by Swedish mainstream media as left liberal" ...that belongs in the Marcello Ferrada de Noli article, not here,Huldra (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Break; the "Positions taken by SWEDHR"

This part really needs work (let's get rid of that NATO falsehood, shall we?), any suggestion as to what we should write there? Huldra (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I will address here the issue of the “pro-NATO membership” falsely attributed to the Swedish Minster of Defense. Suggestions ref. other Swedhr positions to be posted later. I promise briefer text in further suggestions for this section. I thought we need a context here, how all this happened about this issue?

Reviewing the edits-history and content, the SWEDHR article appears stabile from 2015 until 2017. That abruptly ended in late March that year, after SWEDHR published investigations exposing fake lifesaving and medical malpractices in the White Helmets propaganda videos [4] & [5], which had high impact in international news, especially in Sweden. Sweden had then given to the WH the “Right Livelihood Award”, much promoted by DN, a rightwing newspaper that strong supports a regime change in Syria by the jihadist “rebels”.

After the SWEDHR exposures, on 3 April 2017 a Swedish user, Ylleman, so far unknown in the article edits-history, proposed the deletion of the SWEDHR article. Wikipedia decision was thou, “keep”, on 11 April. The attack failed.

However, on 21 April 2017, DN published the much cited article on SWEDHR, with some same arguments used by Ylleman in the delete-discussion. Ensuing, only hours after the DN publication on 21 April, user Ylleman inserted this edit here: [6]

“SWEDHR argued in Sweden's main newspaper Dagens Nyheter against Swedish Minister of Defense Peter Hultqvist's stance on the issue of Sweden's neutrality and non-alignment. [wrong DN reference] The minister argued that Swedish NATO membership was desirable due to Russia's military buildup, Russia's illegal annexation of the Crimea, the armed conflict in the Ukraine and the potential threat to the Baltic states.”

It was a blunt lie. And this article has propagated that falsehood to the Wikipedia readers for almost three years. The reference given went to another article, not Hultqvist’s.

What the defense minister had said in his article in DN on 31 August 2015 (which SWEDHR debated on 3 September 2016), it was totally different, actually the opposite of what the current version of the WP article says. Hultqvist instead wrote:

“We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO” (“Vi har valt en samarbetslinje och inte en medlemslinje i förhållande till Nato.”) [7]

So, an appropriate entry about this issue, would be something like this:

:In a debate article in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, 3 September 2015, SWEDHR commented on opinions made declarations done on 31 August 2015 in the same newspaper by the Swedish Minister of Defense Peter Hultqvist. The minister had stated that “bilateral cooperation with the US is important and it should deepens”, but made clear that “We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO”. [Ref 1] SWEDHR argued “(Minister Hultqvist) had not shown that a deepening of the Sweden-USA cooperation would be better than to instead deepening our neutrality stance.” [Ref 2]

References:

[Ref 1] = Dagens Nyheter, 31 August 2015. Minister Hultqvist original statements 1) “Sveriges bilaterala samarbete med USA är viktigt och bör fördjupas”, 2) “Vi har valt en samarbetslinje och inte en medlemslinje i förhållande till Nato”. [8]

[Ref 2] = Dagens Nyheter, 3 September 2015, SWEDHR original statement: “Försvarsminister Hultqvist menar på DN Debatt (31/8) att Sverige bör fördjupa försvarssamarbetet med USA. Men han har inte visat att en fördjupning av Sveriges samarbete med USA skulle vara bättre än att istället fördjupa vår neutralitetspolitik.”

Epilogue:

User Ylleman performed only 38 edits in Wikipedia during 2017. Of these, 33 edits on SWEDHR. In the deletion-discussion, Ylleman’s edits alone were over the half of the total 40 edits, followed by user Gammesmaster. All Ylleman’s edits remained untouched for almost 3 years by now. And there are more of that user's items to be revealed in further sections. “We prevailed”, recently boosted Gammesmaster.

Abraham Lincoln said (1858):

“You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

@Huldra: Toverster (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Toverster, thanks for this "wiki-archeology", alas, count me unsurprised..... The amount of info in the West about the White Helments (=WH) were quite overwhelming (and extremely professional) for a while. My problem was that the info the West was served about the WH, did not at all match what people I generally trust in/about the ME was saying. But yeah: anyone having any critical word about the WH in the West were met with a tsunami of criticism, so also for the SWEDHR. (There is a reason why I took this page off my "watch-list"!!)

What you have started above about the "positions taken" (and I have bolded...and stricken what I think is distracting detail) seems like a good start.

I have stricken "but made clear that “We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO”. With the false info out of the article, that sentence isn't really needed, IMO. (I don't feel strongly about this: if you want it in, then in it goes. Or we could put that in the reference.) (I am just looking for as "tight" a language as possible. A journalist friend taught me: a good writer isn't known by all s/he writes; it is all those words you cut out which are important.)

Alas, we also need SWEDHR's position about other issues, anything from Douma chemical attack, to Julian Assange. There is work for you! Huldra (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Huldra. This is my suggestion, backed by the WP:RS review and a list of main issues in SWEDHR reports and statements, which I am postings as Appendix, after this proposed text below:

Here below I have now (5 March 2020) shortened and cleaned the first version of my proposal. Thanks.

@Huldra:

“Positions taken by SWEDHR”

The organization’s main concern in 2015-2019 has been the Julian Assange case. [Ref 1]. SWEDHR participated in appeals to the Swedish authorities and other governments [Ref 2] [Ref 3] [Ref 4] and to international organizations, [Ref 5] addressing human rights and health issues [Ref 6] in the case. In 2015, it argued that the prolonged arrest of Assange infringed the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [Ref 7] matter later established by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. [Ref 8] In 2016 it advocated for asylum to Edward Snowden in the EU. [Ref 9]

It also reported on human rights situations in Chile [Ref 10], on the situation of Palestinians, [Ref 11] on the issue of torture accountability, [Ref 12] and regarding civil casualties of drone attacks in Afghanistan and Yemen. [Ref 13] SWEDHR has criticised Sweden’s arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition in the war on Yemen.

The organisation has intervened in the debate on allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and it has questioned official OPCW reports on the issue. In March 2017 SWEDHR published the results of an investigation of videos published by the White Helmets in 2015 showing medical rescue interventions after an alleged gas attack in Sarmin. SWEDHR deemed the procedures as “anti-medical and not-saving”, [Ref 14] and presented the findings at a conference of the Club Suisse de la Presse [Ref 15]. A debate followed in the international media. [Ref 16] (See section Controversies, below).

In November 2017, the organisation published a critical assessment on the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism report on the alleged Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, concluding that the report “proven inaccurate, politically biased”. The SWEDHR assessment was annexed as official document of the Security Council after proposal by the Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya. [Ref 17] In November 2019, SWEDHR signed the appeal to the permanent representatives of States parties at the OPCW, on concerns about allegations of transparency and misreporting in the OPCW investigation of the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma, Syria (April 2018), raised by a Courage Foundation panel of experts. [Ref 18]

During 2015-2018, SWEDHR advocated against alleged human rights abuses on Swedish cardiologist doctor Fikru Maru, held in custody in Ethiopia and liberated 2018. [Ref 19] The organisation also denounced aerial attacks against hospitals run by Médecins Sans Frontières in Afghanistan. [Ref 20]

In 2019, it opposed the Swedish government’s decision of not signing the UN convention on a prohibition of nuclear arms. Earlier that year SWEDHR endorsed “Letter in Defence of World Peace”, a document protesting announcements by the US to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty INFT. [Ref 21] In 2015, SWEDHR commented on opinions made by the Swedish Minister of Defence Peter Hultqvist. The minister had stated that “bilateral cooperation with the US is important and it should deepen”, [Ref 22] SWEDHR argued “(Minister Hultqvist) had not shown that a deepening of the Sweden-USA cooperation would be better than to instead deepening our neutrality stance.” [Ref 23]

“References”

[Ref 1] = (id. Reference on “Julian Assange international case”, after last line in the article’s lead)

[Ref 2] = Aftonbladet, 26 February 2020. [9]

[Ref 3] = Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DIEM 25), 3 June 2016 [10].

[Ref 4] = World Socialist Web Site, 17 Dec 2019. Doctors issue open letter to the Australian government: Julian Assange at risk of death in prison. [11]

[Ref 5] = Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). “Joint Submission for the United Kingdom's Universal Periodic Review in 2017”, Doc. A/HRC/7/4/Add.1 at 40 (2007). Republished by Courage Foundation: [12]

[Ref 6] = The Lancet, 12 February 2020. “End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”, [13] [14]

[Ref 7] = NewsVoice, 5 April 2016: According to the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, Assange’s detention should be ended. [15]

[Ref 8] = United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), 4 December 2015. [16]

[Ref 9] = Västerbottens-Kuriren, 14 October 2015. [17]

[Ref 10] = Truthout, 13 Nov 2019: “The organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights has compiled 80 videos of serious human rights abuses by Chilean security forces since the protests started in October (2019)”. [18]

[Ref 11] = The Indicter Channel, 31 March 2018. [19]

[Ref 12] = NewsVoice, 25 May 2015. [20]

[Ref 13] = NewsVoice, 25 April 2015. “An updated estimation of civil casualties killed by drone strikes – An injury-epidemiology & human rights report”. [21]

[Ref 14] = Dagbladet Arbejderen, 26 April 2017. [22]

[Ref 15] = . Club Suisse de la Presse (Geneva Press Club), 28 November 2017. [23]

[Ref 16] = Tribune de Genève, 28 November 2017. (“Disident voices at the Geneva Press Club”) “Des voix dissidentes s'expriment au Club suisse de la presse”. [24]

[Ref 17] = United Nations Security Council, 15 February 2018. Document A/72/652–S/2017/1010, [25]

[Ref 18] = Courage Foundation, 8 November 2019. "Open Letter to Permanent Representatives of States Parties.”. [26]

[Ref 19] = Dagens Medicine, 13 March 2014 (Open doctors' support to Fikru Maru). [27]

[Ref 20] = Dagens Medicine, , 6 October 2015 [28]

[Ref 21] = Kaosenlared, 17 Feb 2019. [29]

[Ref 22] = Dagens Nyheter, 31 August 2015. [30]

[Ref 23] = Dagens Nyheter, 3 September 2015. [31]

@Huldra:

(talk) 14:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Toverster (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Huldra:

(talk) 14:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Toverster (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Toverster (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Toverster (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

________

APPENDIX (which, because of its extension, I will remove after a decision is achieved on “Positions taken by SWEDHR”. Thanks).

Here below only the WP:RS listed by Google News. There are others WP:RS referring Swedhr found in other Google searches (not reported here).

1. In Google News search “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights”, only WP:RS with WP articles. It is found (“sorted by relevance” option) :

1.1. World Socialist Web Site, 17 Dec 2019: Swedhr as signatory in urgent petition to Australian government to obtain Julian Assange’s treatment in appropriate Australian hospital “before it is too late”. [32]

1.2. MintPress News, 12 April 2017, “SWEDHR Accuses White Helmets Of PR Stunt To Trigger War In Syria“ [33]

1.3. Coda, 2 May 2017: “(Swedhr) questioned authenticity of the (White Helmets) two-year-old video, making several claims: the video shows “life-threatening” or “simply fake” medical procedures; the cause of the children’s death more likely could be from opiate drug overdose than from a chemical attack; the White Helmets made a propaganda video with already dead children;” [34]

1.4. Dagens Nyheter, Interview with Swedhr chairman, 22 Apr 2017: Swedhr chairman declared in the interview “he does not believe that (Syrian) president Bashar al-Assad did it (used chemical weapons April 2017), “It would be politically illogical. The Syrian government is now winning the war. Chemical weapons benefit only the opposition”. (– Jag tror inte att president Bashar al-Assad gör det. Det skulle vara politiskt ologiskt. Den syriska regeringen vinner kriget nu. Kemvapen tjänar bara oppositionen.) [35]

1.5. RT (TV network), 16 Feb 2019, ““Dr Leif Elinder: “after examination of the (White Helmets) video material, I found that the measures inflicted upon those children, some of them lifeless, are bizarre, non-medical, non-lifesaving, and even counterproductive in terms of life-saving purposes of children.” This video, produced and presented by the White Helmets and their colleagues at the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), was shown during a UN Security Council “closed door” session to promote a no-fly zone which translates to protection for the US coalition-backed terrorist forces on the ground in Syria.” [36]

1.6. Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DIEM 25), 3 June 2016, “Urging Sweden and the UK to free Julian Assange”, Swedhr signatory in document delivered before the 31st United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva 2 Jun 2016. [37]

1.7. Truthout, 13 Nov 2019: “The organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (link to [38]) has compiled 80 videos of serious human rights (link to [39] abuses by Chilean security forces since the protests started in October (2019). [40]

1.8. Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018. Interview with Swedhr chairman three weeks after the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal: “Not clear evidence has been released that its Russia who is behind. History has several examples of likely events. Such as when Great Britain wrongly stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and went to war, despite it knew it better.” (– Det har inte lagts fram några tydliga bevis för att det är Ryssland som ligger bakom, säger han, och fortsätter: – Historien har flera exempel på liknande händelser. Som när Storbritannien felaktigt påstod att Irak hade massförstörelsevapen och gick till krig, trots att man visste bättre.) [41]

1.9. Arab News, 17 April 2017: Propaganda, lies and videos: “The news (“children killed by the civil defense volunteers known as the White Helmets “) was based on reports falsely attributed to Swedish doctors. The irony is that this fake news that has continued to spread, even after the Swedish organization attributed and linked to the report refuted it. In a published statement confirming that it analyzed some videos published the White Helmets, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights did not accuse them of killing children. [42]

1.10. The Globe and Mail, 8 April 2015: “the NGO Swedish Doctors for Human Rights posted an appeal on (Valentina Lititsa’s) behalf, saying she was the victim of "an illegitimate repression, including a last event in Canada where she was denied her right to perform." [43]

1.11. Al-Masdar News, 4 April 2017: “This 10th of march the Swedish Doctors For Human Rights provided evidence (swedhr) confirming “fake live saving and malpractizes on children after analyzing the White Helmet video facilitated to the UN Security Consul deciding later on a No Flight zone in Syria.” [44]

1.12. Kaosenlared, 17 Feb 2019: SWEDHR only ONG signatory of “Letter in Defense of World Peace”, a document protesting US threat to abandon the the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty INFT, a treaty that “lead to the elimination more than 2600 ballistic and cruise missiles from both world powers in 1991.” [45]

1.13. Dagbladet Arbejderen, 21 March 2017: SWEDHR denounced as falsehood a video used as information in the United Nations Security Council in 2015. (Swedish Doctors for Human Rights har også afsløret en video, brugt som information i FNs sikkerhedsråd i 2015, som oplagt falsk). [46]

1.14. Der Spiegel, 21 Dec 207: States that “SWEDHR doctors explained that the White Helmet kill children”. It also adds that the organization “have never made its appearance in Sweden” before April 2017. [[47]]

1.15. De Groene Amsterdammer, 1 August 2018: “The NGO Swedish Doctors for Human Rights also states in a study that the Syrian rescue workers simulate medical treatment and even endanger children.” [48]

1.16. Gazeta Wyborcza, Publishes reference that reproduces SWEDHR statement explaining its position about false conclusions attributed to the organization by the fake new site VT, regarding SWEDHR investigations on White Helmets videos of Sarmin 2015. "This interpretation is completely untrue and does not represent our true position on this matter, neither what SWEDHR is as an independent human rights NGO, nor the conclusions drawn by doctors examining the White Helmets video ... (Translated from Polish: “Ten preparat jest całkowicie nieprawdziwe i nie reprezentują nasze prawdziwe stanowisko w tej sprawie, ani co SWEDHR jest jako niezależna organizacja pozarządowa praw człowieka, ani wnioski wyciągnięte przez lekarzy badających filmy Białe kaski.... ")

1.17. Libération, 3 May 2018: “SWEDHR president had been interviewed by the Russian media in April 2017 to attribute the Khan Cheikhoun chemical attack to the Syrian rebels.” (“avait été interviewé par les médias russes en avril 2017 pour attribuer l’attaque chimique de Khan Cheikhoun aux rebelles syriens”).

2. In Google News search “SWEDHR”, only WP:RS with WP articles. Using the “sorted by relevance” option, and leaving out repeated articles referred above:

2.1 Sputnik (news agency), 20 April 2017: “SWEDHR stressed that it has never accused the White Helmets of "murdering children," nor has it directed similar accusations against the personnel showed in the video published by White Helmets.”

2.2. Pressenza, 24 Feb 2019: SWEDHR signatory of document demanding the US of “immediately cease all hostile actions against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela — lift all sanctions, stop backing a coup”. [49]

2.3. Diario de Cuyo, 19 April 2017: “Swedish ONG for human rights accused the Whte Helmets of falsifying videos”. (“La ONG Médicos Suecos para los Derechos Humanos acusó a los Cascos Blancos de falsificar videos.) [50]

2.4. Sputnik (Nachrichtenportal), 19 April, 2017. The article “Syrien-Fakes der “Weißhelme“ nachgewiesen – schwedische NGO” reproduces statements by SWEDHR emphasizing that they never accused the White Helmets" of "murdering children". [51]

2.5. Dagbladet Arbejderen, 26 April 2017. The article reports how SWEDHR got concerned with the White Helmets videos, after analyzing a report from Human Rights Watch on the White Helmets allegations of a gas attack in Sarmin 2015, where those footage was presented as the evidence. (“Han henviser blandt andet til artikler fra den amerikanske organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW) om et formodet gasangreb i Sarmin i Idlib-provinsen i marts 2015. HRW citerede to anonyme vidner, som ikke havde været til stede. Et af dem var officer i De Hvide Hjelme. Chockvideo.”) [52]

Added SWEDHR debate articles in Swedish mainstream media and medical journals, and own media, all resulted in the following list:

3. List of issues mainly in SWEDHR reports statements :

3.1. Julian Assange case. (issue addressed in over 50 % of the Swedhr publications) 3.2. Human rights violations in the Syria war (with focus on war crimes by jihadist forces, which HRW and Amnesty Sweden neglect to report) 3.3. Medical analyses of allegations of gas attacks in Syria. 3.4. Examining of the OPCW reports with focus on medical issues. 3.5. Human rights violations in the Afghanistan war. 3.6. Anti-war activism (with focus on arms-sales and nuclear-weapons issues). 3.7. Torture and mistreatment of prisoners (with focus on cases neglected by Amnesty Sweden). 3.8. Swedish Neutrality and non-alignment. 3.9. Human rights violations in Chile and in occupied Gaza. 3.10. Added the terminated cases: human rights concerns about imprisoned Swedish doctor Fikru Maru (ended 2018), and civil rights concerns about pianist Valentina Lititsa (closed 2015), and of anti-war activist Victoria Shilova, also closed in 2015.

Please note that “main positions held by Swedhr” is not to be confounded with “issues reported in main stream media about Swedhr”. For instance, while the Swedhr investigation ref. the “White Helmets video” was an issue occasioning a high reporting in the media in April 2017, it has relatively minor space in Swedhr publications. A second aspect is what a review of videos about Swedhr (there are 189 videos about Swedhr reported by Google), added Swedhr own media, may tell us about what Swedhr consider it self as main positions. For instance, in “The Indicter Channel” in YouTube a prominent issue is the Palestinians resistance in Gaza, or human rights violations around the rebellion in Chile 2019, the Yellow Vests protests in France, etc. Toverster (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"Positions taken by SWEDHR", subsection 1

Regarding:
The organization’s main concern in 2015-2019 has been the Julian Assange case. [Ref 1]. SWEDHR participated in appeals to the Swedish authorities and other governments [Ref 2] [Ref 3] [Ref 4] and to international organizations, [Ref 5] addressing human rights and health issues [Ref 6] in the case. In 2015, it argued that the prolonged arrest of Assange infringed the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [Ref 7] matter later established by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. [Ref 8] In 2016 it advocated for asylum to Edward Snowden in the EU. [Ref 9]

OK, we really cannot write "In 2015, it argued that the prolonged arrest of Assange...". In 2015, Assange was not under arrest, but under voluntarily "exile" in the embassy. And the sources say there was an "arrest warrant" out for him....which is different fro saying that he was under arrest. Huldra (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

To Huldra @Huldra:: Bottom line of this comment is that you are right about the incorrect using of "arrest" in that paragraph. In spite that MSM had used it, for example in these RS reports below:

BBC reported: “December 2010 - Mr Assange is arrested in London”. [53] This was following Sweden’s European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued in Nov 2010, and when Assange on 8 December 2010 went himself to a British police station to be notified of the EAW. Then he was taken to Wandsworth Prison, according to The New York Times. [54] Detained for 10 days in isolation, until he was granted bail by the High Court on 16 December, under orders of “wearing an electronic tag, reporting to police every day, observing a curfew…” [55]. “Thereafter, he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days”, according to the UNGWAD report published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. [56]

Under his time at the embassy Assange was considered by UK authorities of still being detained under the restrictions imposed by the Hight Court on 16 Dec 2010, which Assange breached when he entered into the Ecuador’s embassy to avoid being sent to Sweden, “fearing” to be extradited from there to the US. On the base of that breach Assange’s arrest was implemented anew on 11 April 2019, when British police removed him from the Ecuador’s embassy. But based on the then arrived US request for his extradition, a new arrest cause was added and Assange was taken to prison in Belmarsh.

But you are in any case right, that in quoting the SWEDHR position in this matter, we should not write "In 2015, it argued that the prolonged arrest of Assange…”, because, in closer examine, partly the cited article does not refer to “arrest”, but instead to “detention” [57] (which is the same characterization later used by UNWAD). And, principally, because the violation to art 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights argued by SWEDHR refers to the excessive time (nine years, ultimately) taken by the Swedish prosecutor to decide whether to take the case to court, while not withdrawing the EAW on Assange.

Perhaps we could write instead:

"In 2015, it argued that the prolonged use by Sweden of the European Arrest Warrant on Assange issued in 2010, without a decision of taking the case to court in a reasonable time, would infringe the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." [Ref 7]

P.S. From "United Nations, “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, into force since 23 March 1976: PART III, Article 3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release."

Toverster (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the above bolded part sounds good, to me. In general: when MSM report something false, we should not report it as if it is true. When British police removed Assange from the embassy, then he was under arrest, not before. (Sorry I have little time to look into the issue....some time-consuming stuff in the IP area...) Huldra (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"Positions taken by SWEDHR", moving to article

Over one week has passed since I posted a suggestion for “Positions taken by SWEDHR” (version further shortened below). Five new WP:RS added, the YouTube reference put away. Huldra has posted his opinion. If no other user oppose it (in that case post your comment here), this version of “Positions taken by SWEDHR” (including Huldra’s corrections) will be moved to the article. Please note that the below text only lists SWEDHR positions reported in the sources referred. Statements controverting those (or others) positions have of course to be treated in a new section: “Controversies”.

Suggested text:

The organization’s main concern in 2015-2019 has been the Julian Assange case, [Ref 1] which Swedish Dagens Nyheter named first among SWEDHR issues. [Ref 2] It participated in appeals to the Swedish authorities and other governments [Ref 3] [Ref 4] [Ref 5] and to international organizations, [Ref 6] addressing human rights and health issues. [Ref 7] In 2015, it argued that the prolonged use by Sweden of the European Arrest Warrant on Assange issued in 2010, without a decision of taking the case to court in a reasonable time, would infringe the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [Ref 8] matter later established by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. [Ref 9] In 2016 it advocated for asylum to Edward Snowden in the EU. [Ref 10]

It also reported on human rights situations in Chile [Ref 11], issues of torture accountability, [Ref 12] and investigated civilian casualties of drone attacks in Afghanistan and Yemen. [Ref 13] In March 2017, SWEDHR published results of an investigation of two videos the organization Syrian Civil Defense uploaded 2015, showing medical rescue interventions during the Sarmin chemical attack. SWEDHR deemed the procedures as “anti-medical and not-saving”, [Ref 14] and presented the findings at a conference of the Club Suisse de la Presse. [Ref 15] [Ref 16]. The Syrian ambassador to the UN made use of the SWEDHR allegations at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in April 2017. [Ref 17] [Ref 18] Later that year, SWEDHR questioned the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism report on the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, claiming that the report “proven inaccurate, politically biased”. The SWEDHR assessment was annexed as official document of the UNSC after proposal by the Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya. [Ref 19] [Ref 20] In 2019, SWEDHR endorsed a complain to the permanent representatives of States parties at the OPCW, on alleged misreporting in the OPCW investigation of the alleged gas attack in Douma, Syria, 2018. [Ref 21]

During 2015-2018, SWEDHR advocated against alleged human rights abuses on Swedish cardiologist doctor Fikru Maru, held in custody in Ethiopia until 2018. [Ref 22] It also denounced aerial attacks against hospitals run by Médecins Sans Frontières in Afghanistan. [Ref 23] The organization has criticized Sweden’s arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition in the [[Yemeni Civil War ]]. [Ref 24] In 2019, it opposed the Swedish government’s decision of not signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and endorsed “Letter in Defence of World Peace”, protesting US notices of abandoning the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty INFT. [Ref 25] In 2015, SWEDHR commented on opinions made by the Swedish Minister of Defense Peter Hultqvist. The minister had stated that “bilateral cooperation with the US is important and it should deepen”, [Ref 26] SWEDHR argued “(Minister Hultqvist) had not shown that a deepening of the Sweden-USA cooperation would be better than to instead deepening our neutrality stance.” [Ref 27]

References

[Ref 1] = (id. Reference on “Julian Assange international case”, after last line in the article’s lead) [Ref 2] = Dagens Nyheter, 22 April 2017. [58] [Ref 3] = Aftonbladet, 26 February 2020. [59]

[Ref 4] = Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DIEM 25), 3 June 2016 [60].

[Ref 5] = World Socialist Web Site, 17 Dec 2019. Doctors issue open letter to the Australian government: Julian Assange at risk of death in prison. [61]

[Ref 6] = Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). “Joint Submission for the United Kingdom's Universal Periodic Review in 2017”, Doc. A/HRC/7/4/Add.1 at 40 (2007). Republished by Courage Foundation: [62]

[Ref 7] = The Lancet, 12 February 2020. “End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”, [63] [64]

[Ref 8] = NewsVoice, 5 April 2016: According to the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, Assange’s detention should be ended. [65]

[Ref 9] = United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), 4 December 2015. [66]

[Ref 10] = Västerbottens-Kuriren, 14 October 2015. [67]

[Ref 11] = Truthout, 13 Nov 2019: “The organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights has compiled 80 videos of serious human rights abuses by Chilean security forces since the protests started in October (2019)”. [68]

[Ref 12] = NewsVoice, 25 April 2015. “An updated estimation of civil casualties killed by drone strikes – An injury-epidemiology & human rights report”. [69]

[Ref 13] = NewsVoice, 25 May 2015. [70]

[Ref 14] = Dagbladet Arbejderen, 26 April 2017. [71]

[Ref 15] = . Club Suisse de la Presse (Geneva Press Club), 28 November 2017. [72]

[Ref 16] = Tribune de Genève, 28 November 2017. (“Disident voices at the Geneva Press Club”) “Des voix dissidentes s'expriment au Club suisse de la presse”. [73]

[Ref 17] = Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018. “Their statements have been used by Syria at UNSC” (“deras påståenden har använts av Syrien i FN:s säkerhetsråd”. [74]

[Ref 18] = United Nations UNSC 7922nd meeting, Wednesday, 12 April 2017. [75]

[Ref 19] = Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018. [76]

[Ref 20] = United Nations Security Council, 15 February 2018. Document A/72/652–S/2017/1010, [77]

[Ref 21] = Courage Foundation, 8 November 2019. "Open Letter to Permanent Representatives of States Parties.”. [78]

[Ref 22] = Dagens Medicine, 13 March 2014 (Open doctors' support to Fikru Maru). [79]

[Ref 23] = Dagens Medicine, , 6 October 2015 [80]

[Ref 24] = [[The Local] (Sweden), 26 February 2018. [81]

[Ref 25] = Kaosenlared, 17 Feb 2019. [82]

[Ref 26] = Dagens Nyheter, 31 August 2015. [83]

[Ref 27] = Dagens Nyheter, 3 September 2015. [84]

Toverster (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Toverster I have wikilinked the section, I think it is "good to go" into the section about "Positions taken by SWEDHR", Huldra (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Huldra: Huldra Thanks. Moving now the new shortened text "Positions taken by SWEDHR" (above)

Toverster (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Does this organisation exist?

Does this "organisation" even exist? Browsing through the material, it seems like it is just a name Ferrada de Noli and a few pals of his have given themselves. Nothing about where it is registered, number of members, economic activity. If I and a guy I met at the pub yesterday send a "press release" to a bunch of newspapers and call ourselves "Organised customers of The Drunken Duck," do we deserve a wikipedia page? --Mlewan (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Lol, if the "Organised customers of The Drunken Duck" got 21,400 google results (as SWEDHR does), then maybe... ;) Huldra (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

We need to rewrite the "Criticism" section. Any suggestions? Huldra (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Subsection 1: Inaccuracies and misrepresentations in current version:

On 4 May 2017, Gamesmasterg9 created the WP:ED section “Accusations of pro-Russian propaganda” in the article on SWDHR, whose inaccurate content is still up after almost 3 years. None of these extensive disrupted edits were previously presented/discussed in the Talk page. Gamesmaterg9 edits in cursive:

1. “As of April 2017, the organization is unknown to the Swedish Medical Association.” Which was not true. Instead, the Swedish Medical Association journal Läkartidningen had already in 2015 reported on SWEDHR stances [85] and even published a link to the organization’s homepage.

2. “As of April 2017, the organization is unknown to Amnesty International”. That’s neither true. Instead, on 11 of March 2016, Amnesty International Swedish section’s officer Amy Hedenborg emailed KILTR journalist Erik Sandberg, addressing the content of a Swedhr article published in The Indicter. The even was broadcasted by [KILTR] 17 March 2016 [86]. The email’s full text given also in The Indicter. [87]

4. For his edit “The causes taken up by the organization have a strong pro-Russian bias”, Gamesmasterg9 didn’t provide any WP:RS. Because there is no MSM source containing such straight accusation, let alone the adjectivity created by Gamesmasterg9.

5. Gamesmasterg9’s edit “(Swdhr) have compared the violent clashes in Odessa that led to the deaths of 46 pro-Russian activists to the Reichstag fire” is a blunt lie! That is not a statement by Swedhr. The facts: A tweet image titled “what history shall remember”, originally published in The Professors’ Blog in June 2014 [88] before the existence of SWEDHR), mentions that in 1933 Hitler blamed the Reichstag fire on Russian Comintern “communist agitators” (WP article “Reichstag fire” [89]), while in 2014, Carl Bildt, then Foreign Minister of Sweden, blamed the Odessa fire on “Russian thugs” [90].

6. Gamesmasterg9’s edit of same date, “Their sister publication The Indicter has previously claimed that Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian army, and not by pro-Russian rebels”, instead of giving a reference/link leading to The Indicter, he posted a reference to the WP article [91] in which neither Swedhr nor The Indicter are mentioned. Whereas what instead it is said in The Indicter op-ed article (author not member of Swedhr) reads: “This Dutch commission stresses, with other words, that while it was able to conclude that flight MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made missile, the commission would or could not determine who pulled the trigger.”

7. Gamesmasterg9’s edit: “Dr. Ferrada de Noli was interviewed by Russian media about his view that the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack of April 4, 2017 was possibly caused by the opposition groups and not the Syrian government”. But the DN article given by Gamesmasterg9 as source [92] does not say that Ferrada de Noli referred to the Khan Shaykhun incident, but instead about the general possibility that oppositional forces have access to chemical weapons (in the Russian media interview he cited MSM reports and the UN investigator Carla del Ponte which concluded the possession of chem weapons by the rebels). The DN article quoted the reasons given by the interviewed doctor as follows: “- I don't think President Bashar al-Assad does. It would be politically illogical. The Syrian government is winning the war now. Nuclear weapons only serve the opposition.” (– Jag tror inte att president Bashar al-Assad gör det. Det skulle vara politiskt ologiskt. Den syriska regeringen vinner kriget nu. Kemvapen tjänar bara oppositionen.)

8. Referring to the White Helmets video investigated by Swedhr, Gamesmasterg9 posted in the Wikipedia article: “An examination of the video cited in the article as evidence revealed that it was actually a video of a chemical attack in Sarmin from March 2015.” The edit suggests that Swedhr has given another date for the videos. That is complete deceiving. SWEDHR had clearly stated in the publications [93] [94] that the videos are from 2o15, and that Swedhr discovered those videos only in March 2017 thanks a HRW retrospective report.

9. “A group of medical specialists in the US and UK examined the (White Helmets) video and stated that it was impossible to conclude that it was staged, as claimed by SWEDHR”. Gamesmasterg9’s source is an article [95] in the anti-Russian site Coda Story, an online publication partner with “Eurasianet, which Wikipedia describes as “formerly run by the Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Foundations, same financer of Human Rights Watch [96] (see comment on Kenneth Roth below). Nevertheless, the “group of medical specialists in the US and UK” turns being only one identified doctor by name, four others “voices” without any identification whatsoever. The ironic being that the conclusions of the group of mainly anonymous doctors do not challenge the main in the Swedhr conclusions, according to the analysis (author not Swedhr-related) “On Coda Story's Attempt to Discredit SWEDHR”: [97]

10. Gamesmasterg9 again: “Reacting to these media appearances, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth described SWEDHR's actions as "propaganda". It refers to a tweet done by Kennet Roth in his personal account [98] (not HRW’s), and in which Roth, to base his opinion, links to the above mentioned Coda Story article, associated to the Open Society Foundations, which had given a challenge grant of $100 million over 10 years to Human Rights Watch.[99]

11. Gamesmasterg9: “SWEDHR carried out a similar campaign in April 2018, after the Douma chemical attack, which caused the left-wing Swedish magazine ETC to compare it to InfoWars.“ Another plain misrepresentation! What ETC actually wrote was [100]: “the Russian and Syrians are brought help by conspiration theorists like Inforwars, journalists and bloggers critical to US imperialism.” ETC does not mention SWEDHR in comparison or association with Infowars. The mention to SWEDHR in the ETC article was instead a quote from an image posted on Twitter by De Noli’s personal account. The texts based in an article authored by De Noli on 1 February 2018, two months before the Douma attack! [101]

Instead, this is the actual position taken by SWEDHR after the reported incident in Douma: Swedhr issued on 13 April 2018 a statement in support of the US-based organization Physicians for Human Rights, requesting an investigation that “should include collection of environmental & biological samples.” To which Swedhr added “independent medical assessment of treated patients & hospital records” . [102]

12. Finally, Gamesmasterg9’s edits collection says: “SWEDHR also tried to cast doubt on the Russian government's responsibility for the 2018 poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal” For which he gives two sources. An examine of his sources reveal what was really said by The Indicter editor: In source fPlus.se it reads as his only statement: “It seems absurd that Russia would have sent a death squad to England to risk a big international incident“ (Det verkar absurt att Ryssland skulle ha skickat en dödspatrull till England och riskera en stor internationell incident). It refers to the big international incident represented by the expulsion of dozens Russians diplomats. It does not said that Russia would not have “responsibility”. Only that it is absurd to do such a thing in view of the big international repercussion. [103] In source DN, this is only what the newspaper reported on the interview in reference to the Skripal item: "- No clear evidence has been provided that Russia is behind it," he says, and continues: - History has several examples of similar events. Like when Britain wrongly claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and went to war, despite knowing better.” (“– Det har inte lagts fram några tydliga bevis för att det är Ryssland som ligger bakom, säger han, och fortsätter: – Historien har flera exempel på liknande händelser. Som när Storbritannien felaktigt påstod att Irak hade massförstörelsevapen och gick till krig, trots att man visste bättre”). [104]

@Huldra: Toverster (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Subsection 2: Proposed text for section “Criticism”

(NOTES: 1. Please observe the MSM cited was not “criticizing” or “questioning” the fact of Swedhr being interviewed in Russian media, partly because that would infringe Sweden’s and EU’s legislation on Freedom of Expression. Partly, because article 19 in the [UN] [Universal Declarations of Human Rights”]] [105]: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 2. Please observe that, at difference with current version edited by Gamesmasterg9, this text gives also references linking to Swedhrd replies)

The suggested text:

Criticism

In 2017-2018, several European mainstream media pointed out the frequency Swedhr was interviewed in Russian media, and also criticised the use that Russian authorities and media made of SWEDHR investigations and statements. [Ref 1] [Ref 2] [Ref 3] [Ref 4] [Ref 5] SWEDHR published its respective rebuttals in The Indicter. [Ref 6] [Ref 7] [Ref 8] [Ref 9] arguing the MSM criticism did not address the arguments or results of their investigations, but focused in the issue of the several interviews in Russian media in the period. In a statement in the journal of the Swedish Medical Association, Swedhr declared the organization is “absolutely independent” and “we retain the right to freely express opinions on war crimes, violations of human rights and governmental intervention in private life and civil liberties”. [Ref 10] In an interview by Swedish newspaper DN 2 April 2018, the Swedhr chairman replied "I stand for what I've said to those channels. These are the same things I would have said to Dagens Nyheter or Svenska Dagbladet". [Ref 12]

In April 2017, the results of the Swedhr investigation on the 2015 White Helmets rescuing videos in Sarmin [Ref 11] were broadly reported. Some accounts said Swedhr had accused White Helmets of “killing children for fake videos”. Which was immediately denied by the organization. [Ref 13]. Arab News reported 17 April 2017: “The news was based on reports falsely attributed to Swedish doctors. The irony is that this fake news that has continued to spread, even after the Swedish organization attributed and linked to the report refuted it. In a published statement confirming that it analyzed some videos published the White Helmets, SWEDHR did not accuse them of killing children.” [Ref 14].

The online publication Coda Story contested the Swedhr investigation on the White Helmets video, and said that a group of doctors “agreed that the individuals in the (White Helmets) video did not appear to be carrying out a resuscitation attempt according to accepted guidelines. All of them however, said it would be impossible to conclude from the brief video that the scene was staged.” [Ref 15] In its rebuttal, Swedhr pointed out that only one of the doctors in the group of five referred in the Coda Story article was identified. It also challenged Coda Story to organize an open international panel of medical experts to assess the Swedhr conclusions. [Ref 16]

References

[Ref 1] = Der Spiegel, 21 December 2017. Russlands perfider Feldzug gegen die Wahrheit

[Ref 2] = Le Figaro. Paris, 13 April 2017. En Russie, une curieuse thèse reprise pour exonérer Damas (“In Russia, a curious thesis arises to exculpate Damascus”).

[Ref 3] = Dagens Nyheter, 21 April 2017. Gasattacker förnekas med hjälp från svensk läkargrupp

[Ref 4] = Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018 Svensk grupp i rysk propaganda om giftattacken på spion

[Ref 5] = Libération, 3 May 2018. Russia Today, Sputnik… un mois d’intox passé au crible

[Ref 6] = The Indicter, 15 April 2017. "Mainstream journalists angered by SWEDHR denounce of unethical war propaganda. Reply to Le Figaro"

[Ref 7] = The Indicter, 22 December 2017. "Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) respond to Der Spiegel"

[Ref 8] = The Indicter, 22 April 2017. "Reply to Dagens Nyheter assault on Swedish Doctors for Human Rights"

[Ref 9] = The Indicter, 7 February 2020. "Interference by journalists on sovereign opinions of professors, academics, and independent researchers, comprise infringements to Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[Ref 10] = Läkartidningen, 9 June 2017. SWEDHR är en oberoende organisation

[Ref 11] = SWEDHR, 6 and 17 March 2017. "SWEDHR analysis of the White Helmets video of Sarmin 2015"

[Ref 12] = Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018. Svensk grupp i rysk propaganda om giftattacken på spion

[Ref 13] = The Indicter, 8 April 2017. Statement by Swedish Professors & Doctors for Human Rights on misrepresentations referred in Veterans Today article on White Helmets

[Ref 14] = Arab News, 18 April 2017. Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre

[Ref 15] = Coda Story, 2 May 2017 "Russia Used a Two-Year-Old Video and an 'Alternative' Swedish Group to Discredit Reports of Syria Gas Attack"

[Ref 16] Id. as in Ref 9.

@Huldra: Toverster (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) @Huldra: Toverster (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)