A Tale of Two Swedens

March 8, 2018

 The Solna District Court in Sweden just applied Sharia law for the first time in Swedish history and it was an absolute, macabre calamity.

 

The case was about domestic violence, i.e. an Iraqi man physically mistreated his wife, pushing her around the house, slamming her against furniture, and hitting her. The lay judges ruled in favor of the husband, though, under the reasoning that the wife had undermined her credibility by going to the police instead of the man's family. Furthermore, they explicitly took into consideration as argument that the Iraqi man came "from a good family" while his wife didn't. Needless to say, this is a negation of everything the civilized world, in general, and Europe, in particular, stand for. That Sweden is so utterly eroded as a society to allow this to happen is enough proof that they have fallen as a nation.

 

The Rule of Law is one of the pillars of Western political morality. Aristotle, whose thought still influences jurists to this day, thought that governance through laws was advantageous for they are set in general terms and in advance to the particular cases they may apply to. Locke said as much. Then it was Lon L. Fuller who laid down the principles of inner morality of law, i.e. (1) laws ought to be general, (2) they must be publicized, (3) citizens must know what is expected of them and the basis on which they will be held accountable, (4) the law needs to be intelligible at all times, (5) it must be consistent throughout the whole system, (6) it has to be practical, (7) there must be stability throughout the whole legal structure, and (8) any piece of legislation should be coherent in itself and vis-à-vis other legislation within the network. These principles may seem formalist but, instead, they are the scaffolding of justice, the main cardinal virtue of the Western tradition. Think about it for a second: the ruler exercising the sovereignty deposited by the people is, by definition, a holder of popular wills, and, thus, powerful. The principles of the law, and living under its rule, guarantee that power won't be used capriciously. Equality before the law is understood to be contrary to its arbitrary, random, uncertain, and selectively oppressive application. Living in such society, where the Rule of Law is respected, is conducive to freedom.

 

Ask yourself: Would you stake your integrity and patrimony in a game where only some of the rules are known, the few you know can be changed capriciously by someone at any moment, and where other players have more lenient rules than yours? Law is like that.

 

What just occurred in Sweden is, thus, a break in the fabric of societal shared expectations. A new legal system, that of a state within a state, has emerged like a purulent pimple right in the middle of a formerly egalitarian society, and, what's worse, under the guise of legality. The underlying pattern of the Rule of Law has been broken, demolishing the certainty, unity, coherence, and generality that, in turn, extinguish the inner morality of the system. And that's for starters, as allowing such aberration is impractical to the peaceful coexistence of the body politic, for now there are parallel societies with different rules, equidistant to each other in their principles, ideals, and aspirations. Swedes aren't equal before the law anymore. They have signed, with the weight of law, their death sentence as a nation.

 

Goodbye, Sweden. The rest of Europe is next.

Please reload