Head prosecutor calls file sharers criminals and compare them to criminal MC gangs

It seems it has become a standard for various representatives of the judicial system to use large words and far-reaching comparisons to attemp to demonize file-sharers and pirates. Not long ago, prosecutor Håkan Roswall insultingly compared the thinktank Piratbyrån to terrorists, by pulling parallells between them and the IRA.

Today, Expressen has a piece on how some people has made some controversial remarks on the IRC regarding said prosecutor - I will come back to that topic later - and now it is head prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem's turn to make the insulting comparisons. He tells Expressen that file sharing criminals (taste that expression for a moment, that's over a million people in Sweden and quite a few more million other people around the world he is referring to) are comparable to animal rights activists and criminal motorcycle gangs.

They have their own ethical system. Because of this they concider themselves in the moral right to attack anyone they concider opponents. It can be anything from an unfriendly tone to punishable threats.

There's a world of things to say about this. We have two leading prosecutors who have compared file sharers to terrorists and Hells Angels within the last few days - and now they claim the file sharers make unfriendly remarks? And based on unmoderated commnts on an open internet forum and pieces of a log of an open-for-all channel on the IRC, Alhem claim to have the right to make a general observation about file sharers, who are now called "criminals"? Pray, tell me - who has his own ethical system now?

Expressen: Åklagare smutskastas på Piratpartiets chatt (Swedish)

1 comment:

kdsde said...

For sure have filesharers "their own ethical system".
Filesharers has that what every serious medical or evolutional expert would describe as a perfectly fine totally normal system of ethical beliefs and behaviours by human beings according to their genes!

The innermost urge to share with each other is geneticly programmed in those "normal" humans.
Mother Nature made that, so that mankind as a species could survive all this tens of thousands of years that humans are now on this planet.

This very old and very deeply inprogrammed behaviour (to share what you have) was it that was the cause why the hunters and the collectors in the tribes shared their goods with those in the tribe that were to young to hunt for themself or to old to go out of the cave for collecting lingonberries and mushrooms to eat.

Those "Sharers" did not have done that just because they liked the others in the tribe so much, and to do them a favour, but they have done that because Mother Nature has programmed this behaviour in their genes! They had no other choice then to share; it was normal function of the game that mother nature was playing that is named evolution

Only those that were severly ill, that had geneticly anormalies, those did not feel this urge to share.
They vanished (like the dinosaurs) from this planet because they were not able to adopt with the evolution.

So if in our days a handfull of corporation officials and some very old people in some judicial systems around the world want to tell the mayority of the people out there that behaving geneticly perfectly normal according to "Natures Masterplan" is not normal
that it is "illegal" (aka. has to be considered by the mayority of other humans as morally bad and has to be punished) then maybe it is time for Anthropologists to talk about what went wrong with these few individuals in these corporations/lawfirms /prosecutors offices/government buildings in their genetic evolvement that they behave so "Unnormal" and with such a strange ethical system that they claim the others "the normals" have their own ethical system.


(Hmm could it be that those few geneticly "deformed" humans are "the missing link"? Or are they just the last few dinosaurs that just haven't noticed the (Bit) Comet impact yet?) ;)