Disinfo: Unauthorised protesting in Sweden carries a ten-year prison term

Summary

Prison terms in Russia are not very long, from 6-12 months. Yet in some places, like Sweden, merely joining unauthorised protests involving 12 people counts as mass unrest, which is punishable by incarceration for up to 10 years. Russia doesn’t have anything like this.

Disproof

An unfounded claim to depict Russia as more democratic than other countries and portray the West in a negative light, where freedoms are restricted. The right to organise manifestations is protected by the Swedish constitution. Permission to stage a demonstration is needed only within city limits and in areas of industry, ports etc. For organising a demonstration without permission, punishment is, according to Swedish law on public order, up to six months prison. The right to participate is still protected by the consitution. According to Swedish criminal code, staging violent riots is punished with up to four years prison.

For similar cases attempting to portray Western countries as being undemocratic and restricting liberties, see for example here, here, here, and here.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 187
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 03/03/2020
  • Language/target audience: English
  • Country: Russia, Sweden
  • Keywords: Russian superiority
see more

Biased JIT ignores massive data supplied by Russia

The Netherlands-led JIT which investigates the MH17 crash has repeatedly ignored massive data which Moscow was willing to provide for the sake of aiding the probe. This clearly shows that JIT is biased against Russia. The country was not invited to join the investigation team in the first place, despite the fact that it was ready to provide useful information on the incident.

The actions of the Dutch authorities clearly indicate their efforts to pressure the court in The Hague.

Disproof

The story advances a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the MH17 crash.

The "massive data" which the report refers to is the "field experiment" by Russian state defence contractor Almaz-Antey, allegedly demonstrating that the type of projectile which downed the plane had not been used by Russian forces since 2011; radar data which the Russian Ministry of Defence "discovered" in 2016, and which contradict the readings Moscow presented in 2014. Both sets of Russia-supplied evidence have long been debunked.

Downed MH17 trial is a show, the irrefutable evidence of Russia’s innocence is rejected

We have to admit that the Dutch side is turning this, no doubt, from an important event into a judicial television show, stretched over several seasons and with a known verdict. It is hardly possible to count on real justice. One of the intrigues is a list of material evidence attached to the case. For example, there are doubts that there will be the body of a Buk missile, which was presented to the world with fanfare at a press conference in May 2018 as part of the “same” missile that shot down the Boeing. Recall: then the Russian Ministry of Defense presented documents that irrefutably testify to the fact that it was a missile transported to Western Ukraine back in December 1986 and remained in service with the Ukrainian army after the collapse of the USSR. After that, the investigators “suddenly” sharply lost all interest in this material evidence.

Disproof

The report advances recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation about the MH17 crash.

On the 24th of May 2018, the JIT announced its conclusion that the BUK TELAR used to shoot down MH17 came from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, a unit of the Russian armed forces from Kursk in the Russian Federation. On the basis of the investigation conducted by the JIT, the Dutch Public Prosecution service are prosecuting Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin, Sergey Nikolayevich Dubinskiy, Oleg Yuldashevich Pulatov, and Leonid Volodymyrovych Kharchenko for causing the crash of the MH17 and murdering the 289 persons on board. The public hearing started on March 9th 2020 in the Netherlands.

OPCW smeared whistleblowers, doctored evidence to defend its biased Douma report

Ian Henderson and “Inspector B,” the former OPCW employees who have publicly questioned the organisation’s report into the alleged chemical attack in Douma, have demanded “a fair, transparent, and scientific hearing.”

The two whistleblowers participated in the mission on the ground (fact-finding mission, or FFM) to determine whether chemical weapons had actually been used by the Syrian government, but were later excluded from the process, while important facts were doctored and omitted from the final version of the OPCW report.

Apart from reiterating their calls for transparency and a scientific hearing, Henderson added new important details about the two cylinders from Douma. One of the most important findings by Henderson was that those cylinders, which rebel groups claimed had discharged chlorine killing several dozens of people, were in fact placed there intentionally, which means the whole “attack” was staged.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives attacking the independence and integrity of the OPCW; lending credence to the claim that the 2018 Douma attack was staged; and absolving the Syrian regime of responsibility for chemical attacks in general.

The second paragraph of the claim contains no less than four untrue, previously debunked assertions: