Last year I reported on the case of Bertil Malmberg, a regional Swedish politician, formerly of the Sweden Democrats, who was prosecuted for giving an accurate description of the IQ test results for a particular ethnic group of sub-Saharan Africans.
Mr. Malmberg was convicted, and appealed his conviction twice, losing at both levels. It’s not clear to me whether there is any higher level of appeal other than the European Court of Human Rights. And what happened to Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff does not leave one confident that the ECHR will dispense anything resembling justice in a case like this one.
Many thanks to LN for translating this article from Fria Tider:
Court of Appeal: telling the truth about Africans’ IQ is forbidden
March 27, 2022
When Bertil Malmberg, a regional politician from southern Sweden, questioned the appropriateness of admitting an immigrant group whose average IQ was found to be comparable to that of Bushmen, he was charged with incitement against a group of people (hets mot folkgrupp). He was convicted by the district court. After the main appeal was denied, Malmberg has now also been convicted by the Svea Court of Appeal.
Fria Tider described in a high-profile article in 2021 how a research team led by the world-renowned IQ researcher Richard Lynn conducted IQ testing of 2,990 South Sudanese children and found that they had significantly lower IQs than the average in sub-Saharan Africa.
South Sudanese IQ levels were found to be equivalent to those of Bushmen.
Fria Tider also reported that Migration Agency recruiters decided to recruit members of the ethnic group as “quota refugees” and then send them to, among other places, the regional politician Bertil Malmberg’s home town of Trosa.
When Bertil Malmberg — then an SD politician — raised the issue of South Sudanese IQ at a regional council meeting, he was reported to the police by a Social Democrat and later prosecuted.
Malmberg was later convicted of “incitement to hatred” by Nyköping District Court. He appealed the decision to the Svea Court of Appeal.
Denied proper judicial review by the Court of Appeal
A change in the law at the end of 2021 made it possible for courts of appeal to deny persons appealing decisions from district courts a main hearing in the court of appeal to an greater extent. This was an option that was used in the Malmberg case.
The diary sheet linked to the case states that the Court of Appeal considered that “it is unnecessary to hold a main hearing in the case.” On December 20 2021 the court decided to reject Bertil Malmberg’s request for a main hearing.
The decision to refuse the main hearing was taken by Erik Lindberg, Anna Cappelen-Smith and Sanna Ekman.
Fria Tider asked Erik Lindberg what objective selection criteria were used to make the decision to deny Bertil Malmberg a hearing.
“To your question about the ruling that the case would be decided without a main hearing, I can only mention that the decision was made on the basis of the provisions of Chapter 51, Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the case is now closed here, your email does not give rise to any further comment on the part of the Court of Appeal,” he replied.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment is very brief and the Court’s reasoning follows here in full:
“The investigation in the Court of Appeal is the same as in the District Court. Even taking into account the provisions on freedom of expression in the so-called European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Court of Appeal does not come to a different conclusion concerning guilt than the District Court did. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal agrees with the District Court’s sanction. The judgment of the District Court should therefore not be altered.”
The judges in the Court of Appeal were Magnus Göransson, Henrik Matz and Axel Johnsson.
Malmberg has also been expelled from the Sweden Democrats after raising the issue of Africans’ low IQ.