Birgitta Jonsdottir on why Iceland is not a good destination for Snowden

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rkvqor

by teawithcarl • 13 years ago

98 30 13 years ago

TheBiv2• 13 years ago

I will take all of this at face value, but the greater point is something that she mentioned at the end; that the political smearing/prosecution of whistleblowers has to stop. Good on you Ms. Jonsdottir!

at-fates-hands2• 13 years ago

As much as I'm for what he did and revealing the Prism program, he stopped being a whistleblower when he released top secret, classified documents.

There's a ton of different ways to prove what the NSA was doing without leaking a mountain of classified documents.

twentysix• 13 years ago

No, there wasn't any alternate way to do it.

Watch the three guys who tried to do it via official channels, explain why it doesnt work and why they think he did the right thing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...

chr1• 13 years ago

How can one be an whistleblower, if he doesn't release top secret documents?

Governments should not have `classified' documents, and laws against revealing information. They see everything people can do and be people must be able to see everything they do.

bobwaycott2• 13 years ago

How exactly do you see he could have blown the whistle without releasing supporting evidence, classified or not? Had he come out and made these claims without any supporting evidence, do you think anyone would have noticed? Or would he have just been relegated to the sidelines, denounced as a crackpot, etc.?

tiatia• 13 years ago

I disagree. It was Iceland which did not bail out its banks, said a nice "FU" to its foreign account holders and has now economic growth (Iceland expanded 4.60 percent in the first quarter of 2013 over the previous quarter).

It was also Iceland which gave Bobby Fisher a passport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Asylum_in_Iceland

You must give the vikings one thing: They've got balls!

Looks like a perfect destination for Snowden in my opinion.

TheBiv2• 13 years ago

I know very little, but on the surface, granting asylum for a chess player is a different beast than granting asylum for someone who dispelled NSA secrets.

gwern• 13 years ago

And Fischer had brought world attention to Iceland during the famous chess match; in contrast, Snowden lacks even that tenuous connection.

nknighthb• 13 years ago

I think you must not have read the post all the way through (if at all), for Fischer's situation is specifically discussed.

Since you apparently did not realize that, you may also be unaware that the author, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, is Icelandic, and is in fact a member of the Icelandic parliament, and offered to try to help Snowden.

I expect she's better qualified to speak on this matter than virtually anyone on HN, unless we happen to have an Icelandic immigration attorney hanging around.

klausjensen• 13 years ago

As an immigrant taxpayer in Iceland, I am so sick of the BS about how Iceland is an economic wunderkind and how it did not bail out the banks but jailed the bankers....

An Icelandic economist on the truth value of common myths:

http://icelandicecon.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-economic-truth...

kzrdude• 13 years ago

Snowden can not afford to do such a superficial ananlysis.

skaevola• 13 years ago

I don't think he's facing the death penalty. According to this article he faces a maximum of 10 years on each charge:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732368350457856...

_delirium2• 13 years ago

This is an interesting point:

the Minister fears that if he will be granted asylum, Iceland might have to show humanitarianism in action by transforming its poor treatment towards asylum seekers who seek shelter in Iceland

While Iceland is generally liberal on social issues, they've traditionally been quite closed on immigration. That's partly been helped by their geographic isolation, but in recent years there has been an increase in refugees attempting to claim asylum in Iceland (e.g. fleeing the Syrian civil war), and Iceland has generally not granted those requests. So perhaps they are worried that if they start granting some kinds of political asylum they will have to grant others to be consistent.

coldtea4• 13 years ago

While Iceland is generally liberal on social issues, they've traditionally been quite closed on immigration.

Should they be more open, though?

They have a nice society going on, their way of life, customs and traditions, they want to keep having them. Would an influx of immigrants help?

It's not like every place is like the US (a vast country with room to spare, composed by tons of different ethnicities, living on the land of the previous inhabitants, and with a powerful enough economy to assimilate a lot of immigrants). Not to mention: the US immigrants came to the place in ages of SLOW transportation and over a period of 400 years (with some ramping up in the 20th century). Nowadays, especially in Europe, immigration ramps up in a couple of decades or less. And, given the huge numbers, they don't even need to be assimilated that much -- if you can work in a place with millions of fellow X-speaking immigrants, and easy access to websites, tv etc in your language, why bother to learn english or change your habits at all?

Consider a thought experiment: would the US be OK with an influx of 100, 200 or 300 million immigrants from islamic countries? Not terrorists, mind you. Just normal folks, that, nonetheless, would soon wish their practices and mindset be respected and reflected in laws (and, since they would be able to vote, it would be): from the right to beat their wives or persecute gays, to refusing education to their daughters? And even darker stuff like "honour killings" that would be sure to want to bring to their new country?

Now, 30% is a lot to be realistic. But if immigration was "open to all", it wouldn't be that far off. Especially since, in the US, almost 100% are immigrants anyway (just over the course of centuries, not over the course of a decade or so). There are places in Europe where the immigrant population rose to 10% or 20% in a course of a couple decades.

pessimizer• 13 years ago

the right to beat their wives or persecute gays, to refusing education to their daughters?

Conservative religious beliefs aren't exclusive to Muslim immigrants. A good percentage of the locals are fighting for these same things, and the immigrants we receive will probably skew at least more liberal than the population of their home countries (just based on the image we project around the world.)

The bulk of US immigration took place from the late 19th century to the 1910s, 1920s, came from Europe, and they and their descendants are probably a plurality of the population.

anu_gupta• 13 years ago

nonetheless, would soon wish their practices and mindset be respected and reflected in laws (and, since they would be able to vote, it would be): from the right to beat their wives or persecute gays, to refusing education to their daughters? And even darker stuff like "honour killings" that would be sure to want to bring to their new country?

What is this bigoted nonsense doing on HN?

Those of you upvoting this should be ashamed of yourselves.

PS. Most Muslims don't want to beat their wives or deny their daughters an education, nor do they want to engage in 'honor killings. If you think they do, you probably also think that the Westboro Baptist Church is an adequate proxy for average Christian beliefs.

karl_nerd• 13 years ago

Iceland had 0.00021 UNHCR refugees per capita in 2013. same number for sweden was 0.0097 (almost 50x). I think its fair to say that iceland could take a bigger reponsibility internationally. As a small country they cant carry a major reponsibility (and remember that the biggest refugee countries are mostly neighbouring countries of conflicts: pakistan for example) but they could definitely do more.

mtgx2• 13 years ago

Isn't it strange that the "most democratic" countries are the ones that will be the first to offer him up to the US government?

3pt14159• 13 years ago

Not really. During the cold war the vast majority of "democratic" countries were either allied with, or close trading partners with, the United States. This lead to the increasing strengthening of ties between both countries foreign intelligence services and judicial systems.

Given that the US has a burn the fields type of policy with all but their largest trading partners, only the very large countries are able to use the case of Snowden to their advantage. Hong Kong was especially good, since it provided the best of both worlds: Very liberal media, with Chinese backing in terms of political pressure.

The only reason that some small countries are able to afford long term sanction to Snowden and Assange, is that they are already antagonistic towards the United States, so there is nothing that the US can really take away from them.

Iceland is a bit a strange case since it is generally aligned with the west, but it hasn't really taken steps to integrate as closely as other countries, partially because of its isolation and Norway being a proxy for these decisions for so long. Ultimately though it isn't in Iceland's interests to take in Snowden, it will cause too much of a backlash.

mtgx2• 13 years ago

Yes, I get why they aren't doing it strategically, but they're supposed to be democratic countries and protect this sort of stuff on its own merits, not depending on what's their relationship with the country where the whistleblower is coming from.

Birgitta Jonsdottir on why Iceland is not a good destination for Snowden

Related Stories