Reviewing European Union’s disregard of essential rules in democratic governing – Prologue to my newly released book “Human Rights for All“.
By Emeritus Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli – Medicine doktor – Profesor de Filosofía – Founder of the NGO Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR)
Some argue that Charles-Louis de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu wrote L’Esprit des Lois (1748) in response to the authoritarianism of eighteenth-century French monarchs. However, his analysis went further. My breakdown of his criticism would indicate he also critiqued the pan-European political praxis of involving the supranational alliances of despotic powers, despotic governments with arbitrary rulers, and examined the impact of despotic power on distributive justice (…pouvoir despotique, puissance despotique, gouvernement despotique.[1] Montesquieu also highlighted the consequences of suppressing the rule of Law and withholding political rights.
There is a clear resemblance with the current situation in Europe. Below are some examples based on the aforementioned breakdown of Montesquieu´s theses:
- a) The EU is a supranational political alliance that enforces regulations in member countries, including restrictions on freedom of expression. It is also evolving into a military alliance, reminiscent of European coalitions of puissances from the 18th century. Examples include the proposed “Coalition of the willing” against Russia, the creation of a “European Army,” and the revival of the European Alliance Treaty (EAT).
- b) Some EU governments, such as Romania, suppress elections’ results in a rather despotic fashion. And behind that “local” country decision, seemingly a dictamen from the EU leadership.
- c) Countries like Sweden make crucial national security decisions, such as joining NATO, without citizen referendums. [2]
I will revisit these themes later.
An itinerary of liberal democracy
The conceptual core of political liberalism that emerges in the writings of the time includes not only Montesquieu’s tripartite separation of powers – the executive, judicial and legislative. In certain way, it was inspiration of “liberty, equality, fraternity” added by the French revolutionaries forty years later. [3] As a consequence, alongside suffrage for the election of rulers, the nascent liberal democracies propose the following fundamental values:
(a) The principle of responsibility towards those elected.
- b) The practice of transparency in government with respect to those who have elected them. And,
- c) Essentially, the preservation of civil rights and human rights.
Accountability ensures that elected officials are answerable for their actions and decisions.
Transparency, on the other hand, provides the electorate with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions and hold their leaders accountable.
Lastly, the preservation of civil and human rights guarantees that all individuals are treated with dignity and respect, providing a safeguard against abuses of power and ensuring that everyone has a voice in the democratic process.
Those principles form the bedrock of a democratic society, ensuring that power is exercised responsibly and that citizens are well-informed about the actions and decisions of their government.
The U.S. Constitution, approved on September 17, 1787, is a key political milestone. It includes the right to free speech; it came to life nearly four decades after L’Ésprit des Lois.
In Latin America, the Chilean Constitution also establishes as a right “the freedom to express opinions and to inform, without prior censorship, in any form and by any means.” [4] And further, “Accountability ensures that elected officials are held accountable for their actions and decisions.” [5] That is, transparency and accountability.
In Sweden, freedom of expression exists in law but is limited in practice. Criticism of the government’s national security policies, such as sanctions against Russia or support for Ukraine (a country that some authors, such as I, would not consider “democratic” in its current form and leadership) [6] is absent from state media and mainstream press. Social media critics to the Zelenskyy regime are quickly labelled as “Putin’s agents” or enemies of Sweden.
The official X (Twitter) account of a Stockholm (Södermalm) police commander (“Yttre befäl”) recently stated that those questioning on X posts Sweden’s policy on Ukraine or Russia can be a concern for both internal security and military intelligence services. [7]
A role neglected by the mainstream media
An effective means of ensuring accountability of those in power, including State-affiliated institutions and parliaments, is public oversight by citizens. And this responsibility falls primarily on the media, as long as they remain free, uncorrupted, independent, and not financially influenced by those in power.
However, there are many cases where mainstream media outlets have spread false narratives to protect government agendas. A notable example from the early 2000s was the justification for the Iraq war, based on false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam Hussein was supporting Al-Qaeda.[8] These claims were profusely propagated by the mainstream media throughout the Western world.
Currently, European media is informing citizens via the EU Diplomatic Service, the recent massacres of Christians, Druze, and Alawites in Syria are not carried out by Al-Qaeda or other jihadist groups within Syria’s new government. Instead, the EU Diplomatic Service has stated that the perpetrators are believed to be supporters of the ousted President Assad. So, according to the EU statement, Christians, Druze, and Alawites are the ones massacring Christians, Druze, and Alawites! [9]
The same in 2022, when compact Western media outlets in the US and EU provided a one-dimensional and biased account of Russian military operations in Ukraine, without delving into the reasons behind that decision – such as NATO’s promises not to expand eastwards, or that the 2015 Minsk agreements were signed by Western powers with the hidden purpose of arming Ukraine, to train its military forces, to prepare an offensive against ethnic Russians –which constitute majority of the population of Donbass.[10]
Before that was the war in Syria, where the same mainstream media sided with narratives advocating and trying to legitimize regime change, as it was previously in Libya and elsewhere.
Given the lack of informational diversity in traditional media, as seen in examples such as Sweden, where media are uniformly aligned with state foreign policies, there has been a demand for independent voices that are not affiliated with government branches. These new media, using the Internet forum and social media, aim to serve the public by fulfilling the democratic role that the mainstream media has neglected, or ostensibly abandoned.
In addition, the European Union instructs not only member states to strictly follow executive orders restricting freedom of expression (freedom of speech). The “EU Digital Services Act”, mentioned by Vice-President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference, [11] instructs Internet search services (e.g. Google) to censor information deemed undesirable by EU authority. As we will see later, this censorship refers to information about organizations or people who exercise that criticism.
Traditional NGOs at the power`s service
A similar situation has occurred in recent decades with respect to traditional NGOs. International and Swedish human rights NGOs have successively aligned themselves with Western powers, often receiving funding from these governments.
For the reasons outlined above, I founded these two actors in Sweden in 2014-2015 with a view to participating in the international forum on human rights and geopolitics: the NGO Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) and the monthly geopolitics and human rights magazine The Indicter.
Our mission has been to advocate for human rights for all, especially for people who are not supported by NGOs funded by influential entities. A central objective is to counteract disinformation coming from those in power and to clarify the narratives presented in the mainstream media. We debunk their lies. A strategic objective is to contribute to world peace, the end of wars, and disarmament. In other words, the exact opposite of the conduct of the EU’s ruling politicians.
And when I proclaim the defence of civil rights, I adhere to the traditional liberal concept philosophically. That is, a series of political-ethical norms that, paradoxically, in these times are transgressed by those who call themselves “liberals” as opposed to “authoritarians”.
Civil rights include the right to protest wars and militaristic policies, a right that is restricted in some EU countries.
And to freely express opinions, even if they do not agree with what the authorities think.
However, Europe’s self-styled “democratic” governments have given themselves the right to open, read and archive messages on social networks that they deem suspicious. That’s happening right now.
And prosecutions frequently target individuals posting unwanted comments on social media like X.
For example, this news appeared in Washington Examiner in October 2024:
“An English judge this week sentenced a woman who posted a hateful message in X to two years and seven months in prison. Lucy Connolly has no prior convictions. The same judge allowed a habitual child pornography offender to walk free from court without any prison sentence in 2021.” [12]
Elon Musk responded to authorities labelling posts on X as “hate speech”:
“Arrested for tweeting opinions? This is not justice.” [13]
What do we see in all this?
– We see the categorical denial of Montesquieu’s principles on the separation of the three powers of the state.
– We see instead the close collaboration between these powers, the legislative (which enacts laws according to a certain majority), the executive (represented by the Ministry of the Interior from which the police receive orders to arrest citizens – a minister who is appointed by a Prime Minister who is in turn appointed by that same majority in Parliament), and the judicial (which in these cases rules against the detainee’s human right to freedom of expression).
Restricting fundamental human rights in liberal Europe threatens democracy and risks leading to authoritarianism and fascism
When referring to “liberal,” I am indicating an ideological stance that supports free thought, democracy, and its classical institutions. This philosophy has roots in political history from the times of Montesquieu and Voltaire, extending to the French revolutionaries. And perhaps before, from Diogenes, Giordano Bruno and onwards.
Currently, European Union leaders – non democratically elected– and their respective governments, in the name of “democracy” and “freedom” are not only supporting Ukraine, which, as I argue, lacks democratic rule.[14] But EU is also seeking to escalate the conflict, potentially expanding it to other regions. They want war.
In other words, the “liberals” who are no longer liberals, are now emerging as representatives of a resurrected authoritarian system of governing. They tell us about fighting for “democracy” in Ukraine. But there is no democracy in Zelenskyy’s Ukraine. Nor is there fully democracy in EU countries. Eu leaders in my opinion, seems to emerge as representatives of a resurrected authoritarian system of governing known in political history as fascism.
Note that Ursula von der Leyen is currently touting the rearmament of Germany and Europe. She does not talk about replacing the stocks of weapons sent by the EU to Ukraine. She speaks of “rearmament”, which has a completely different connotation.
The revanchists who proclaim rearmament, are those who lost their wars and feel their fury as incitement for starting them again. Likewise, Adolf Hitler did speak of “rearmament” as a central theme in his book “Mein Kampf”, after the defeat in the First World War.
Wars are not an illustration of civilization
For many years, I have asserted that the most fundamental of human rights is the right to life.
We must choose peace over war. We must choose peace and construction over destruction and war.
And to save lives, two goals should be prioritized: a) public health – ensuring everyone has access to healthcare, and b) peace – resolving conflicts peacefully, including domestic and international conflicts.
Our generation from the 60s and 70s proudly helped end colonial wars of that time. For instance, achieving peace in Vietnam was also a contribution of our peace movement.
Conversely, while contemporary movements such as the German or Swedish Greens and several left-leaning organizations advocate for global efforts to save and preserve Nature’s life, simultaneously support the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine –an endeavour implying the killing of Nature’s most precious fruits: human lives.
But not only that. “Liberal democratic” elites at the top of the EU and the government of our countries – which have been shown to be neither liberal nor pro-democracy – are now risking a Third World War.
“Human Rights for All” is also a defence of the memory of History of Humanity
France’s proposal for a “Grand European Army” to defeat Russia lacks evidence of any imminent threat from Russia. Historically, invasions of Russia have been disastrous:
Napoleon lost 500,000 soldiers (73% of his troops. There were at the beginning of the invasion 685,000 soldiers, half French and half from other European countries such as Poland, Italy, Prussia, Spain, Austria. Sweden did not participate in the French coalition because it has been defeated by the Russian army only two years before, in 1809.
Nazi Germany lost 80% of its Eastern Front forces (originally about 4 million) against the Soviet Union, with heavy casualties among their Axis allies Finland, Italy, Romania, Hungary, etc. Sweden supported Nazi Germany with mineral resources for the Nazi German arms industry and with free transit of Wehrmacht troops on Swedish soil.
In sum, the leitmotif of today’s warmongers in Europe is nothing less than to “finish” Russia and turn it into “small nations” and “then take care of China”. This was recently stated by none other than the European Union’s foreign minister, Kaja Kallas. [15] [16]
Why “European liberals”, “defenders of the international order”, etc., want war with Russia?
Those who are not truly revanchists for all the wars of the past that they lost to the Russian armies, either have purely xenophobic attitudes towards the Russians, or simply do not understand the implications of that rising belligerent behaviour.
In that case, at best, they are just misinformed –by a media compact aligned with those power élites of Europe.
Alternatively, they may be “passive citizens,” victims of cultural alienation. Previously, I characterized this widespread societal behaviour as social alienation. I have explored this concept as an ideological theme within the examination of social superstructures. [17]
The underlying issue lies within political leadership: what other motivations could they possess?
Calls from presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament for the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine promote an increase in arms production. And prolongation of the war results in more arms to be sold and delivered.
Against that backdrop, the financial ties between political elites and weapon-producing corporations may explain their support for prolonging the proxy war in Ukraine.
For example, today I read that the Swedish Foreign Minister, Maria Malmer Stenergard (a member of the Swedish government’s right-wing coalition, defender of the “liberal” and “democratic” values of the “free world” and the “world order”, etc.), has been exposed in the media because she “bought shares in a defence company at the same time that Sweden was negotiating a billion-dollar deal that benefited the company in question” – writes Aftonblated [18].
Further, a headline in the Swedish press organ OMNI, publishes this headline: “Minister bought shares of a Swedish defence company in the midst of multimillion-dollar negotiations”. [19]
Later, the minister participated in government-level decisions on the purchase of combat vehicles, which benefited the company in which she had purchased shares. [20] These, for a value of ca. 10,000 SEC, have tripled in value since then.
How ethical is it that, at the same time a government is deciding to significantly increase the quantity of weapons to be sent to Ukraine—which means an increase in weapons production (and a prolongation of the war, so that more weapons can be sold and delivered)—a government minister privately invests in shares of that arms industry?
And, of course, the longer the war lasts, the more weapons Sweden shall produce and sell. And even if it were to give them away, weapons production would continue to increase. And the same goes for the value of the shares…
The intersection of Human Rights and Civil Rights
Click here or on the book cover above to free download this book
Alongside my medical research, my writings have primarily focus on Human Rights and Civil Rights. How do these concepts intersect?
Human rights include the right to life and health, the right not to be subjected to torture, freedom of expression and the right to education. Health and wellbeing is a human right, and life is humankind supreme right.
Civil rights, which encompass the right to participate in government, also encompass the right to vote, freedom of speech, fair trial, and freedom from discrimination based on race, gender, or religion, as well as the right to assembly.
Freedom of Expression and Freedom of speech
Freedom of Expression is a broader concept that encompasses forms like art, music, symbolism, body language, and even silence. It protects various creative and non-verbal ways to convey thoughts, ideas, and emotions.
Freedom of Speech is a part of freedom of expression and refers to the right to express thoughts and opinions verbally or in writing without fear of government censorship, retaliation or punishment.
From the citizens’ civil-rights perspective, an unobstructed implementation of Freedom of Expression, in its various forms, is the basic human right value among those I enumerated in the section above.
In exercising our right to Freedom of Speech, SWEDHR and The Indicter have analysed, commented and debated what we have considered as “disinformation” from the part of governments – as conveyed by their official organs or by the stream media and outlets economically or/and politically associated with those governments.
It is important to mention the role of social media platforms, and that of search engines monopoles, particularly Google. Particularly during the later years, these platforms have been subordinated to the filtering and censorship requirements requested by governments, as is the case of the European Union.
Proof of the above is what happened with Google and Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR):
After the implementation of the aforementioned “EU Digital Services Act” targeting unwanted criticism, Google was notified, and new logarithms ensued.
While a search for “SWEDHR news” in Yahoo.com gives today (14 March 2025) over one million search results (n=1.060.000), [21] a similar search in Google gives one only result (n=1)! [22] (see screenshots down below).
1, Yahoo
2, Google
The one and only search result that Google is giving after the censure imposed by the EU leadership, corresponds to an old article by EU vs Disinfo (from European Union services…) attacking SWEDHR.
And the referred EU vs Disinfo article was issued back in 2017, amidst a series of publications in the international stream media referring to SWEDHR (E.g., Der Spiegel, Le Figaro, France 24, Dagens Nyheter DN, The Hill, etc.).
These media also attacking SWEDHR, and me in particular, partly as the founder of the organization, but also because the medical/epidemiological investigations I led had debunked some West narratives on the Syria war.
At that time, one of my investigations published in The Indicter was incorporated as official document in the United Nations Security Council [23] Those results were also discussed, and recorded, at a session of the OPCW, the UN Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (see details in my book “Human Rights for All”, free download PDF).
Yet, the publication by EU vs Disinfo says SWEDHR was at that time an unknown [sic] organization.
All those hit pieces from the European stream media are based in a defamatory report by “Coda Story”, a publication also financed by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, in its turn financed by USAID.
Certainly, I debunked long time ago the publication in Coda Story. [24] I even call them to a public debate, and with a panel of medical experts, to evaluate the findings of our investigation. That was in 2017 – and eight years after Coda Story still do not reply to our invitation for a public debate. The Coda article was written by a journalist formerly employed at Radio Liberty.
Censorship exercised by YouTube and other similar platforms is also widespread. In the case of YouTube, a new report that emerged in January 2025, states that “governments and other agencies around the world request the removal of online content, with 54% targeting YouTube and 31% Search, among Google companies.” [23]
The struggle for Human Rights for All is identifiable with the Resistance against the censorship those in power impose to us citizens. To denounce breaches to the civil rights, to war crimes and other atrocities to which the élites in power are responsible, the freedom of speech shall be preserved. It is a most important task for us who believe in democracy.
Then, what should be Human Rights for All in a social, ontogenetic, and phylogenetic context?
As Human Rights for All is for humans to stay healthy and alive, all humans need to prioritize the ontogenetic struggle of the present to secure the phylogenetic destiny of humankind.
And for that survival we need a Nature for All, which also must be preserved with care.
Which means that the possession of natural resources belongs to all, and ergo it is each one’s responsibility. It is a collective human right. It is Human Rights for All.
In a social context, Human Rights for All means the respect that those in power must observe towards we the people. That government must be transparent and accountable.
Instead of guarding an independent separation of powers, there is a rapid trend in EU countries towards ideological and administrative uniformity between the legislative, executive and judicial branches – forming a single bureaucracy.
- The alliances of powers resulting in a despotic European alliance (puissance despotique in the words of Montesquieu), are clearly represented in the central bureaucratic command of the European Union (and in the military, the emerging ETO – European Treaty Organization) – with maximum leaders not even elected by universal suffrage of European citizens.
- The pouvoir despotique is represented by the de facto veto that the EU leadership, i.e. the self-elected bureaucracy, imposes at will on the internal political affairs of the EU member countries. A current example is the “prohibition” on the people of Romania to elect the leader they see fit. It also wreaked havoc on elections in Moldova. He does not want elections to be called in Ukraine. Etc.
- Gouvernement despotique is represented by the style of government, in the sense that decisions as transcendental (as the case of Sweden’s entry into NATO) are taken by the ruling elite without popular consultation, i.e., referendum.
We have seen how European leaders have may have converted the libertarian and proto-democratic principles of Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau into an ideological parody. It reminds me of what we read in our youth about Marx and Hegel, that Marx had turned Hegel’s philosophy upside-down. Non-enlightened political leaders of this century seem to be doing the opposite of Montesquieu’s. He saw democratic rule, respect for real separations of powers, respect for the citizens’ rights a chance to stop the unnecessary misery conveyed by the coalition’s wars he decried in his century.
Whereas in this epoch, in these very times, we are witnessing the calls by political leaders, or by bureaucracy leaders, for a hyper rearming.
But as history has shown, a single temptation of one may lead all to apocalyptic world wars.
Casus belli in 1914 was the political assassination of two members of the Austro-Hungarian Hohenberg nobility – a single act that was not intended to cause a war that killed 15 to 20 million people.
In 1939 the casus belli were a false flag known as the Gleiwitz incident of August 31, the day before of the invasion of Poland. An assault to a radio station that afterwards resulted in 70 to 85 million people killed.
And as things stand in the volatile nowadays of the geopolitical sphere, one single act, such as an inexplicable lost bullet, may break a ceasefire leading to WW3.
But then the destruction will not be counted in millions of people, but instead in entire nations. Disappearing under thermonuclear bombs with a power 50 megatons of TNT (= 50,000 kilotons). The Hiroshima bomb had “only” 15 kilotons…
Human Rights for All is also war for Nobody.
Human Rights for All means to give all people in all societies the possibility of growing culturally educated, in solidarity to each other, with respect to each one’s property. With respect to each one’s families. With respect to each one’s nations. With respect to each one’s dreams.
To preserve all those, freedom of speech is essential.
References and notes
[1] “Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu”. Ed. David Carristher. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781351572224. In page 381: ” … pouvoir despotique, puissance despotique, gouvernement despotique“.
[2] M. Ferrada de Noli, “NATO: Sweden Navigates Dangerous Waters“. Consortium News, 2 de Mayo 2022.
[3] Maximilien Robespierre (1885). “Discours non prononcé de M. Robespierre sur la garde nationale,en annexe de la séance du 5 décembre 1790”
[4] Extracto ley n°19.733. Sobre libertades de opinion e informacion y ejercicio del periodismo (Publicada en el Diario Oficial el 4 de junio de 2001).
[6] M. Ferrada de Noli. “La melodramática cumbre europea en Londres sobre Ucrania, y las consecuencias que no tendrá“. Substack, 2 Marzo 2025.
[7] Viktor Adolphson (@YB_Sodermalm on X) “…arbetar och twittrar som områdespolis på Södermalm, samt som yttre befäl inom utryckningsverksamheten på Södermalm (Source: V A Adolphson own presentation on X). The imagen corresponds to a post by @Roland X on Twitter (X), 5 March 2025.
https://x.com/RolandXSweden/status/1897234859581694192/photo/1
[8] US agencies have secretly financed and supported al-Qaeda in its war operations in Syria. A question also hidden by the mainstream media.
[9] “The European Union strongly condemns the recent attacks, reportedly by pro-Assad elements, on interim government forces in the coastal areas of Syria and all violence against civilians”. Spokesperson statement on latest developments in Syria. The Diplomatic Service of the European Union, 8 March 2025.
[10] Ferrada de Noli M. Why Russia had to invade Ukraine? The Indicter, 25 February 2025.
[11] Ferrada de Noli M. Vice President Vance demolishing Ursula Vonderleyen’s Mussolini-inspired “EU Digital Services Act” (video). YouTube, 12 February 2025.
[12] Rogan T. “UK judge gives 31 months prison for hate speech, 0 months for child pornography“. Washington Examiner, 18 October 2024.
[13] Elon Musk on X, 8 August 2024.
[14] Ferrada de Noli M. The melodramatic European summit in London on Ukraine, and the consequences it will not have. The Indicter, 2 March 2025.
[15] Estonian Prime Minister proposes breaking up Russia into “small states”. Naapuriseura Sanomat, 25 May 2024.
[16] Transcripción: Kaja Kallas en “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan”. CBS News, 2 March 2025.
[17] Ferrada de Noli M. (1972) Teoría y Método de la Concientización. Prólogo de Luis Sandoval Trujillo. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León Editores. Monterrey, México.
[18] Minister köpte aktier under miljardaffär. (TT)Aftonbladet, 7 March 2025.
[19] Örn, Ebba, Ministern köpte aktier i svenskt försvarsbolag mitt under miljardförhandling. Omni, 7 March 2025.
[20] Martorell J. “Minister deltog i försvarsbeslut – trots aktieinnehav”. DN, 9 March 2025
[21] SWEDHR in Google.com (News) = 1 search result
[22] SWEDHR News in Yahoo.com = 1.060.000 search results
[23] UN Security Council. V. N. Letter 30– 11– 2017 Annex Article By Prof. M. Ferrada de Noli – UNSC Doc S 2017 1010 N 1804349.
[24] Ferrada de Noli M. Interference by journalists on sovereign opinions of professors, academics, and independent researchers, comprise infringements to Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Indicter, 7 February 2020.
[25]Matur Ch, Study finds governments censor YouTube almost twice as much as Google Search. Android Police, 16 January 2025.