Sweden's reputation is on trial in Julian Assange case

108 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2010-12-04 13:24

Cueball

Sweden's reputation is on trial in Julian Assange case

Quote:
Both women boasted of their of their respective celebrity conquests on internet posts and mobile phones texts after the intimacy they would now see him destroyed for.

Ardin hosted a party in Assange's honour at her flat after the ‘crime' and tweeted to her followers that she was with the "the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing!"

Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these and thereby destroy evidence of Assange's innocence She has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends.

Their sms texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen before hand in order to maximise the damage to Assange.

A very strange world we live in.

Sat, 2010-12-04 13:29

Cueball

Quote:
Assange's London lawyer Mark Stephens says this is Sweden's second attempt at issuing a warrant. Stephens calls the whole process unnecessary and disproportionate because his client wants to cooperate.

"He offered through me and through my Swedish co-counsel to meet with the prosecutor but she has so far declined," he said.

Stephens says attempts to clear this up with the Swedish prosecutor have fallen on deaf ears.

"We've been trying to get in touch with her consistently for about the last two weeks almost every day, we've even launched a proceedings in Sweden to understand what the nature of the allegations are against him," he said.

Voice of American (Cringe -- best I could do)

Sat, 2010-12-04 13:50

Catchfire

I am highly skeptical of the motives behind these allegations, but the OP article has some pretty gross statements about rape. Sweden's system should make other justice systems feel ashamed, but instead the author (Assange's Melbourne lawyer) mocks it:

Quote:
If consensual sex that started out with the intention of condom use and actual condom use ended up without condom, that’s rape.

What happened in between "intention" and "actual condom use"? Magic? That's a pretty powerful ellipsis.

Quote:
They belong to the same political group and attended a public lecture given by Assange and organised by them.

Objection, your Honour. Irrelevant.

Quote:
But then neither Arden nor Wilén complained to the police. They collaboratively ‘sought advice’, a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid being sued for making false complaints

"Seeking advice" has special meaning in Sweden? It's a culturally specific "technique"? Um.

Quote:
You need a law degree to know whether you have been raped or not in Sweden

Asshole.

Sat, 2010-12-04 14:03

Catchfire

Yes, I agree that the whole thing is murky. The two alleged victims are getting coached by their lawyer Claes Borgström, who is also getting paid by the state. And political motivation behind the prosecution is a guarantee.

But, to make this case, these lawyers seem to need to use rape as a punching bag--which of course makes it harder for rape victims everywhere.

Sat, 2010-12-04 14:05

Cueball

Sure. However, this information about Assange's accusers having parties with him, after the alleged rape, and so on and so forth sounds pretty strange. I can't rewrite the article to fit the guidelines of this website.

I also find the that combined with the circumstances of the alleged "condom" breaking to be a pretty convenient in that context. Easy to say. Hard to substantiate or disprove. It is his word against theirs.

Also if the US government can successfully pressure the Spanish governement to quash charges against Rumsfeld for war crimes, I don't doubt they can also pressure Sweden. The strange circumstance of charges being dropped, then reinstated indicates the original prosecutor didn't think the charge can make it though court.

There is boundless reasons to suspect the whole thing is a smear job at one level or another. So, yes, despite the content of the article, the fact is that I think the title of article is apt. Sweden's judicial system is on trial, if not for the exact reasons layed out in the article.

Sat, 2010-12-04 14:07

Cueball

From your link:

Quote:
"neither of the two women had originally wanted the case prosecuted; that Ms W had wanted to report the alleged rape to police without their pursuing it, and that Ms A had gone with her to give her moral support and then become embroiled with the police, who had insisted on passing a report to prosecutors".

Sat, 2010-12-04 14:15

Catchfire

The second article I can get behind--prosecutors won't meet with Assange and his lawyer, and they won't say what the charges are. It's also the second time the same charge has been levied. But they don't blame Sweden's rape laws like that Melbourne asshole.

Sat, 2010-12-04 14:19

Cueball

I selected the pertinent evidence. Only the Melbourne asshole published it.

Sat, 2010-12-04 15:36

N.Beltov

Winnipeg lawyer Harvey Pollock, after administering a humiliating thrashing to the Winnipeg Police over issues of racism towards FN peoples, the matter of the police execution of JJ Harper, etc, etc, found himself subject to a similar spurious and malicious prosecution on a sexual assault charge. Pollock's arrest and its timing was released to the appropriate "friendly journalists" who then filmed Pollock's arrest. It was pure spite from the Winnipeg Police.

He kicked the police asses again. But it is a cautionary tale; the police have played this sort of despicable role in the past in our own country. It is no surprise to me that Swedish police would play a similar despicable role.

Tue, 2010-12-07 00:32

#10

Cueball

Quote:

Another lawyer representing Assange, Mark Stephens, added: "He has not been charged with anything. We are in the process of making arrangements to meet the police by consent, in order to facilitate the taking of that question and answer that is needed. It's about time we got to the end of the day and we got some truth, justice and rule of law."

[SNIP]

In recent days, Assange, 39, has told friends he is increasingly convinced the US is behind Swedish prosecutors' attempts to extradite him for questioning on the assault allegations.

He has said the original allegations against him were motivated by "personal issues" but that Sweden had subsequently behaved as "a cipher" for the US.

[SNIP]

Assange has also said that he declined to return to Sweden to face prosecutors because he feared he would not receive a fair trial, and prosecutors had requested that he be held in solitary confinement and incommunicado.

Last week Stephens added: "This appears to be a persecution and a prosecution. It is highly irregular and unusual for the Swedish authorities to issue [an Interpol] red notice in the teeth of the undisputed fact that Mr Assange has agreed to meet voluntarily to answer the prosecutor's questions."

Julian Assange to be questioned by British police

Wed, 2010-12-08 14:47

#11

Freedom 55

From salon.com:

"You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to find the timing of Interpol's warrant for the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who turned himself in to British authorities today, curious. The charges -- "one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape," according to a statement from Scotland Yard -- were brought against him in Sweden last August, yet he suddenly graduated to "most wanted" status just after releasing over a thousand leaked diplomatic cables in late November? It would be irresponsible of journalists, bloggers and average citizens of countries most eager to plug the gushing WikiLeaks not to wonder if those dots connect.

Still, as the New York Times put it, "there is no public evidence to suggest a connection," which some members of the public seem to find unbearably frustrating. With no specific target for their suspicions and no easy way to find one, folks all over the blogosphere have been settling for the next best thing: making light of the sexual assault charges and smearing one of the alleged victims."

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_ra...

Wed, 2010-12-08 16:11

#12

Catchfire

Great article.

Wed, 2010-12-08 16:51

#13

Cueball

There is an obvious an overt connection between how these very tenuous charges are being prosecuted and the political nature of the Assange case. The article means well but glosses over this fact. The original prosecutor saw very little reason to prosecute apparently, and then the charges reappear. The key challenge for any prosecutor is the ability to prove a case beyond a "reasonable doubt", not waste the taxpayers time and money with each and every allegation that comes to the fore. It seems quite obvious that the story has been changing from the alleged victims right from the start, and this is enough for any defense laywer to leverage into a case where reasonable doubt is hard to establish.

For example, the fact that the first alleged victim originally begins as a "moral support" for the second alleged victim, and then out of the blue has their own allegation to make, seems way to convenient. The credibility of the victims as witnessess is highly suspect, when we see facts like this emerge.

And so, it is quite easy to see why the original prosecutor had many qualms about persuing the case.

This article glosses over all kinds of overt distinctions in the way the case is being handled, as merely curious. Far from it... they are truly bizarre and illogical, if we take the prosecutors word on face value. For example the fact that Assange was put on the most wanted list for Interpol for a crime he has not even been charged with. Why is it that if the Swedish prosecutor does not feel that he can prove his case on the basis of the witness testimony alone why has he not charged Assange officially? If the case as brought based on the testimony of the witnessess alone is not good enough for the prosecutor to feel confident of proving reasonable doubt, then the prosecutor has no case, since it is essentially their word against his.

What possible new information can Assange bring to the case that he has not already revealed. For example, he agrees with the first woman that the condom broke. So there is agreement. Therefore since the case rests entirely on their word, and this is all the prosecutor has for his case, in sum total, why not proceed directly to charges.

Instead, the Interpol warrant was issued on case in which the prosecutor does not seem confident in winning? That is more than just curious. It may be that some people on the internet are making "light" of these serious allegations. The writer is correct, these are serious charges, but in fact, its seem the Swedish prosecutor is making light of serious charges himself.

He has used his power to issue and interpol arrest warrant on allegations he does not seem to want to commit to proper charge. That is more than just curious.

Wed, 2010-12-08 16:51

#14

Catchfire

I don't know if I've been clear about this Cueball, but I completely agree with the underlying premise of the thread--of course Assange is being prosecuted cynically, and no one in INTERPOL, the UK, or the Swedish prosecutors cares one whit about rape or women or whatever. My only concern is the unique nature of the case: there's no "proof," and so many commentators, including Naomi Wolf, take a critical shortcut by making light of rape law (one of the strongest in the EU). That does not serve victims of sexual assault anywhere. This is my only point.

Wed, 2010-12-08 17:23

#15

Cueball

Well, that may be your point. But as I said, the article glosses over the aberant behaviour of the prosecution and the European judicial system by saying it is "curious", and not stating clearly that it is overtly biased, and beyond a shadow of a doubt not at all co-incidental. This only adds credibility to the case that the charge has not been politicized.

Wed, 2010-12-08 17:29

#16

milo204

here's a crucial interview with assange's lawyer. i think she makes a great case that these charges are ridiculous.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/8/attorney_for_wikileaks_founder_jul...

Wed, 2010-12-08 17:31

#17

Merowe

I'm a little tipsy so I'll keep it short.

Some people here just don't get it.

Julian Assange has upset the international elites.

They will stop AT NOTHING to shut him down. The ONLY reason he is still alive right now is because he is in the spotlight.

These are people who drop phosphorus munitions on crowded civilian streets and sleep well at night. THEY ARE NOT LIKE YOU OR ME. It is important that you understand this.

These attempts to impugn his character with sexual smears represent an early and already redundant step in their campaign to neutralize him.

If the grossest transgression in our society was to flick boogers at small children, then Julian Assange has been caught flicking boogers at the most beautiful, innocent-looking, angelic children you could imagine.

I mean, seriously people. Wake the fuck up already.

Wed, 2010-12-08 18:00

#18

kropotkin1951

milo204 wrote:

here's a crucial interview with assange's lawyer. i think she makes a great case that these charges are ridiculous.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/8/attorney_for_wikileaks_founder_jul...

Great interview. I hope he makes it out of the British dungeons alive. His lawyer agrees with the view that if he is sent back to Sweden for this sexual assault investigation then Swedish law might allow for his extradition to the US far easier than from Britain. IMO That could see him sent to America for a jury of his "peers" on a military tribunal.

Wed, 2010-12-08 18:08

#19

Cueball

I think it is all too convenient that they have not yet charged Assange. This means the prosecutor can simply blpw off the charges when the US steps in with its own prosecution on international terrorism charges or whatever it is they are making up to fit the bill in the Assange case.

Wed, 2010-12-08 18:16

#20

Freedom 55

Catchfire wrote:

I completely agree with the underlying premise of the thread--of course Assange is being prosecuted cynically

Same here.

As someone who tries to be a pro-feminist ally, I just think it's important to be conscious of how this is being talked about by many people who no-doubt identify as 'progressive'.

It may well be true, as Cueball suggests, that there is little to no chance of conviction in this case. But that doesn't mean that the women in this case are conniving man-haters, or CIA operatives.

I think the suggestions of a CIA connection should be scrutinized with at least the same degree of scrutiny as the rape allegations. (I love CounterPunch, but I'm pretty sketched-out by what I've read in the last couple days about Israel Shamir's anti-semitism.) And even if it's true that one of the women has a link to CIA operatives, that doesn't automatically disprove her allegations either.

I would hate to see the Left become comfortable with the idea that any woman who has - in fact - been sexually assaulted could not possibly have an amicable post-assault interaction with her attacker.

WikiLeaks has performed a valuable service and should be defended against those in power who are trying to shut it down. But I don't think our defense of it should include play-in to anti-feminist stereotypes that women tend to exaggerate or lie about rape in order to attack men they don't like.

Wed, 2010-12-08 18:26

#21

Cueball

Freedom 55 wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

I completely agree with the underlying premise of the thread--of course Assange is being prosecuted cynically

Same here.

As someone who tries to be a pro-feminist ally, I just think it's important to be conscious of how this is being talked about by many people who no-doubt identify as 'progressive'.

It may well be true, as Cueball suggests, that there is little to no chance of conviction in this case. But that doesn't mean that the women in this case are conniving man-haters, or CIA operatives.

I think the suggestions of a CIA connection should be scrutinized with at least the same degree of scrutiny as the rape allegations. (I love CounterPunch, but I'm pretty sketched-out by what I've read in the last couple days about Israel Shamir's anti-semitism.) And even if it's true that one of the women has a link to CIA operatives, that doesn't automatically disprove her allegations either.

I would hate to see the Left become comfortable with the idea that any woman who has - in fact - been sexually assaulted could not possibly have an amicable post-assault interaction with her attacker.

WikiLeaks has performed a valuable service and should be defended against those in power who are trying to shut it down. But I don't think our defense of it should include play-in to anti-feminist stereotypes that women tend to exaggerate or lie about rape in order to attack men they don't like.

Not even Assange is suggesting that they are CIA operatives. What is in play here is the legal process that is being applied. It stands to reason that if the US government can pressure the Spanish judicial system to drop charges against Donald Rumsfeld, they can also lean on Sweden to play politics with the process in this case, as well.

Let's remember, the case does not at all depend on the willingness of the alleged victims to prosecute the case. It is entirely up to the Swedish prosecutor.

Wed, 2010-12-08 18:45

#22

Freedom 55

Cueball wrote:

Not even Assange is suggesting that they are CIA operatives.

Exactly. It's unfortunate that so many of his 'progressive' supporters are running with those claims. (Not that I've seen that on babble, but it sees to be a popular theory in other progressive corners of the internet.)

Wed, 2010-12-08 18:49

#23

kropotkin1951

This story moved beyond the sexual assault nature of the crime when the charges were revived. The prosecutors in Sweden investigated and Assange cooperated fully and stayed in the country for over a month. He was allowed to leave the country and no charges were laid and the investigation was ended. The Swedish prosecutor now says we have to bring you into custody to ask you questions about a case we have already looked at and dismissed. The interview with his London lawyer is worth listening to. This is a story about the erosion of the rule of law in our new international order.

Wed, 2010-12-08 18:50

#24

Cueball

Maybe those corners are not so progressive?

Wed, 2010-12-08 19:06

#25

Catchfire

The problem is that those suffering for this prosecution are not those behind it. Rather, its victims are a) rape law and the public image of sexual assault and b) the two complainants.

Julian Assange rape allegations: treatment of women 'unfair and absurd'

Quote:
A wealth of hostile material attacking the two women has appeared on the internet since August, when they took their complaints to the police. Their right to anonymity has been abandoned online, where enraged bloggers have uploaded dossiers of personal photographs, raked through their CVs and tweets, and accused them of orchestrating a CIA-inspired honeytrap operation.

Wed, 2010-12-08 21:09

#26

Bacchus

Nothing like the blame the victim syndrome, especially if its someone who is otherwise a nice guy, pillar of the community etc.

Wed, 2010-12-08 21:11

#27

Cueball

So what? I really don't give a damn. That kind of thing happens during any sex-assault case. What we know is that the allegations are being used in a cavalier manner to destroy the reputation of dissident activist. This is the main story here. If it was not Julian Assange, then this would be a non-story and not a prosecution.

In fact, it isn't even a prosecution. These are allegations that the QC in this case isn't even willing to dignify with a direct charge, instead he is using the entire force of the European police system to persecute someone through what amount to unsubstantiated rumours.

I don't know if the prosecutor is acting in this manner for his own political purposes by using Assange's celebrity status to bolster his own career, or if he is being pressured to pursue the allegations on the behest of the United States government, or a bit of both. But the whole thing is obviously a crock of shit that would not survive a day in court. If he really thought it would he would end his fishing expedition, and lay charges based on the evidence before him.

And now the Guardian is rushing to the defense of women's rights! It's just an happenstance that the accussed is a notorious dissident. Do we have to fall for this shtick every time? If it were anyone else the Guardian would not waste a drop of ink, or bandwidth on this accussation, and there would be no interpol warrant, no bail hearing and no "tentative" prosecution.

Wed, 2010-12-08 21:16

#28

Cueball

Do we really have to stand in as dupes for the empire at this point in time?

Quote:
The Swedish government is seeking to extradite Mr Assange over alleged sex offences involving two women. Sources stressed that no extradition request from Washington would be considered unless the US laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to send him to America would take place only after legal proceedings were concluded in Sweden.

Back in the real world

Of course once he is in Sweden, the charges against him will be found to not be provable. The Swedish prosecutor can shrug his shoulders and say "I know he is guilty, but I can not prove it", the "legal proceeding" will then be "concluded" and he can be handed over to the USA, post haste.

No sex crimes trial will take place. That charge will just be left hanging over his reputation as he heads to trial in the USA, and excelent snippet gossipy inuendo to pad out the press reports in the tabloids.

Wed, 2010-12-08 21:27

#29

Bacchus

He should demand a trial then. To be fair to him and the women

Wed, 2010-12-08 21:36

#30

Cueball

A trial for what? He hasn't been charged with anything. How can there be a trial if there is no charge? He doesn't get to choose if he is tried or not that is entirely up to Swedish authorities, who have not charged him with anything, for some obscure reason. They just want him returned to Sweden for further questioning, on a charge apparenly they don't think they can bring based on the evidence.

Wed, 2010-12-08 21:51

#31

autoworker autoworker's picture

This narrative seems to have injected new meaning and intrigue to the notion of 'boundry issues'. It almost reads like a Stieg Larsson novel: the perfect case for real life Blomkvists and Salanders to investigate....

Wed, 2010-12-08 22:06

#32

Cueball

Oh Look. He will actually be allowed to see his lawyer before his second hearing after all.

Wed, 2010-12-08 22:48

#33

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I agree with your analysis here Cue, so please be careful.

Wed, 2010-12-08 23:00

#34

wage zombie

I agree with Cueball.

Thu, 2010-12-09 12:28

#35

Catchfire

I don't think Assange should be arrested, I don't think he should see trial, I think publication of this case has been sensationalized for political purposes, and I think that the "charges" are a smokescreen to launder Assange through to the US. I've said all this.

What I object to is this: while the motivation behind the arrest is politically driven, the motivation behind the complaint is not. Yet those responsible for the arrest (we don't even know who they are--INTERPOL? Hilary Clinton?) are not getting excoriated by left-wing media and bloggers. Rather, these women--who have every right to make the complaint they have done--are getting publicly abused. Rape law in general is mocked, belittled and held in contempt. I just don't think that's too cool. This has nothing to do with being a "dupe for empire." It's a criticism of media, and a gentle urging to allies not forget to acknowledge basic gender politics.

It's not, incidentally, as I've tried to make clear, a criticism of you, Cueball. It appears to me you've been taking this personally for some reason, and getting more and more aggressive and belligerent towards me. I don't know why.

Thu, 2010-12-09 12:33

#36

Catchfire

Laurie Penny: Tell me what a rapist looks like

Quote:
I have no idea whether Assange, who firmly denies the accusations, did or did not commit sex attacks in Sweden last August. But just as we would condemn anyone who pronounced him guilty at this early stage, should we also not be concerned that many liberals, some of whom would count themselves feminists, have leapt to the conclusion that Assange must be the innocent victim of a smear campaign? Some have gone further, actively attacking the women in question and accusing them of colluding in a conspiracy to destroy Assange. This plays easily into the narrative that most women who accuse men of rape are liars, and most men who attract such accusations are just saucy scamps with, as the commentator John Band put it, "poor bedroom etiquette".

[...]

That Julian Assange stands accused of rape should not make any difference to the important work that WikiLeaks, of which he is by no means the only member, is doing - but the important work that WikiLeaks is doing should not stop us from acknowledging that Assange stands accused of rape. We should welcome the news that the allegations will most likely be tested in court; if we truly believe that the age of secrecy and shame is over, we should be honest enough to question rape culture as well as military imperialism.

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:07

#37

Papal Bull

How well does reporting sexual assault in Canada go? How often are people let go because there isn't enough evidence for a case? It gets mentioned on this board. A lot.

edit: this is not directed at Cueball, in any way. I just was making a broader observation and agreeing with Catchfire vis a vis the rhetoric outside of this place and our usual in-board culture.

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:09

#38

Cueball

Assange is the innocent victim of a smear campaign. This is clearly evident because we know for a fact that the Swedish government has not even charged him in this matter. If they thought they could actually convict on the evidence presented by the two women, then logically they would follow through with charges, since that is the only evidence that they will have to convict in court. Assange certainly is not going to give them any incriminating evidence in interview. There should not even be any need to question Assange in the case.

No prosecutor proceeds with a prosecution unless they feel they have reasonable chance of conviction. Since they have not proceeded to a charge, it is clear and evident that they do not believe they have a case. Yet, the Swedish authorities are proceeding with interpol warrants.

The above article is deficient in understanding this dilemma and what it exposes regarding the allegations. "We should welcome the news that the allegations will most likely be tested in court". Hardly! The fact that the Swedish prosecutor will not lay official charges, yet has proceeded with an Interpol arrest warrant, indicates that there is very little likelihood that the "charges will be tested in court".

The sole object of the warrant is to deliver Assange into the hand of Swedish authorities, who, Assange states will hold him incommunicado and in solitary confinement.

Quote:
Gemma Lindfield, the lawyer representing Swedish authorities at the initial extradition hearing in the City of Westminster Magistrates Court, said she believed the strength of the evidence over the sex charges was not relevant to the process of extraditing him under a European Arrest Warrant.

Jailed Assange's glimmer of hope as judge wants Sweden to produce rape evidence

Lindfield doesn't feel the strength of the evidence is relevant? Stinks to high heaven.

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:12

#39

6079_Smith_W

It is interesting that this case is being dealt with in a completely different way than if it were someone else who is under suspicion of sexual assault.

Not to cast a pall on Assange's work with Wikileaks, but this thread is on the matter of the accusations that have been made against him. I may have missed it, but has anyone asked yet why this is not in the feminist forum? It's not really my call, but since this is a question of an alleged sexual assault by a man against a woman, it should properly be there, no?

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:17

#40

Cueball

This thread is about manipulating legal process in order to intimidate, smear and silence people. It is not about sex assault. Indeed, the object of this smear campaign is to get liberals such as yourself on board, and cripple the ability of Assange, and by extension Wikileaks to expose government wrongdoing. The distraction seems to be working very well at Rabble.ca.

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:20

#41

A_J

Cueball wrote:

Lindfield doesn't feel the strength of the evidence is relevant? Stinks to high heaven.

That's how extradition works.

The requesting country doesn't have to show how strong the evidence is, it only has to show that there is evidence. Much like a preliminary inquiry, it's a question of whether there is sufficient evidence that, if believed, could lead to a conviction.

The actual strength of the evidence is to be tested at a trial.

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:26

#42

Cueball

The point is this, normally countries ask for extradition on charges that have been laid on the strength of the existing evidence, not fishing expeditions where the accussed is supposed to fess up, or whatever. In a case where there is no dispute of the general outline of the case, everyone agrees the sex was consensual, everyone agrees a condom broke, etc., all we have left is "he said, she said", and there is no reasonable expectation that Assange will add further information.

Therefore, if the case is so strong why have the Swedish authorities not simply proceeded to charging him, based on the testimony of the alleged victims, since that testimony is all they are going to have in court to prove the case.

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:26

#43

Papal Bull

It is.

But I think it far more 'libertarian' to simply dismiss what has major overtones of patriarchal rhetoric. This Great Man is a legitimate hero, let us not dally to far from that fact. But heroes also have flaws and I don't think it is outside of the scope of this board as a progressive space to at least discuss those issues with regards to this case.

If you want me to elaborate on my theory of how this is the first insurrection of the people in a fledgling cyberworldwar, by all means, I can expand on that, but I don't think it is unfair to ask questions about justice and gender and how this IS being portrayed in the media in a fashion that exonerates what Assange may have done because he is the hero of the day. After all, the thread title is 'Sweden's reputation is on trial in Julian Assange case'. Beyond the reputation of Sweden internationally, it implies that its laws regarding sexual assault are also on trial. The way that this is being presented is important, because it can easily be used to dismiss the actions of our own 'heroes' at home. It isn't a stretch to say that judging Sweden's laws regarding the equality of women can have an impact on us here in Canada. After all, they're going after him because Swedish law is so tough that there are jokes about it. The issues surrounding the extradition in the legal realm can be seperated and discussed, but it is unfair to shut down discussion on other issues - particulary the often misogynistic and patriarchal presentation of this case in the media and online.

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:29

#44

6079_Smith_W

@ Cueball

Of course. And I am familiar with some of the apparent irregularities, and the suspicious timing of all this.

I just think this conversation might be running a bit differently if we were talking about ...say Conrad Black.

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:30

#45

Cueball

Actually, the title is very apt, because it exactly outlines the facts. The fact that the article in question is offensive, does not undermine the fact that it gives all kinds of detaile behind the charge that are not being regularly reported in the press. Those things that make the testimonies of the accussed look contrived, and made up after the fact.

For example, the fact that the first women, acted as "moral" support for the second, then later it appears contributed evidence for a new and seperate charge in her own case.

Thu, 2010-12-09 13:45

#46

Cueball

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Cueball

Of course. And I am familiar with some of the apparent irregularities, and the suspicious timing of all this.

I just think this conversation might be running a bit differently if we were talking about ...say Conrad Black.

A very good comparison. Because we would not be having this conversation, because Conrad Black would never have been charged. I seem to remember that he didn't have any problem getting bail during the real hearing for his real crimes.

Thu, 2010-12-09 14:34

#47

kropotkin1951

I thought the title thread was clear and meant their reputation for a legitimate court system functioning without political interference. I took the time to listen to the interview with his London lawyer and she was very clear that this had nothing to do with attacking Sweden's sexual assault laws although they needed to hire an expert to explain how they are interpreted in Sweden since at least one of the potential charges has no mirror charge in Britain. So I think that as in the Israeli case our media have a hard time with even imagining tougher laws to protect women let alone enforcing them. It is the fact that he was given permission to leave the country and no charges were laid before the docs were leaked that is the story here. The rest is more red herring than anything.

I hate the fact that these women are being harassed for taking proper steps within their legal system. That is outrageous. However if as I suspect the Swedish authorities are using this sexual assault as cover for acting against the owner of Wikkileaks and not acting against a person under suspicion of sexual assault then I find that the most damaging thing of all for women's rights. The government trivializing sexual assault is truly reprehensible and if shown to be true could damage the reputation of Sweden's judicial system, at least in my eyes.

Thu, 2010-12-09 14:42

#48

6079_Smith_W

Cueball wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Cueball

Of course. And I am familiar with some of the apparent irregularities, and the suspicious timing of all this.

I just think this conversation might be running a bit differently if we were talking about ...say Conrad Black.

A very good comparison. Because we would not be having this conversation, because Conrad Black would never have been charged. I seem to remember that he didn't have any problem getting bail during the real hearing for his real crimes.

In fact, Black was charged, convicted and jailed for several charges which have since been thrown out because the convictions were based on an false interpretation of the law.

Not to act as an apologist for Black, or detour this down an alley (because I intend neither) but as it stands now he is in jail for one count of mail fraud, and an obstruction conviction which some feel is based on something for which he should not have been tried in the first place.

Excuse me if I don't have sources in front of me, but I remember hearing the editorial opinion a few times that Black was made an example of. And it is now clear some of those charges were bogus.

But back to the topic at hand, I think if these accusations were made against someone whom we might not be so supportive of as Mr. Assange there would not be the same assumptions and interpretations, particularly with respect to sexual assault and consent.

To be clear, I am not saying that I don't think he might be being railroaded. I am just saying that part of the reaction here has to do with who he is.

Thu, 2010-12-09 14:55

#49

Cueball

Yeah. I understand that you are taking this thread down the Babblers are hypocritical quasi-trolling line of discussion. But, if you are going to accuse me or anyone of hypocrisy why don't you state case in point, and quote persons, as opposed to vague unsubstantiated "feelings" you have about hypothetical debates about things that have not happened, if your are really do not "intend" to "detour down this alley".

Thu, 2010-12-09 15:11

#50

wage zombie

Cueball wrote:

Assange is the innocent victim of a smear campaign. This is clearly evident because we know for a fact that the Swedish government has not even charged him in this matter. If they thought they could actually convict on the evidence presented by the two women, then logically they would follow through with charges, since that is the only evidence that they will have to convict in court. Assange certainly is not going to give them any incriminating evidence in interview. There should not even be any need to question Assange in the case.

Agreed.

Thu, 2010-12-09 15:18

#51

wage zombie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But back to the topic at hand, I think if these accusations were made against someone whom we might not be so supportive of as Mr. Assange there would not be the same assumptions and interpretations, particularly with respect to sexual assault and consent.

I disagree. I think if the allegations were that Assange violently and non-consensually raped anyone then it would be another story. That is not what the allegations are--and because of cultural differences, and the fact that we don't have analagous laws here makes it a more complex issue for us to understand.

I think it's a no-brainer that if you're going to put out an international red alert on someone but unwilling to lay charges then something is fishy.

Pages

Topic locked