Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[JohnSkelton]

That's all true, undoubtedly, but do you believe that he has skipped bail and then sought refuge in a foreign embassy solely in order to try to evade having to face prosecution and possible trial on the sexual assualt charges in Sweden? I don't know him personally but that seems a tad implausible to me...

Why does it seem a tad implausible? They are serious charges. It's certainly plausible someone would wish to avoid facing them.

[jean]

Even if he were utterly innocent?

[Lateralthinking1]

I agree with johnB's doubts about Owen Jones - over-confident and insufficiently measured in my view - and Bryn's comments on the severity of the alleged offence which appears misrepresented. I'm not inclined to be overly moral on the latter because it looks to me so obviously like lies. In any half-normal context - no one could ever describe what is alleged as normal - that argument would not be persuasive. But this is a weird, unique and entirely off-the-scale situation. Consequently normal rules do not apply.

Do I think Assange is incapable of what is being alleged? No. He is a very unusual character who after months of prime time television coverage not one of us could claim to comprehend. That inevitably leaves 'anything is possible' doubts in our heads. It also enables others easily to invent things. Given the upset about his work, and inability to nail him down, no one would have betted on them not doing so. To my mind, the absolute give away here is the timing. Now. What an extraordinary coincidence!

In an ideal world, there are facts that Wikileaks would not have released in order to protect national security. There would also have been no moral vaccum that could have been filled by an Assange. If some bureaucracies have huge difficulties with FOI, then there is no way that Assange and pals could have been expected to have exercised subtlety. Governments have only got themselves to blame. Still, one might ask what has happened because of the revelations. Crucially, the world is still turning.

And it is hard not to be concerned about the long-term mental health of Assange. For one individual to take on the world's establishment is bonkers, however wonderful or diabolical it might be. Rampant egotism isn't unique but it would have been easier for him to have made a pop record. All the likelihood of what he did was that it would be self-defeating. History gives us the knowledge of martyrs. Assange always thought that he would win. That, I think, is indicative of a troubled background.

We should not forget too here the case of Gary McKinnon, the managing of which leaves a lot to be desired. We can paint the usual picture of nasty authority having its way but I doubt that 'the system' really has sufficient sophistication to deal with maverick intelligence without resorting to trickery. Until I hear things to change my mind, I will feel quite sympathetic in regard to Assange. What happens next will be fascinating. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if he suddenly turned up in Quito.

[amateur51]

It it had been Dominic Strauss-Kahn in that embassy I wonder if we would have the same people protesting outside about possible extradition to the US to face rape charges?

Neither you nor I know these people, scotty.

And I do recall people protesting about the way that DSK was dealt with by the US authorities, as if he was being treated as 'guilty until proven innocent', a recent experience that has undoubtedly informed reactions to current attempts to extradite Assange to USA.

[Resurrection Man]

Facts. Missing from most of this thread.

Sweden has a legal system. So do we. No-one here is privy to the exact details of the hearing unless they were actually there. So any posts here about "is it rape, isn;'t it rape, did they say this, did they say" that are pointless. You don't know the facts. Nor do most journalists ...who usually have a biased viewpoint depending on their newspaper.

Assange has gone through the legal channels of both countries and the extradition request granted, appealed, granted again etc as nauseam. So he should 'man-up' and go to court.

The fact that he has chosen Ecuador where, according to Human Rights Watch they imprison journalists for speaking out against the President etc, somewhat surreal.

Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years. In a referendum held in 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.

Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.

Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted.

[jean]

...the severity of the alleged offence which appears misrepresented. I'm not inclined to be overly moral on the latter because it looks to me so obviously like lies...

Really? Whose?

[Lateralthinking1]

Really? Whose?

I don't know quite how to describe them. Shall we say "the authorities responsible for international security"?

On RM's post, we need to think about the wider implications. Potentially anyone who opposes policy or acts in a certain way against it could be set up on similar grounds. I am not saying this is a set up because to do so is probably unlawful.

But if it were the case, I would see it as a problem. It would be a problem for free speech. Actually, it would be a problem for true victims of rape or even assault if in certain cases the authorities used fabrication of those crimes as a means of entrapment.

[jean]

So what the women said doesn't count?

[Pabmusic]

...I'm not inclined to be overly moral on the latter because it looks to me so obviously like lies....

Amazing comment! We have learned the hard way that we have to take allegations of sexual assault seriously, and we do so much better now than we did 30 years ago, even though it's far from perfect (I've no reason to think the Swedish experience is any different). The implication of your post is that we should not bother in this case ('normal rules do not apply') because the complainants are 'obviously' lying. That is an appalling view.

[ahinton]

Why does it seem a tad implausible? They are serious charges. It's certainly plausible someone would wish to avoid facing them.

Indeed it is but, innocent or otherwise (pace jean above), how many people would go to quite those lengths in order to do so? My reference to implausibility rests solely upon what I suspect to be the rather greater likelihood that he took those steps in order to evade the risk of ending up - pre- or post-trial or even post served sentence in Sweden - being extradited to US from Sweden on matters that appear to have nothing to do with the sexual assault accusations from that country (unless such accusations are indeed not only false but trumped-up and politically motivated, which may or may not be the case).

[Resurrection Man]

I agree 100% with Pabmusic. Many of the views expressed on this thread are IMO deeply offensive reflecting the biased, nay bigoted, viewpoints of the posters who only see what they wish to.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

is not the assault of two women to some degree the only solid fact in the whole stew?

and in which case the investigation and consequent charges will require an answer in person by Assange ...

since i would far prefer to fight an extradition from the USA in Sweden rather than the supine UK i do not find Assange's argument persuasive at all .... and his flight to Ecuador says more to me of his concern for the assault charges than the spectre of the USA ... who in PR terms, currently have him where they want him ... very few female family and friends mention his name without a hissing scowl and accusations of being a rapist and pervert ...

[scottycelt]

Neither you nor I know these people, scotty.

And I do recall people protesting about the way that DSK was dealt with by the US authorities, as if he was being treated as 'guilty until proven innocent', a recent experience that has undoubtedly informed reactions to current attempts to extradite Assange to USA.

I simply expressed wide-eyed and innocent 'wonder', ams, and how on earth are you aware of what people I happen to know?

I can't recall anybody marching in the streets in support of DSK, but I could be wrong there. It has been known.

He (DSK) certainly had the support of his lovely wife, though ... at least in public!

[amateur51]

So what the women said doesn't count?

We really do have to get away from the mind-set - rape is extremely serious and not believing the claimant from the start adds to the crime.

[Pabmusic]

I agree 100% with Pabmusic. Many of the views expressed on this thread are IMO deeply offensive reflecting the biased, nay bigoted, viewpoints of the posters who only see what they wish to.

Thank you, RM. We are forgetting this statement from Assange's lawyer, quoted in the original article: "Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant [sic], the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange's conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with."