Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[heliocentric]

it's clearly impossible that anyone who might conceivably be thought of as against the world order - me, say, with a history of political activism - could ever satisfactorily be found guilty of any crime, because of the dark forces at work, so it would be quite wrong if there's the possibility someone like that has committed some crime to charge and try them?

There are always "dark forces at work", though, often not so dark of course and often they're writing the laws, most of which exist basically in order to keep the class structure of society intact and the people at the top thus in continued possession of their power and assets. Surely (especially for those of us with antiestablishment political convictions) it's important to make a distinction between that kind of law and the laws governing something like sexual violence.

[french frank]

Politics entangles, the law separates.

I wouldn't see it like that. To me it's clear that the law is political. How could it not be?

Well, it might be something of a forensic nit-picking point to say that laws can be political and they can be politicised. And accusations can be politically motivated. But I don't think the law relating to rape or sexual assault is itself political. It is the politics that entangles here because a) the accusations could have been politically motivated even to the extent of engineering the situation in the first place and b) Assange is politically controversial for the reasons we know.

But the role of the law is to disentangle - or separate - the politics and decide whether, on the evidence and in light of Swedish law, he is criminally guilty or not. And it is that process that is being held up.

[jean]

The thing is, the alleged victims have stated that they so not consider Ansange to have raped them. I respect their autonomy in this matter. I also note that the Swedish minister who has been interviewed during the day has made a point of referring to allegations of sexual assault, rather than rape.

So the most we can say is that careless or misinformed or sensationalising journalists have written of rape when they really meant sexual assault.

And nobody has concocted anything.

[AuntyKezia]

From what I recall of the original reporting, the women's claim was not that the sex was not consensual - it was - but that some of it was unprotected. Hence the alleged assault consisted of Assange's failure to wear a condom every time, which in turn gave rise to the women's concern about possible transmission of a sexually transmitted infection, which I believe is what triggered the investigation to start with.

[ahinton]

From what I recall of the original reporting, the women's claim was not that the sex was not consensual - it was - but that some of it was unprotected. Hence the alleged assault consisted of Assange's failure to wear a condom every time, which in turn gave rise to the women's concern about possible transmission of a sexually transmitted infection, which I believe is what triggered the investigation to start with.

If that is indeed the case - and if indeed that is the whole story (which, of course, it may not be) - then the matter of whether sexual assault had been committed might be seen to remain open to question on the grounds that the consensuality, even as accounted for here, is the factor that raises the doubts. Can consensual sexual activity between adults be classified as sexual assault purely because of the male participant's refusal to wear appropriate protection when the female partner was nevertheless aware of that refusal? Only if, after that knowledge was established between the two, what followed included force on the part of the male participant against the female participant's will, I imagine. What therefore needs to be established before an accusation of sexual assault can be accepted as such is whether or not such force occurred but, if it did, the consensuality becomes questionable and, if it didn't, there would appear to be no case for assault.

There can be no doubt, on the other hand, that rape itself involves the participation in sexual intercourse being forced by one person on another against the other's will that often involves physical violence and, as this is by definition non-consensual, it is one of the more serious forms of sexual assault; it is important to remember that genuine sexual assault may or may not include rape.

[Pabmusic]

...There can be no doubt, on the other hand, that rape itself involves the participation in sexual intercourse being forced by one person on another against the other's will that often involves physical violence and, as this is by definition non-consensual, it is one of the more serious forms of sexual assault; it is important to remember that genuine sexual assault may or may not include rape.

I don't think it is helpful to speculate upon the nature of the assault. The only definition of rape that matters is the one in Swedish law. Certainly, consensual sex where the consent is obtained by fraud is rape in English law. If the circumstances were that consent was given in the expectation that he would use a condom, but he didn't comply, then that might be rape in English law - it would be difficult to prove, I suspect, but that's a different matter. I have no idea of the position in Swedish law. (Post 11 is relevant, too.)

[JohnSkelton]

I don't think it is helpful to speculate upon the nature of the assault.

Neither do I think it helpful. 'Justice for Assange' [sic] gives over a considerable amount of space to criticising Swedish law and to bellyaching about what it calls 'Feminism' (with the inverted comma/s) and the Swedish State http://justice4assange.com/Gender-Politics.html

http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html#SRL

It seems obvious to me, though that's probably because I lack sophistication, that if sex between a man and a woman is consensual on the basis that protection is used and the man (a) refuses to use protection (b) continues with sex then it ceases to be consensual, ceases to have the woman's consent.

But all of this is speculative, since there's no mechanism outside Swedish law for testing the allegations against Julian Assange.

[ahinton]

I don't think it is helpful to speculate upon the nature of the assault.

Indeed it is not, any more than it's helpful to speculate on any other aspect of this case or these cases - but then I'm not doing so!

The only definition of rape that matters is the one in Swedish law.

Agreed.

Certainly, consensual sex where the consent is obtained by fraud is rape in English law.

Again, agreed.

If the circumstances were that consent was given in the expectation that he would use a condom, but he didn't comply, then that might be rape in English law - it would be difficult to prove, I suspect, but that's a different matter.

True on both counts; it would be almost impossible to prove.

I have no idea of the position in Swedish law. (Post 11 is relevant, too.)

Nor do I, but the question here surely rests on when the woman / women ellagedly involved discovered that Assange refused to wear protection; if it could demonstrably be proved that it was only after the event, then it might indeed constitute sexual assault, but the difficulty here would be proving when the woman / women allegedly involved actually made that discovery; after all, the element of "refusal" does on the face of it sound as though she / they knew about it beforehand as the refusal occurred beforehand, since one cannot "refuse" to do something after it's too late to do so, nor, strictly speaking, can one realistically "refuse" to do something without telling anyone of the intent to refuse, since by definition a "refusal" necessarily implies a declaration to refuse. Again, I'm, not speculating on what may actually have happened here - merely pointing out that proof of more than one aspect of this might be very difficult to obtain - and questioning why in any case the woman / women allegedly involved would have chosen to declare in advance of prosecution that actual rape was not involved (if indeed it is true that they did so declare) when such declaration could hope to do little other than undermine (if not necessarily invalidate) their case/s for sexual assualt?

[Dave2002]

I don't even know on what basis Assange has been in the UK. As an Australian citizen he may have required a visa, and may have to apply each time.

If he were a UK citizen (which he's not), then would the UK be able to insist that if extradited to Sweden to answer one specific charge he would then be allowed to return freely to the UK if found innocent, or after serving any punishment given in Sweden? As an Australian citizen presumably once he has been extradited to any other country the UK could refuse re-entry.

There are a whole lot of issues of trust and politics involved here.

[heliocentric]

It seems obvious to me, though that's probably because I lack sophistication, that if sex between a man and a woman is consensual on the basis that protection is used and the man (a) refuses to use protection (b) continues with sex then it ceases to be consensual, ceases to have the woman's consent.

Quite. One result of looking at this case is that one learns something about the Swedish laws concerning sexual misconduct, which seem to be somewhat more enlightened than those in force elsewhere. While no law should be above scrutiny or criticism, complaining about laws on the basis that they're "feminist" says more about the complainer and the fact that most laws in most countries are clearly "masculinist".

[AuntyKezia]

Interesting input from the Swedish caller on Any Answers (R4) this afternoon ...

[amateur51]

Interesting input from the Swedish caller on Any Answers (R4) this afternoon ...

Give us a clue, AuntyKezia?

[AuntyKezia]

He wondered why the Swedish authorities had so far failed to take up Assange's offer to answer their questions while remaining in the UK - for example, by meeting a representative of the investigating team for an interview at the Swedish Embassy in London.

[amateur51]

He wondered why the Swedish authorities had so far failed to take up Assange's offer to answer their questions while remaining in the UK - for example, by meeting a representative of the investigating team for an interview at the Swedish Embassy in London.

Interesting as you say, AuntyKezia - many thanks

[mangerton]

He wondered why the Swedish authorities had so far failed to take up Assange's offer to answer their questions while remaining in the UK - for example, by meeting a representative of the investigating team for an interview at the Swedish Embassy in London.

Why on earth would Assange have offered to do that? Surely if he went to the Swedish Embassy, he'd be wheeched* back to Sweden and thence to the US before his feet touched, and I really can't imagine Hague and his merry men at the FCO doing anything to stop it. Or am I missing something? I think he's probably safer where he is.


* "wheeched" - a good Scots word, and the meaning should be obvious from the context.