Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[JohnSkelton]

I wondered if you'd succeed in maintaining the pretence you actually cared about the allegations made against Assange for long, scottycelt. And you didn't.

Not so long ago it was considered "common sense" that if a women dressed 'provocatively' or 'flirted' with a man or had drunk alcohol she was 'asking for it'. Doubtless it still is inside your head.

[scottycelt]

Doubtless ducking ponds were regarded as common sense a wee while back, scotty .. but what's your point

Funny, I often wonder that myself, amsey ...

[ahinton]

I wondered if you'd succeed in maintaining the pretence you actually cared about the allegations made against Assange for long, scottycelt. And you didn't.

Not so long ago it was considered "common sense" that if a women dressed 'provocatively' or 'flirted' with a man or had drunk alcohol she was 'asking for it'. Doubtless it still is inside your head.

Well, whether or not any of that is the case is hardly the point, is it; Assange is not about to be extradited to be tried by scotty.

It seems to me that the principal points at issue are now these.

1. Will Assange leave the Ecuadorian embassy of his own volition and either agree to go to Sweden or be arrested and extradited there to be tried (if prosecuted) for the alleged commissions of sexual assualt?
2. If not, will he be prepared to remain in that enbassy indefinitely and might or could the Ecuadorian authorities manage to spring him to "freedom", thereby enabling him to avoid either arrest and extradition?
3. Did he commit any or all of those acts of sexual assault of which he is being accused and, if so and if tried, convicted and given a custodial sentence by the Swedish authorities, will he serve it before any other possible extradition applications might or could be contemplated?
4. Would US seek his extradition to stand trial for alleged offences re Wikileaks and, if so, which would be the most likely of Britain, Sweden and Ecuador to consent to and assist his extradition there?
5. Are the sexual assault charges genuine and, if not, were they down to a political plot or some other agenda?
6. If tried for those charges and found innocent and if his accusers agree not to appeal such a court decision, where will he want to go next - the Ecuardorian embassy in Stockholm?

If indeed one of the instance of sexual assault was committed while the woman concerned was asleep, this might well call into question the degree, if any, of consensuality involved, since it is reasonable to assume that consenting to anything, sexual or otherwise, is especially easy to do while unconscious.

There remains a great deal of information still to be ascertained and I doubt that Assange, if correctly quoted as saying what he is alleged to have done about "wearing" one of the the women concerned, is the kind of person who would be at all likely to prove helpful in clarifying any of the matters involved.

In the meantime, the less idle speculation, the better.

[ahinton]

Doubtless ducking ponds were regarded as common sense a wee while back, scotty .. but what's your point

Ducking issues is still regarded by some as convenient - and therefore "common sense" - today (although it might be advisable not to tell that to the MP who fiddled his expense in order to purchase a 5-star duck house before being found out and put in the dog house); anyway, ducking ponds are surely only history's equivalent to waterboarding, aren't they?...

[amateur51]

Ducking issues is still regarded by some as convenient - and therefore "common sense" - today (although it might be advisable not to tell that to the MP who fiddled his expense in order to purchase a 5-star duck house before being found out and put in the dog house); anyway, ducking ponds are surely only history's equivalent to waterboarding, aren't they?...

Well we may have come on a bit ahinton - waterboarding is not reserved exclusively for women, so just a very little bit then

[makropulos]

I don't think this has yet been mentioned. Assange has now got the support of George Galloway - who apparently claims that "no sensible person" could say Assange is guilty of rape or anything much else. Galloway's pronouncement seems to be untroubled by any evidence there might be, or the due processes of law, or any kind of respect for Sweden's legal system. With friends like that...

Anyhow, for anyone who is intrigued, here's a report about Galloway's contribution: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...&utm_hp_ref=uk

[scottycelt]

I wondered if you'd succeed in maintaining the pretence you actually cared about the allegations made against Assange for long, scottycelt. And you didn't.

Not so long ago it was considered "common sense" that if a women dressed 'provocatively' or 'flirted' with a man or had drunk alcohol she was 'asking for it'. Doubtless it still is inside your head.

Just to be on the safe side, I'll check and make sure whether it is or not, Joan ...

[ahinton]

Well we may have come on a bit ahinton - waterboarding is not reserved exclusively for women, so just a very little bit then

!!! No, indeed - either as victims or perpetrators, come to think of it...

[ahinton]

I don't think this has yet been mentioned. Assange has now got the support of George Galloway - who apparently claims that "no sensible person" could say Assange is guilty of rape or anything much else. Galloway's pronouncement seems to be untroubled by any evidence there might be, or the due processes of law, or any kind of respect for Sweden's legal system. With friends like that...

Anyhow, for anyone who is intrigued, here's a report about Galloway's contribution: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...&utm_hp_ref=uk

Well, to be fair to Galloway, his only real misdemeanour here is at the end where he offers his unfounded and irrelevant opinion "I don't believe either of those women, I don't believe either of these stories"; in a feeble attemtp to cap what is admittedly once again pretty unenlightening and equally unnecessary, he does at least have prudent recourse to the conditional. I have no idea how much Galloway knows about "sensible people", however, but it's clearly not enough to include the fact that the majority of "sensible people" do not as a rule deny anyone's guilt in anything without a shred on evidence to support such a stance.

Anyway, Assange is not about to be extradited to Scotland to stand trial in Galloway, so I think that we can afford to hear George's noisemakings and move on...

[amateur51]

!!! No, indeed - either as victims or perpetrators, come to think of it...

Whereas the use of a ducking stool in a ducking pond was exclusively for women, y'see

[amateur51]

It'll be interesting to see how the women voters of Bradford West decide to cast their votes when George Galloway comes up for re-election in 2015.

[scottycelt]

I think that we can afford to hear George's noisemakings and move on...

Oh come on, Gorgeous George is a refreshing maverick of the modern 'radical' Left. Let's hear more of him! None of this nonsensical and stultifying feminist dogma for a wee Dundee laddie-of-the-world like GG, eh?

He's hopelessly wrong about Mr Assange, though (imho) ... but then again he's always been very strongly in the anti-US camp on the Left ... so what an opportunity for him to attempt to smack two huge and personally irritating birds with one tiny little stone!

[heliocentric]

Naomi Wolf says:

"Based on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters, I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case"

... in this article: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02...by-naomi-wolf/

which at least suggests that various irregularities in the way the rape allegations have been pursued might point towards something more sinister, although it's hard to see why Assange wouldn't already have used these arguments if they're as convincing as Naomi Wolf seems to think they are.

[Lateralthinking1]

Naomi Wolf says:

"Based on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters, I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case"

... in this article: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02...by-naomi-wolf/

which at least suggests that various irregularities in the way the rape allegations have been pursued might point towards something more sinister, although it's hard to see why Assange wouldn't already have used these arguments if they're as convincing as Naomi Wolf seems to think they are.

And yet the British Government doesn't appear to have questioned these points with the Swedish Government. Before transporting him to Stockholm, perhaps the powers-that-be need to ask themselves whether they are in the right jobs.

Some could be stars. Just a simple name change needed. Which one will be the first to give us a rendition of something?

[Pabmusic]

It seems to me that the principal points at issue are now these.

1. Will Assange leave the Ecuadorian embassy of his own volition and either agree to go to Sweden or be arrested and extradited there to be tried (if prosecuted) for the alleged commissions of sexual assualt?
2. If not, will he be prepared to remain in that enbassy indefinitely and might or could the Ecuadorian authorities manage to spring him to "freedom", thereby enabling him to avoid either arrest and extradition?
3. Did he commit any or all of those acts of sexual assault of which he is being accused and, if so and if tried, convicted and given a custodial sentence by the Swedish authorities, will he serve it before any other possible extradition applications might or could be contemplated?
4. Would US seek his extradition to stand trial for alleged offences re Wikileaks and, if so, which would be the most likely of Britain, Sweden and Ecuador to consent to and assist his extradition there?
5. Are the sexual assault charges genuine and, if not, were they down to a political plot or some other agenda?
6. If tried for those charges and found innocent and if his accusers agree not to appeal such a court decision, where will he want to go next - the Ecuardorian embassy in Stockholm?

And yet the British Government doesn't appear to have questioned these points with the Swedish Government. Before transporting him to Stockholm, perhaps the power-that-be need to ask themselves whether they are in the right jobs.

Not quite. These points are easily separable into two. First, the immediate issues are your points 1 and 2. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the extradition is lawful and Assange chose not to go to the ECHR, the question for British authorities is how they can arrest him and hand him to the Swedes.

Second, your other points are all matters for the Swedish investigation, trial (if there is one) and its aftermath.

Lateralthinking's points, too. We don't know what the British and Swedish governments have said to each other, but we're happy to accept as fact a journalist's expertise in Swedish rape law.

On the face of it, none of the points Woolf raises go to the truth or otherwise of the allegations; the thrust seems to be that the procedure is unusual, therefore the whole thing's 'dodgy'. That's a point to make at the trial*, not proof of innocence. We do, of course, have Assange's statement through his lawyer that: "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", which clearly suggests there were sexual experiences. Whether consent was freely given, or whether (as perhaps is what is alleged) it was retracted, are matters of fact for the trial.

*Or probably to the investigator, since many things we think of as 'trial points' in common law countries are dealt with at the investigation stage in civil law countries. As I understand it, the police receive the complaint and gather evidence. An investigator (called a juge d'instruction in France) is appointed from a judicial panel. That person controls the investigation, interviews suspects and witnesses, and decides whether there is a prima facie case. If there is, it's handed over to the prosecuting authorities. The system makes it easier to 'drop' weak cases before they come to trial, and conversely, makes it more likely that cases that go to trial result in guilty verdicts. There are no juries. Scots will recognise this a little, since they have a hybrid system with elements of both common law (jury trials, adversarial system, "beyond reasonable doubt") and civil law (Procurator Fiscal in charge of investigating at least the more serious matters, "not proven" verdict).