Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[jean]

Swedish prosecutors have again refused to question Assange in this country (or the Ecuadorean embassy) - they are going to justify thmselves on WATO now.

[amateur51]

And try to Torquemada writing like this, yes?...

Mr Mel Brooks will be invoicing you for that joke shortly, ahinton

**BAD TASTE ALERT**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg

[jean]

Swedish prosecutors have again refused to question Assange in this country (or the Ecuadorean embassy) - they are going to justify thmselves on WATO now.

Did anyone hear? Someone phoned me at the wrong moment and I came in as it finished, about 1.16. Is it worth searching the iPlayer for?

[Frances_iom]

Did anyone hear?

probably worth searching for - it maybe the Swedish accent but the person interviewed repeated somewhat wearily that yes they had interviewed people abroad in other cases, no she could not give a reason why the prosecutor states that he had to be interviewed in Sweden - she (the prosecutor) gave no reason for this other than circumstances demanded it.

The Karl Rove connection suggested by some earlier link seems to be of some interest here as the interview re sexual activity (from published material both women stating that much of which was consensual) is easily summarised as rape charges which gives the impression that Assange forcibly assualted two women thus tarring him as an violent criminal - such muddying of the waters pretrail would appear to have been a typical ploy by that person.

[handsomefortune]

here tis jean,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01m0m82

is it iplayable straight away?

[jean]

No, it's still 'coming soon'.

[Lateralthinking1]

Whoa! President Correa has used my David and Goliath analogy. Wonder what he thinks of Breakfast on 3?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19330592

Fortunately I have no recollection whatsoever of where I was in early 2006 and of what I never saw.

I don't even know these days what is happening in the area of work and pensions but I am sure they are being managed with the sort of efficiency and decency one has come to expect in the longer term.

Hey, 5,000 volts. I'm on Fire! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrSReUAB8rQ

(But that's not Tina Charles)

[jean]

the interview re sexual activity (from published material both women stating that much of which was consensual) is easily summarised as rape charges which gives the impression that Assange forcibly assualted two women thus tarring him as an violent criminal

Neither here nor in Sweden does the law regard rape as necessarily accompanied by violence, so I'm not sure that's entirely fair.

[Dave2002]

Please don't be concerned, but do be curious. People don't usually have to think about these things (thank goodness!), but I did work in the UK criminal justice system from 1976 until I retired in 2009. I'm no expert on Sweden, and some things I say about their system are assumptions, but the Common Law -v- Civil Law split could be read as 'Anglo-Saxon' -v- The Other Europeans. There are real differences (jury trials, for instance, originated with the Anglo-Saxons, and are now mainly found in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the like). In Europe, it's mainly Civil Law, often dating from the Code Napoleon. But this is terribly simplistic.

It has meant a real difference historically. Torture was a legitimate practice under Civil Law, because a person usually couldn't be convicted without either two witnesses or a confession. Torture was never sanctioned under the Common Law (though that didn't stop its unlawful use by powerful monarchs, of course). There's a letter from Pope Clement V to Edward II, saying (in modern English) "We hear you forbid torture as being contrary to the laws of your land; but no state can override Canon Law, Our Law; therefore I command you at once to submit these men to torture...You have already imperilled your soul as a favourer of heretics...Withdraw your prohibition and we grant you remission of sins". That's the pope ordering an English king to disobey English law on pain of damnation!

Now you really are getting me worried! Sweden has judges (of various sorts) and lay judges whose role may be similar to jurors in England.

In the UK we have several levels. Magistrates courts, mostly for minor(ish) offences, though these could still include offences where a custodial sentence might be given, and other courts where jurors drawn from the regular populace are involved. Possibly in some countries such as Sweden they have more professional legal experts.

In the UK in some courts we have judges, juries, a prosecuting team and a defence team. The teams are adversarial, and present evidence and argue the case to the jury. The jury decides on guilt or otherwise for each charge. The judge's role is to conduct proceedings, and to pass appropriate sentences in the case of guilty verdicts. Judges are supposed, in that kind of court, AFAIK, to be impartial. I don't know what happens in Sweden.

[vinteuil]

Judges are supposed, in that kind of court, AFAIK, to be impartial.

... I think Judges are supposed to be impartial, whether in the English, Scottish, Roman-Dutch, or other systems - even including the Code Napoléon !

[jean]

I don't normally have any time at all for either the Daily Mail or Melanie Phillips, but this article contains an accusation against Assange which, if true, is serious. (I have read various versions of the accusation before, but have been unable to find another source for them, so maybe she made them up):

"...Assange...is thought to have caused a number of very brave individuals to have their security compromised and maybe even to lose their lives...Some of the classified cables he published, for example, identified the names, villages, relatives’ identities and precise locations of Afghans who had co-operated with Nato troops..."

[Dave2002]

... I think Judges are supposed to be impartial, whether in the English, Scottish, Roman-Dutch, or other systems - even including the Code Napoléon !

Surely it depends on the kind of judge. Some kinds of judge (e.g appeals judges) have specific knowledge and their opinion does come into play. That is why there are several of them. In "regular" trials, the sort we see on TV and in films, the judge's opinion should not matter - it's the jury that decides, though the judge can advise, and in some cases direct a jury.

[scottycelt]

Frankly, I neither know nor care ... And what has "stultifying feminist dogma" to do with accusations of sexual assault, particularly when the making of such accusations is equally opn to males and females?

Well, that's part of the problem (imho), ahinton ... some of us seem to co-exist in entirely different universes.

Mr Galloway MP conceded that some people would not wish to hear what he had to say on such matters (rape and sexual assault) but then he is quoted as saying .. 'but it has to be said'. I'm with Mr Galloway on that, as it happens.

Mr Galloway has expressed views on what constitutes 'rape' which are diametrically opposed to current feminist dogma. That is precisely why his comments have appeared to cause such fury and controversy in some very predictable quarters.

However, I repeat ... all this is well nigh irrelevant ... it's Swedish law that matters in this case, NOTHING else whether feminist dogma or the opposing and rather more traditional views of Mr Galloway!

[ahinton]

Mr Galloway MP conceded that some people would not wish to hear what he had to say on such matters (rape and sexual assault) but then he is quoted as saying .. 'but it has to be said'. I'm with Mr Galloway on that, as it happens.

Within reason, Mr Galloway or anyone else can believe and declare that something that they then go on to say "has to be said" but it is equally up to those who bother to listen to decide for themselves how much if any notice to take of it.

Mr Galloway has expressed views on what constitutes 'rape' which are diametrically opposed to current feminist dogma. That is precisely why his comments have appeared to cause such fury and controversy in some very predictable quarters.

Whatever his personal views on rape may be, they are no more pertinent to the issues at stake here than it matters whether or not they may be - or be thought to be - "diametrically opposed to current feminist dogma", whatever that may be wherever it may be expressed; likewise, "current feminist dogma" anywhere is no more on trial here than is Assange at the moment. Any fury, however defensible and understgandable, caused by Galloway's comments is also therefore irrelevant to the issues surrounding accusations of sexual assault on the part of Assange, particularly given that no one has yet accused him of rape.

However, I repeat ... all this is well nigh irrelevant ... it's Swedish law that matters in this case, NOTHING else whether feminist dogma or the opposing and rather more traditional views of Mr Galloway!

That is indeed true (except that even this will not actually matter until Assange has successfully bee extradited to and prosecuted in Sweden); that said, I shuidder at the noton that Mr Galloway's view on rape could be deemed by anyone to be in any meaningful sense "traditional"! - for if they were, I'd want as soon as possible to emigrate, or even be extradited(!), from any country in which such views fell clearly within its "traditions"!

[ahinton]

Mr Mel Brooks will be invoicing you for that joke shortly, ahinton

**BAD TASTE ALERT**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg

I won't pay it! - but I might have it reported to Wikileaks...