So, yesterday, I was saying that one effect of the #Cablegate infobomb was to disrupt all sorts of accepted patterns of behaviour, modes of judgement. This is a fast moving feast, though, and whether it’s just a human need for a narrative, or an inability to accept uninterpreted information holding all sorts of possibilities, and events that do not conform to standard patterns, those walls I was talking about are being well and truly re-built. All over the shop.
Let’s take stock:
(a) If, as I contend, the persona (if not the legal rights of the person) of Julian Assange is at best tangential, that’s not now how it’s being played out. Initially rallying around (legitimate) questions of due process, there’s been something of a swarm towards making all sorts of friend/enemy distinctions, and demanding people account for which side they’re on. The most egregious, and deeply disturbing, aspect of this tendency is to assert “facts” about the complainants whose allegations lie behind the warrant under which Assange has been arrested.
(b) I hope everyone has actually been keeping up with just how over the top some of this complainant shaming has become. A very good piece on this by Libby Brooks is in The Guardian. See also Laurie Penny at the New Statesman and an interesting comments thread at Still Life With Cat.
Now, I’d like people to actually stop, read, and think.
There are, as I’m saying, legitimate questions about the state response against Assange (and the demonisation he’s undergone has its flipside in the lionisation he’s receiving). There are also legitimate questions about the alacrity with which legal moves have proceeded.
But, but, but:
(a) I wouldn’t want to comment in the slightest on the Swedish court system, or its definitions of crime, about which I know pretty much nothing, and I’d suggest that most people who are share my ignorance. I would, however, suggest that demands which seem to assume that The Anglo-Saxon Way of Doing Things is universally good and should be universally adopted (NOW!) are… well, you know, dumb.
(b) Turning all this schemozzle into a debate over the motivations and status of an individual is the easiest possible way of containing and normalising it, and ensuring all sorts of genies get bottled up pronto.
And then there’s the question I pose in the post title. I’d like a good answer, please.
Once again, this is an event. The worst possible response is to turn it into something which magnifies some pathological categorisations which are already pretty malicious. It’s deeply interesting how many aspects of custom, culture and social relations are being unveiled and blown up to five times their normal size in response to the rawness of The Real. But aspects of it are also really pretty worrying.
We should stop, pause, and think.
Also, I don’t want all this to be an excuse for what Briggs calls the “Wikiblokesphere” to say “it woz the feminists wot done it”.
And, the issue about whether Wikileaks is a *good* thing needs to be kept apart from whether Assange is a *good* person (not that either is so simple), as does the issue of state and corporate action against him and Wikileaks and the legitimate expectations that justice be done not only in their case but also for those who have made allegations against him.
It’s not all about picking sides. Nuance, folks. Thought. Etc.
NB: Related thread.
Well said Kim.
I think the complainant shaming is just as complicated as the demonisation of Assange. As a starting point:
Camp One – He didn’t really do it
There are people who believe that it’s
1. Set Up by CIA, etc
2. A smear campaign – attack Assange, attack Wikileaks
3. A decoy charge, ie get him on the sex so the US can extradite him retrospectively for the SHEILD laws (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/131885-senators-unveil-anti-wikileaks-legislation) based on the idea that Sweden caves on extradition
These aren’t always the same people who believe The Raw Story illogical, but not 100% without merit, claims that one of the complainants is actually a CIA agent.
There are other people who believe that
1. Assange may be guilty of some crime in Swedish law
2. But this makes no sense outside of Sweden
3. And has nothing to do with the importance of Wikileaks
There are also some of us who think other things too.
Bottom line though, once you start talking feminism, is that people don’t understand it. The Raw Story article set up the CIA rumours and also claimed the woman is a feminist AND anti-Castro AND communist in the same breath.
Laughable.
Also, I think you’ll find the most rhetoric being leveled against complainants is from the blogosphere and un-friendly trolls. Some of this is counter-smear, some of this is conservatroll propaganda – ie Wikileaks haters pretending to be supporters by pretending to be haters of complainants, when really they hate women just as much as they hate Wikileaks
Most protestors/supporters of Wikileaks are genuinely concerned about the threats of assassination, SHEILD laws, etc, and are only angry at complainants on the condition it is not a genuine case ie. the smear used to bring down dissent/free speech offends free speech AND genuine rape victims.
It was also Daniel Ellsberg, who said recently “Everything that is happening to Assange is happening to me”
So the jury isn’t out yet on the rape allegations (obviously) but the court of public opinion is swinging heavily against the establishment nonetheless
I agree with #1. Well said.
I think a lot of this response is just people trying to guess whether the court case will succeed. The severity of the crimes and likelihood of prosecution success is important to many peoples’ judgment of whether they’re political, since many people assume an arrest warrant for a minor crime would be political, while a major one would be apolitical. I think that doesn’t have to be true, you could (for example) pursue Roman Polanski extra vigorously for political reasons even though his crime is serious, and ignore a similar crime for political reasons. But a lot of people see it as “not serious = political.” Hence the second-guessing of swedish laws, the complainants’ motives etc.
Of course, questioning the political nature of the prosecution demands suspicion of the complainants’ motives and honesty, so it will inevitably look like complainant shaming.
Even if the whole thing is a beat up though, it appears to me that Assange is using his fame to pull, and behaving somewhat odiously in the process. He wouldn’t be the first person to do that, I suppose, but it doesn’t mitigate against claims that he’s grandstanding all this for his own personal benefit.
Kim, calling for nuance these days, post “you’re either with us or against us”, when most folk conflated the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the war on terrorists with the war on Saddam and even Islam, is probably asking too much.
As for trial by social media, again, that’s simply a regrettable consequence of public discussion following reporting and comment from the MSM to social media. Trial by media has a long history.
The conflation makes things easier to manage – like a war on one front versus two. It’s sad, but nuance is the preference of few.
@5 – Sure, Dave. But the principle that the best way to test allegations is in a court not on Twitter or wherevs surely isn’t a hard one to understand, particularly, as I’m saying since the issue is supposed also to be about Assange being accorded due process, his legal rights, etc.
No it doesn’t SG, as has already been pointed out a number of times in comments, there could be an element of opportunism whereby sincere complaints are pursued far more vigorously than might otherwise have happened.
@7 – Exactly, su.
Where some of these questions ought properly to lie goes to, for instance, the speed and force with which Assange was brought before a British court, compared to the difficulties normally encountered in dealing with such allegations in the UK – a point a number of people have made (see links in post).
‘one effect of the #Cablegate infobomb was to disrupt all sorts of accepted patterns of behaviour, modes of judgement. This is a fast moving feast’
Seems so Kim and the people are on the move…
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4615/
su, that use of “demands” is meant to indicate consequence. ie When you say that a complaint is political in nature you’re indicating suspicion of the complainants motives and honesty whether or not the complaint is sincere. To use your example, opportunism is a bad motive, hence suspicion of motives and honesty (it’s not like these two women are going to say “I’m doing this opportunistically”, so their honesty would also be called into question).
I don’t see a way out of this bind. Prominent person damages US interests, 2 days later serious criminal allegation is made. Everyone suspects the allegation is political and opportunistic, regardless of its content, before they’ve even seen the case, because of the people involved. This inevitably involves suspicion of the complainants honesty and motives.
That’s only partly true Kim. If one thinks an allegation is politically motivated it’s also perfectly reasonable to investigate the content of the allegation for evidence that it’s frivolous, incoherent, dodgy, etc. Which again demands some kind of complainant shaming.
Well, no, again, it doesn’t, sg. People demand Assange be given the presumption of innocence (again, I don’t know whether this concept works quite the same way or exists in that form under Swedish law). But it’s quite possible – and reasonable – to believe that the complaints have been made in good faith. It’s not just in matters of sexual assault, but also with a number of other crimes against the person, that parties can legitimately disagree about intent, actions, consequences, but not be in bad faith. It’s not, I repeat, difficult to accept that a court is the best forum for testing and judging these allegations.
Nope. That’s also not the same as imputing motives (which I’d want to avoid). To suspect that there might be some motivation having to do with Assange’s prominence, whatevs, does not entail a litany of misogynist crap about “honeytraps”, fantasies about spy seductrixes, etc, etc.
Kim, I’m including “impugning motives” under the definition of “complainant shaming.” Obviously the misogynist crap isn’t necessary or useful in establishing whether the complaint is genuine.
But even under a rape-specific and feminist definition of “complainant shaming” surely questioning the facts of the case in the media is part of that? I mean, if you say it’s not a real sexual assault, you’re going down a very old and well-trod path to discrediting rape victims, right? But in establishing if it’s politically motivated you may have to tread that path.
By way of comparison, consider the complaints of sodomy against Inwar Ibrahim. As outsiders pondering whether they were genuine complaints, we have to question the facts of the case, which means we have to question the integrity and honesty of Ibrahim’s “victim,” question the Malaysian legal system, etc. If Ibrahim’s victim was genuine, this is very hard for him. But the obvious political nature of the case requires (in the very weak internet sense!) that we do this.
While restraint is admirable, I think ultimately everyone who thinks that this case might be political is likely to end up questioning the honesty and integrity of the victims, and that is the oldest and most well-played misogynist card in the anti-rape deck.
@14 – Ibrahim’s case is not the best analogy, I don’t think, sg.
Thanks for this post Kim.
On a bit of a pop psych note, I strongly suspect Assange has somewhat of a madonna/whore complex about women. He adores and is fiercely loyal to his mother, but appears to have serious issues with trust/intimacy with peers.
Not sure if its surfaced in the press yet, but i found her and julians early 1990′s submission to parliament around Child protection reform. She was even interviewed by the ABC way back then.
Robert Gates is reported to have said “I’d call that very good news” when he was told of Assange’s arrest. When the US Defence Secretary expresses satisfaction at the arrest of a poitical enemy for an offence quite unconnected with politics, we can hardly be surprised if people smell a rat. And when the likes of John bleedin’ Pilger turn up to offer to go bail for Assange, the partisan nature of the proceedings is obvious and irrevocable. It’s therefore asking too much of flawed human nature to expect a dispassionate adherence to the rules of natural justice on the part of interested bystanders.
WikiLeaks has slipped without a splash into the endless left/right culture war and battle will therefore be joined with no holds barred. I haven’t the slightest doubt this is exactly what the US establishment intended.
SG, I think ultimately everyone who thinks that this case might be political is likely to end up questioning the honesty and integrity of the victims, and that is the oldest and most well-played misogynist card in the anti-rape deck.
The trouble with the last clause there is that it pushes people who might support sex crime victims firmly away. Given the chouice between accepting that no woman would ever lie about sex and being a misgynistic rape-apologist, there’s no way I can do the former so I guess I’ve got to accept that I’m the latter. IMO people need to be very careful not to dichotomise things.
I mean, I’d be happy to just say, look, these women stand to be re-victimised all over again if they haven’t been already, just through getting caught up in this media storm, let alone the legal attention they’re going to get. If there’s a lesson for victims of sex crimes here it’s that the cost of complaining about a famous person can easily become so high you’re better off never complaining in the first place.
I see a lot of the “persecute Julian” camp taking exactly that route – they don’t care about the complainants at all, they just want to punish Julian. Collateral damage is to be expected.
Kim, there’s also a degree of wikileakification here that might need to be acknowleged: the information about the charges and complainans is public, and asking people to pretend it’s not is unrealistic. So you are going to get a lot of discussion, including the asking of questions you’d rather no-one asked. And drawing conclusions ditto.
Feel any sympathy with Hilary Clinton yet?
I’ve just posted the link on twitter. (sublimecowgirl)
Interestingly it seems she and julian were calling for more government intervention in child protection investigation.
I was working in the area at that time.
They obviously knew what we couldn’t say.
soz its off topic.
@19 – moz, I’m not calling for *no* discussion. Just for prudent and responsible discourse. Another one of those tricky distinctions that’s gone missing?
Let’s get the quotes straight:
http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir09142010.html
I believe the above article was the source for the Raw Story article. It does not confuse its words:
Kim said:
While ackowledging the gendered and implicitly misogynist character of the term “honey trap” you surely aren’t saying that such things don’t occur?
This is not to say that it occurred in the Assange case of course. We simply don’t know at this stage as there is little more than supposition on both sides.
What is clear is that in the current circumstances, it would be very difficult for either the complainants or Assange to get the kind of legal process that would resolve the matter fairly. Much as the matters ought to be unpicked from so much of the wider context as is not germane to the claims or bears upon the integrity of any evidence led, when people close to the highest office in the land in the US are issuing calls for Assange to be executed or treated as an enemy combatant and not being slapped down by those above them in the food chain, it is hard to see how even a fair jury could be composed.
Kim: that’s a bit optimistic on the internet
. Also hard to do without sounding like a scientist. “I think that the available information suggest the possibility of political motivations at some level of the prosecution”.
Sure, we can question the motivations, honesty and reliability of the complainants, but as soon as we do people are going to suggest that only a misogynistic rape apologist would do such a thing. Or, as above, that that is the oldest and most well-played misogynist card in the anti-rape deck. Which is true, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a relevant argument. Bad people also use {everyday item of your choice}…
It seems to me that there is a lot of misunderstanding about extradition proceedings. Extradition proceedings are formal proceedings which seek to answer questions like, is this the correct person(*the* John Smith, not some other John Smith), is the charge drawn correctly, etc. They do not look into the evidence against the accused, it is pretty much that the prosecution says ‘we have a case against this person and he will receive a fair trial in our country, once he has been extradited’. So it doesn’t matter if the case against the accused appears weak, the accused will be extradited unless there are exceptional circumstances.
This doesn’t mean that the extradition case will proceed quickly. Extradition cases can go on for years (one Australian case went on for ten years!
Your description of extradition is overly general JoeG.
Each jurisdiction has its own rules. In the UK, AIUI, unless the offence carries a maximum penalty of more than 12 months, extradition is not approved. I also understand that the offence has to be an offence in the UK, and that the evidence if accepted would at worst be sufficient to found a conviction. Australia won’t extradite without a guarantee against application of the death penalty. It might be that the UK would insist that regardless of the outcome of any legal proceedings, Assange would not be extradited to the US by Sweden.
The UK might of course decide to deport Assange to Australia and then it would be the Australian government’s call.
There is enough public knowledge about the events to have a pretty informed opinion. In matters of law I thought that it was best to have clear distinctions between lawful and unlawful actions. Rape and Sexual Assault charges are severe offences. The “convicted sex offender” title is possibly the most undesirable title one can have. Nuance is NOT what is needed but rather clear delineation for what is illegal, not unpleasant or disrespectful, but illegal.
Withdrawing consent is a little different from simply not granting consent in the first place, and I would argue, strongly, that a firm “Stop!” is required for any charge, not just for the charge of rape. I have heard no suggestion that he was firmly instructed to stop. Even if someone is asleep, unless they have been drugged, they would need to say stop as I’m sure you wake up pretty quickly. Perhaps this is just my definition of what should be the law rather than simply what the law is. But I think this is what should be discussed.
you make me laugh kim. Talk about openness and trandperancy for courts,is sohollow when you so actively suppress dissent on your blog?
rofl.
Even chris mitchell has more credibility than you lot, at least he never slaims to be anything but a fascist. And only lies about suppression if he’s caught out..
but carry on with yor delusions. Mone day some will tell uyou a bus is coming and you’ll step out onto the road and ghet hit anyway, because your delusionary outlook toward men.
Not just you, but your snotty mates.
What I want for Christmas is a font that lets you roll your eyes at the comment above yours.
Ruby Hamad:
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=24469
Wow. I thought I couldn’t be surprised anymore about this sort of thing, but there you go.
@29 – Paul Walter, the fact that you are apparently in moderation has nothing to do with me and I wasn’t aware of it. So you can reflect on that, and perhaps on your tendency to launch intro vitriol and to make things all about yourself. I suspect the only reason your comment was held up by the mod filter is that it contained the word “fascist”, which is there because it’s usually a marker for personal attacks (as you’ve just proved). You should know that there is a procedure for corresponding with admins if your comment does not appear, it’s in a link on the sidebar. The most appropriate response is not to immediately start blathering on about “censorship”. I doubt the misogyny in your comment impresses anyone either.
I was astounded how on an earlier tread so many usually rational people started up the unedifying business of complainant shaming. “It’s not anything we’d define as rape”, “these claims lack all credibility”, “this isn’t how raped women behaved” etc. etc. (And I’m generally paraphrasing here, not quoting verbatim). Without, seemingly, giving a thought about how such shaming has always been used to make women STFU about rape allegations. It’s a salutary lesson about how difficult it is to even countenance such claims about a man we like, or admire or even lionise.
I’m wary about making a comparison with the Polanski case because he was convicted of rape before he fled to Europe. But, one similarity is that Polanski’s supporters simply didn’t want to be believe he was a rapist, even when he’d been convicted. It wasn’t rape-rape after all.
OTOH, although I can understand it, I’ve always been surprised how many women are upset and disappointed by the fact that actors they admire still work with him. He’s one of the best film directors around. Of course you’d be thrilled to work with him if you’re an actor. In the same way, if Assange is convicted of rape (and I’m not assuming anything here), his work with Wikileaks will still be what it is i.e. extremely important and valuable imo.
God knows, I don’t want to speak for James Wakefield at all, but I suspect he would add to that, if you are woman and you are dead, you should also pin a note to your chest with STOP (in a firm kind of font), just in case some necrophiliac gets to you and doesn’t know either. Just in case. I mean how is he to know otherwise
Gee, Chris Mitchell always claims to be a fascist? You learn something new ever day.
@34 –
Yep, Fine, that’s crucial, I think. Lots of experts out there… people respond to sexual assault in a whole range of ways. Often it’s very heavily influenced by power relations. There’s no “universal” behavioural sign of truth, or something.
Sabbath
The problem with necrophilic “rape” is the want of a complaining witness. I believe there are several laws controlling misdealing in corpses.
Yes, Kim. There needs to a manual on ‘How to Behave After Having Been Raped’. Available at all good bookshops.
@39 – yep, Fine. Including rules on not becoming aware of the nature of the assault over time.
‘what the US establishment intended’
True Ken but navel gazing, panty peeking and the efforts of disgruntled former employees all have a use by date; which Mr. Robertson will no doubt date stamp in due course.
‘Turning all this schemozzle into a debate’ as Kim puts it is well fun for a while, enjoy it, it will pass just like opra’s (?) “in my life” & qantas ads, or Nickws ‘albino god’ (I thought for a mad moment that was the dudd).
What won’t is WL and the drip drip flush…enjoy.
Lindsay Beyerstein also makes a good point about the tweets/ delay in reporting etc:
I thought this was rather good (and extremely thoughtful). Apologies if anyone else has already pointed to it; I’m in a rush to go out and don’t have time to read the thread.
Thanks, DI(nr), as you say, ‘very thoughtful’ and sound too. Another tack on the same subject – I was interested to read Asher Moses story today in the Sydney Morning Herald which encapsulated for me the huge reservations I have about Assange and what he has done at Wikileaks and still thinks he has the right to do. He seems to me to be an anarchist – a one man band resistant to advice even from those few self-selected individuals who work with him.
So how he would be in bed with a woman is anyone’s guess.
Looking at his political rather than sexual activity I can see why leftish libertarians are so supportive of him, but I wish their support was more considered. Freedom of information and open government are obviously ideals torwards which any democratic society should strive. But undermining democratically elected governments, whatever their faults, hoping to short circuit a path to achieve those ends seems crazy to me.
I’ve been following the dense and intense discussion on Assange and Wikileaks here and from leads like yours finding my way to other threads worldwide. Astonishingly very few comments on posts and articles express serious reservations about how Neo Cons in the States and the right in general in places like Oz will exploit both the information released and the general disruption caused to existing social democratic governments.
Everything I read there and also watching the selective use of the leaked material by media outlets causes me real concern. Murdoch must be chortling with glee. As one of the major media players internationally he can do with all these leaked documents what he will; trivialise important issues or blow up gossipy exchanges to damage people like Rudd and others on the left. Assange and his human rights champions like Geoffrey Robertson and Pilger would be better focussed on the machinations of entrenched media giants not on the known failings of fallible but democratically elected governments who are ultimately accountable to their electorates.
To whom is Julian Assange accountable? The experience of some his former colleagues suggests he thinks he’s not accountable to anyone. That might explain his bedroom manners too.
@ James Wakefield
From here
The issue is not saying stop, the issue is getting consent, enthusiastic consent, before you start. See the difference? The onus is on the person wanting sex to ensure their partner also wants sex, not expecting their partner to say stop if they don’t want the sex that is presumably already being done to them. Cause that’s rape.
Anna @ 42
That is a dreadful analogy to time delays in making a complaint of sexual assault (“SA”). SA is a crime generally regarded as a crime of violence, with elements of lack of consent; of the perpetrator knowing there is no consent: and the vast majority (excluding the intellectually handicapped and children) understand what that means.
That analogy makes the same assumption of ignorance that the politician/lawyer Claes Borgström made for the two women: “They (the women) are not jurists” Meaning in Sweden you have to be a lawyer to know if you’ve been the victim of SA.
If the law is that nebulous for SA, and alleged victims don’t know whether or not SA has occurred, why or how would the potential accused know any better?
There are two principles of law that apply here: 1)ignorance of the law is no excuse for an accused 2) government has a responsibility to inform people what the law is. (It cannot be “buried” or for example created on a daily/weekly/monthly basis to trap people.)
Logically the more serious the offence the higher the obligation is for 2), meaning for the less serious crime, no-one is expected to understand all commercial law (under which commercial scams can never be equated with SA on a scale of seriousness as crimes against the person btw-another failure of the analogy)
So, if the law on SA is that nebulous, if the law is being expanded to encompass wider and wider categories and/or interpretations (as Sweden appears to be doing with roughly equal numbers of convictions per year I might add) it not only can create potential miscarriages of justice for defendants, but also makes the law a laughingstock and demeans the real purpose of SA law and serious jail time penalties as it was originally intended–to deter perpetrators and protect victims.
That analogy is crap, sorry, you haven’t thought it through.
There’s been a lot of misogyny flying around the charges against Assange.
It is not at all clear that the trolls who are impuning the claimants / victims are all supporters of Assange, or of Wikileaks. There are a hell of a lot of men in cyberspace, as in real life, who just want to muddy the concepts of consent, sexual assault and power.
Now that I have that out of the way…
Mastercard isn’t processing payments. How can i donate to Wikileaks?
harleymc @ 47,
Apparently PayPal is now processing payments to WikiLeak. They are reported to have lifted their ban yesterday. Let’s know how you go.
I wonder if there isn’t a parallel with the Chinese regime’s treatment of Liu Xiaobo.
If I may be indulged by being a little crude to highlight the consensual/nonconsensual bit.
A lady and a man agree to have sex, at some stage he decides to engage in a bit of anal sex, she then withdraws her consent.
If he continues I dont think anyone right/left, male or female would say he was entitled to because she had said yes to another form of sex.
If you can just view unprotected sex as a “kinky” ofrm that not all partcipants may be willing to engage in it becomes much simpler to see where the wrong is in this case.
And I think the point has been made by quite a few people, wikileaks may be doing a public service, but so was the catholic church with orphans in the 50′s-60′s.
Good organisations can be perfect places for bad individuals.
There is a site with Julians old blog on it, he does have some odd attitudes to ladies, not rape type, just manipulative.
Well said Peter Kemp.
To all the other armchair speculators drawing conclusions from gossip, heresy, ignorance and others’ speculation – all pretty pathetic given the circumstances.
And the beautiful sight of rape culture appears at LP. Lovely. What an load of old cobblers that everyone knows what consent is. What a beautiful collection of misogynist myths and assumptions in Peter Kemp’s post and so well backed up by adrian. Many men don’t understand what consent means, or stopr when they’re told to stop. It’s claimed that Assange kept having sex with one woman when he was told to stop. What’s so nebulous about this? It’s claimed he stared having sex with one of the women when she was asleep? And consent occurred when? You just managed managed to minimise and explain away an alleged rape.
So, why would the women need clarification from the police? Because we live in a world so steeped in rape culture that women absorb the messages as well. So, they question themselves. “But, I agreed to sex in the first place. But, this is so embarrassing. How could I have been so stupid? But he’s lovely guy. He couldn’t have raped me. No-one will believe me. I’m so ashamed. Maybe I should have been more assertive. Maybe I should have hit him. Maybe it’s all my fault”.
Here, have a ponder on this post about consent.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/06/some-thoughts-on-sex-by-surprise/
And if you don’t understand the concept of rape culture, have a read.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/rape-culture-101/
Peter, just because you couldn’t be arsed reading carefully doesn’t mean that *I* haven’t thought it through.
The analogy is in response to the argument that the alleged victims initially asked only that the police force Assange to take an STD test so therefore it can’t have been rape.
It’s perfectly valid.
And Adrian: explaining why it’s wrong to minimise the charges is not the same as making judgements about guilt or innocence. The fact that you keep showing your ignorance of this doesn’t make you look clever, it makes you look, well, ignorant.
I still think the whole SA thing stinks like a shrimp paste sarnie, but the more I hear and read from Assange, the more I think there’s an ‘f’ and an ‘l’ missing from near the middle of his surname.
I guess that’s not the most helpful of comments, but in my defence, I am drunk.
There are too many loose ends here. So, at the risk of being boring, let me try to set them out so the situation can be seen in context.
1. assange publishes cables pertaining to Iraq and Afghanistan that mightily annoy the US Government.
2) Inapparently a totally unrelated context, Assange goes to Sweden and has sex with 2 women in succession, to whom he apparently gives an STD.
3) The women go to the Swedish police in an effort to contact him so he can be tested. (Q. How can you have an STD, chlamydia or HIV AIDS excepted, and not know it?)
4)The Swedish prosecutor wishes to question Assange, but at this stage has not laid charges of rape. Indeed, the rape charges appear to be insufficiently proveable for a prosecution. (I think I’ve got that right.)
5)Assange publishes the US State Department Cables, mightily annoying a whole host of Governments but especially the US.
6)Assange is charged with rape by the Swedish police.
7)One of the complainants is exposed as an alleged CIA informant.
8)Interpol issues an international arrest warrant for Assange.
9)Assange is arrested and taken into custody for extradition to Sweden. He vows he is innocent.
10)Powerful right wing figures in the US political establishment call for Assange’s execution/assassination.
11)Assange’s legal team suspects the main reason the Swedish Government wants to extradite him is so he can be extradited to the US to face as yet unspecified charges.
Assange vows to fight the extradition.
12)The international press publicises a falling out between Assange and his Wikiliks chief executive who vows to set up a rival to Wikileaks. Apart from Assange’s personality defects, he gives as his reason assange’s failure to redact information in the Afghan/Iraq cables that endangers US informants in both countries.
13)Assange’s lawyers announce that they believe steps are afoot in the US to charge Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act or for computer crime.
Am I the only person that can see a sinister pattern here?
No you’re not Paul, but at the risk of being labelled ignorant or worse, for some people pointing out the obvious means you either don’t understand what rape or consent. As it happens nothing could be further from the truth, but let’s keep that nuance coming.
*nods*
If we’re going to traduce, let’s go for equal opportunity traducing.
/OT
‘Traduction’?
No wait, that means translation doesn’t it?
Traductment?
“…explaining why it’s wrong to minimise the charges is not the same as making judgements about guilt or innocence.”
Why can’t people get this? It’s so simple.
What are you drinking FDB? It’ sounds like you’re having a good time.
@ 44:
A classic example of the ridiculous attempts to conflate two utterly unconnected issues in the several threads here about WikiLeaks. And PatriciaWA I’d be sincerely interested to know which ‘existing social democratic governments’ you are concerned about. Are there any at all these days?
But yes codger @ 41, I hope you are right.
@57 No that is not right. I have not heard that the women were infected where did you get that from? By the way if you have unprotected sex with one, let alone two people, the only responsible thing is to be tested to ensure noone was put at risk as a result. #4 is just wishful thinking -none of us KNOW how substantial any evidence is or whether under Swedish law the charges are prosecutable. Indeed that is one of the factors that would seem to be putting Assange’s legal team in an unfair position and which, judging by the remarks made by Riddle during the first court appearance, will factor into any decision on extradition. #6 Is not right, charges have not yet been laid, see above, the case was dropped in late August and then reopened within a week. #7 is bullshit guilt by association stuff. She had contact while in Cuba with an organisation that had links with a CIA informant. Show me a career activist that has not had contacts with front organisations or organisations that have been infiltrated by informers? I guarantee she will come in contact with informers in Palestine and will probably never even know it. Does this make her a Mossad agent?
Even if your points were factually accurate, I would suggest that it is simply wrong to play connect the dots on a public forum – this does a disservice to all of the parties.
Drunk and on crutches sounds like an(other) accident waiting to happen HeftyBee, I hope you’ve chained yourself to your sofa for the duration or have employed the services of a runner.
Yep.
That’s my argument, su.
(a) Trial by blog thread or whatever and stating “facts” about what occurred or about the complainants is both futile and wrong.
(b) Swedish law is not Australian or UK law. I’d discount, really, pretty much anything by anyone who isn’t learned in Swedish law.
(c) But for those who want to invoke principles of natural justice, that also, I’d have thought, implies not pre-judging the facts or alleged motivation or intent of parties involved.
Blended scotch, Fine. I’m poor as a result of not being able to work much, but I got my ex an awesomely cheap deal on a DJ mixer and she got me a bottle for my finder’s fee.
Shortly by necessity moving to cask wine.
“Drunk and on crutches sounds like an(other) accident waiting to happen HeftyBee, I hope you’ve chained yourself to your sofa for the duration or have employed the services of a runner.”
Lots of generous friends helping with time and effort and transport – a couple of whom are doctors and have somewhat scammingly ushered me through the public health system lickety-split. I’d still be waiting for my operation without them.
Aforementioned ex-Lady Friend went out to do some shopping for me last week and wrote off my car, fucking up her neck/back for a few days in the process. So I’m now issuing a disclaimer to anyone trying to help me that I’m just not safe to be around. Wear a helmet, watch for falling anvils, etc etc
Showing concern in a blog comment is safe though, as far as I know…
Wow, this is super-OT. Sorry Pirate Queen – will swab decks as penance when fit for duty.
All good, FDB!
Ps – just further to my comment at 65, Swedish law is based on the Civil rather than Common Law system, which has differences in terms of (a) procedure and presumption of innocence and (b) the way it treats crimes against the person. It would be good if people understood that – I really think posting ZOMG!@!!# THIS WOULDN’T HAPPEN HERE!!! type comments in the (perhaps unconscious) belief that Anglo Common Law is some universal standard is pretty pointless, and I’d observe as well that other systems of justice have protections for accused people too!
If anyone’s actually been following reporting about how this is being discussed in Sweden (which would be useful; The Guardian has good coverage), consensus – including among supporters of Assange/Wikileaks (inc. The Pirate Party who’ve been using their servers to assist) appears to be that it’s a bureaucratic mess up not a conspiracy.
Given how many of those there are in governmental/legal practice everywhere, I’d be happy to go with Occam’s Razor in this instance. As I said, that’s separate from the issue of the use of Interpol, the way the British criminal justice system has reacted, etc.
The word “complainant” in the post title appears to me to be presumptuous.
It appears that the two women in question took themselves off to a police station to *enquire*.
From there on, the *complainants* appear to be various organs of the Swedish state.
The two women concerned have been quoted expressing their mild dismay at the legal course that these events have taken.
If that is the case then the *complainants* (various organs of the Swedish state) may merit a little shaming.
Be careful with that cask wine FDB. ‘Goon’ as my students call it. And don’t move to far from a couch in case you need to fall on it.
I wonder if anyone has taken a look at this article. Smack, bang on topic…
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/names-and-addresses-accusers-wikileaks-assange-now-being-posted-i#ixzz17jPFyfh
I am really over this misogynist bull that is being peddled by some here and elsewhere on this topic. Its totally getting the way of thoughtful and interesting meaningful discussion about how we support dissemination of important information on conspiracy, lies and the murderous behaviour of mainly western governments..
@69 – Katz, the Swedish lawyer acting for the women (not for the Swedish state) describes them as “victims”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations
Beware everything you read on the intertubes purporting to tell their story. Point of post, etc.
That’s scary stuff, verity. “We’re not encouraging anyone to kill or rape these women, but…”
To summarise:
Anna @ 54:
No, at 42 you said
You couldn’t be (quote) “half assed” reading what you did write. And the analogy is false as I have demonstrated. Much better and on firmer ground sticking to the myriad of other legitimate reasons why complaints are made late, not false analogies.
Fine:
Misogynist Myths (Men Don’t Understand What Consent Means) Sexual Offences Male Liability Amendment Bill 2011
Kim @ 65:
Yes, let’s forget all about the “disservice” done to (so far uncharged) Assange by the alleged victims leaking their allegations to Expressen such that his surname plus r*pe on Google shortly after, yielded 3 million hits.
So, what’s your argument, Peter? “Payback” because of a wrong supposedly done to Assange?
Has it possibly entered your mind that those women might be confused and upset? That he and his very high profile supporters have a much greater reach in terms of spinning his side of the story?
Please read the article interviewing the women’s lawyer I’ve just posted.
What’s your interest here? Truth and justice?
I’m practically living on the couch Fine – years ago I built a huge frame to hoist my bed up about a metre and a half to give storage space underneath, and I’m not really game to use it at the mo.
So a computer, a TV, a guitar, a synth and a turntable are all within reach of my gigantic sofa. It’s as awesome as it is pathetic to live this way.
Might be time to take the couch/goon discussion to the Saturday Salon
Fair nuff Kim.
It was reported in the public forum of the Guardian re the STDs some days ago.The initial reason for the women going to the police was to find Assange and advise him about it.
As for the totalitarian idea that you can’t discuss it in a public forum, well, my views on the primacy of freedom of speech, especially if it leads to uncomfortable conclusions should be well known enough on LP by now.
Still seems to me all this stuff fits together in a very suspicious way.
As for the rape allegations and that’s all they are at this stage, let the Swedish prosecutorial system decide. I can readily accept the women are dismayed at the way things are panning out, but the fact that it is the Swedish Government who is behind these charges makes it even more suspicious. Seems like a ploy to get him to Sweden so he can be extradited to the US to face espionage or other charges.
“the totalitarian idea that you can’t discuss it in a public forum”
Paul, this is not a public forum. You are permitted to comment here on the sufferance of the proprietors, who regularly do you the service of running vexatious dickheads out of town.
Or kindly suggesting that irrelevant details of people’s private lives be taken to the open thread, as the case may be.
No Kim, I vehemently oppose “payback” in any way, but with the horrible deed done in blackening his name from the start, it is not surprising that people react. And it is legitimate to comment by connecting some dots, not the CIA honeypot garbage that’s being peddled.
There are verified facts and circumstances of the case which strongly support the proposition that at any fair trial the matter would be thrown out, starting with the prejudice faced by Assange in getting a fair trial, based on the initial Expressen leaks. I see no reason why it is improper to advance those arguments.
I just read that article and am disgusted all over again:
Assaulted twice, a pronouncement of guilt AGAIN by a lawyer before it has been proven, just the same as Gillard’s idiotic pronouncement of guilt with that “illegal” quote of the Cable leaks. In most jurisdictions there would be a complaint to the law society at the least, in Australia he’d be likely suspended even struck off the roll for prejudicing a future trial.
Again with that pronouncement of guilt, the chances of a fair trial diminish. It’s no wonder people are so damned angry.
Of course the complainants are likely confused and upset, but they might have thought of what could happen before they went to Expressen. They didn’t have to do that, did they?
FDB @ 81
OK. I accept that and apologise before I get myself into any more serious trouble. Apologies to every one concerned.
Doesn’t stop mr from thinking this whole Assange saga is very, very odd, though, or the indisputable fact that there are a lot of people out to get him who will go to any lengths to silence him. I mean, its not like said governments don’t have form in this kind of thing does it?
And I am, btw, not a believer in conspiracy theories. Well, not usually.
and btw,I’m not at all trying to be vexatious here. Indeed, I would hope I’m not ever.
You mean it was rumoured on a public forum, PB, and that is the whole point, rumour and innuendo are being accepted as truth and nutjobs like the ones in the link Verity provided are now seriously endangering these women’s lives as a result. What has been reported is that the women wished him to be tested when they realized they had both had unprotected sex with Assange. Free speech should not mean that we recklessly endanger people by trading in gossip. The claim that the women are CIA plants has no greater claim to truth than the assertion that Assange and Wikileaks are part of a US government psyop. I humbly suggest there are worthier topics on which to exercise one’s free speech.
“…any way, but with the horrible deed done in blackening his name from the start…”
Not pre-judging at all Peter? Just a little biased? Yes, if you were on the jury it would be difficult for Assange to get a fair trial.
What you seem to be saying Peter Kemp is that women need to be careful when they allege that a man has raped them, because there are people who are likely to get very angry about it and they need to think about that before they make allegations.
Do you think this holds true for all rape allegations, or only these ones?
Kim #72.
Yes, that appears to be a very sound statement of the development of the case.
Given that the two women appear to have engaged the interviewed lawyer, it is clear that they continue to have some grievance against Assange.
The lawyer in question, Peter, represents those women. In those circumstances, it’s hardly surprising that he asserts they were assaulted. A court should judge. I’d have thought you’d understand that a lawyer for one of the parties is bound to put their case. Gillard, as far as I know, is not a lawyer in any case! The analogy is wrong.
@87 -
Well, Katz, it’s clear that they make allegations regarding Assange. I don’t know if “grievance” is the most judicious term to use.
Fine, I’m not saying that at all. Are you aware that in our CJ system in Australia the names of defendants in sexual assault matters are normally suppressed until the matter comes to trial?
Are you aware that the complainants should go to the police and only the police and not the media to make a complaint?
Alleged victims need only be “careful” in making a complaint if it is a false complaint, otherwise they should get the full force and protection of their rights to make a complaint. The defendant also has rights OTOH especially of a fair trial and not have the case prejudiced.
The two complainants deliberately went out of their way to prejudice Assange, to blacken his name. Now you might think that’s not so bad, I’m saying they might have destroyed their chances of vindication by their own conduct unrelated to their complaint.
No one in their right mind denies the right to a complaint, and such complaints can never morally or legally be denied because of the defendant’s anger, or his supporters’ anger against the charge.
The only legitimate “anger”, (for me disgust only) emanates from the conduct of leaking to Expressen; the prosecutor confirming the allegations when asked by Expressen contrary to Swedish law; their lawyer’s pronouncement of guilt contrary to law, and any other matters designed to further unlawfully prejudice Assange’s case.
@90 – Where exactly, Peter, does your knowledge of Swedish law derive from?
And how do you/we know who was responsible for “the conduct of leaking to Expressen”? Read it on the intertubes? Another “fact”? Like this one?
Or is that, possibly, an interpretation?
“Alleged victims need only be “careful” in making a complaint if it is a false complaint, otherwise they should get the full force and protection of their rights to make a complaint. The defendant also has rights OTOH especially of a fair trial and not have the case prejudiced.”
Yes, and you’ve plainly already decided they’ve made a false complaint on the basis of internet gossip.
As for the outrage about the use of the word ‘assault’ – the complainants allege they’ve been assaulted. Obviously, their lawyer supports that view.
I agree complainants shouldn’t go to the media, but again you seem to be relying on internet gossip about who said what, when to make your judgement about these two women.
Do you know all the intricacies of Swedish law, or are you just extrapolating from our law?
I’m also surprised you fail to see the binary here:
The point of laws against sexual assault is not to vindicate the character of those who are subjected to it; that could only be assumed if it were the case that making an accusation of sexual assault automatically led to some sort of suspicion about motives/character.
It is not the character of people who allege sexual assault that ought to be on trial. Note that I’m not impugning Assange, but you seem to be typical of all those who want to assert his innocence without full knowledge of the facts, and strangely, the way this is done is through all sorts of slurs against the complainants.
It was interesting, btw, to me to see Assange’s lawyer (or one of them) using terms like “honeytrap”. For shizzle!
He is not entitled as a public figure, a lawyer (with duties to the court, the client and the public) representing those clients to declare that the accused is guilty in public. Now Sweden might be different and he might be allowed to do that, here he would be pilloried, it’s prejudicing Assanges right to a fair trial.
The prosecution puts the case in court and only in court, and never outside the court. Claes Borgström is not the prosecutor. Sheesh. He’s a politician and a lawyer!
(Gillard worked once as a lawyer BTW)
Outside the court all he should say is “strong case” and “alleged offences”
Yes, it’s a strange old world when the women’s lawyers can’t use the word ‘assault’, yet Assange’s lawyers can impugn their integrity for all its worth. Yet, no outrage from Peter Kemp. But, plainly it’s the women who are on trial here.
Obvs.
For a start, Australians who are alleging sexual assault are not represented in the court.
Sweden is not “here”.
I’ll go back to what I said before. Extrapolating from our system of justice to some universal standard is wrong. You’re clearly making some sort of implication, based it would seem on your desire to believe that Assange could not be guilty, or that there are supposed irregularities, that the Swedish system is somehow inferior. That, to my mind, is not a judgement based on deep knowledge of how it works, or its principles.
Christopher Hitchens:
Note that Hitchens writes scornfully of Assange in this piece, but obviously the sort of views I’ve highlighted are just simple truth for him.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/christopher-hitchens-on-julian-assange/story-fn775xjq-1225969087171
No I haven’t, I suspect the complaints are embellished or retrospective application of non consent. Read James Catlin on Crikey former counsel for Assange.
Vindicate their allegations Kim, I wasn’t referring to character.
“WikiLeaks throws a harsh spotlight on Pfizer”:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2010/12/11/wikileaks-throws-a-harsh-spotlight-on-pfizer/
Because James Catlin wouldn’t be a little bit biased, now would he? And I have read him, btw. But again, you’re assuming the allegations are false based on internet gossip. You’re pilloring the women for blackening Assange’s reputation, without full knowledge of the facts. I’m keeping an open mind on the matter.
And again, what’s your knowledge of the Swedish legal system? And do you think that Assange’s lawyers referring to a ‘honey trap’ prejudices the trial?
Which lawyers?
Kim
Minimum standards Kim, right to a fair trial. That is not by any means extrapolation.
OTOH this is just normal media process–
all stations from Lindsay Lohan to Rodney King. Feminism is just another road victim and it’s pointless being too precious about it. (Horrible as any road carnage is.)
Fine:
I rather doubt it.
Public record not internet gossip. They went to Expressen. Prosecutors office confirmed the allegations. Expressen printed. You may need the online translator of news reports.
Minimum standards of fair trial–they are subject to the European Human Rights Convention: no charges no written letter in English with the evidence against him, contrary to Article 6. Swedish law has to comply with the Convention.
@103 – hence the bureaucratic stuff up mentioned earlier, Peter.
Or, are you suggesting these allegations should not be tested because Assange received a letter in Swedish?
My understanding of the extradition proceedings is that the Swedes wish to interview Assange further, and satisfactory arrangements could not be reached for him to appear to give evidence. Again, you need to know how Civil Law works, not make assumptions from the process of bringing charges in our system.
Just because the Swedish legal system differs from ours does not imply that Assange will not receive a fair trial.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a0d95b6-049a-11e0-a99c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz17nIohre8
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/904834–sweden-ponders-sex-charges-against-wikileaks-leader-assange
That “open mind” didn’t last very long Fine?
And plainly Assange is having a picnic in jail.
Jessica Valenti on the difference between Swedish and US law on sexual assault:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.html
Thanks for the links, I missed that. The honeytrap stuff is crap IMO. He’s venting BS and is wrong to say it without some proof.
The lawyer quoted is Mark Stephens:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337132/WilkiLeaks-Julian-Assange-rape-case-politically-motivated-says-lawyer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Interesting language being used in this article:
Note also the visual semiotics of the pictures…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336846/WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-pictured-Swedish-blonde-raped-hours-later.html
@108 – No worries, Peter.
This is true of so many things, not just the way people conceptualise females. The question is, how can this be achieved? Can it be achieved through legal argument and legal process? Obviously not.
The use of law and order to define what is right and wrong in a culture has been abused by politicians and neo-conservatives in particular. (Look at the result in the Australia wrt. Aboriginal deaths in custody, and on a more mundane level underage drinking or drug use.) This pedagogical use of the law is extremely limited and counter-productive as it defines a separation between legality and the community. In fact the relationship has to be the other way around, the laws define the mores of the culture in which they are valid.
On a side note, it’s not understandable why lawyers have the position they do in the Anglo-saxon world. Of course there is a tradition associated to the professional classes, but in a democratic system legal knowledge should be freely and cheaply available to everyone. Almost anyone in Germany with a university entry can study law. The whole legal-”exceptionalism” schitck that we get in countries like Australia is ridiculous.
Once again, a case like this only proves, that if you can avoid having any contact with the legal system, than you should do just that — avoid contact.
Absolutely, Kim: Swedish, attractive, adventurous, blonde… What’s not to like? Oh, feminist, radical, various as in indecisive, equivocal, dubious, unbalanced… What’s worse than something impure? Something deceptive– because that’s not just bad, but evil. But images are rarely analysed like that. Who has the time to do that, surrounded as we are by them?
Article 6 says the evidence must be presented in the accused’s own language. He received zip, zilch nothing. That’s a breach of his human rights, actionable before the European Court of Human Rights.
Nothing much presented at the bail application except the list of intended charges but the Judge has asked for evidence for the next occasion of bail.
We know what his lawyers have been saying for months, he offered video link, Swedish Embassy I think in London.
He was in Sweden more than a month after the allegations were made and offered to go in several times but it wasn’t convenient to the prosecutor. He asked permission to leave Sweden and it was given. Question: why the red notice through Interpol? Some other motive to have him back in chains? To be held incommunicado not able to see his lawyers is the Swedish plan.
No I do not. It is unusual even for Europe extradition processes that charges haven’t been laid, they only want him for interrogation. That has an impact on the extradition process governed by the extradition treaty between the UK and Sweden for which I have yet to read all its provisions/regulations. This extradition process however will likely end up in the final appeal court the House of Lords.
Robertson will be arguing a lot of things, lack of fair trial among them.
I still have an open mind on Assange’s guilt Peter. But, it’s obvious that the women’s character and motivation are on trial here. They sprung a ‘honey-trap’, they’ve ‘blackened his reputation’, ‘they’ve spoken to the media’, ‘they’ve embellished’, it’s just a ‘retrospective application of non-consent’, ‘they’re CIA operatives’, they’re ‘radical feminists’. I know you don’t agree with all of that, but see how it adds up. And all before it’s gone to court.
I think the whole thing is very ugly all round, Peter. And many reputations are being blackened.
Goodoh. Even though it might help you understand the legal process in Sweden.
But no charges have been laid, as you yourself point out the extradition hearing lists charges on which he is wanted for questioning…
Yes, I’ve agreed that legitimate questions can be asked about Interpol, timing, etc. But that last bit is a real stretch! Sweden has a “plan” to keep him “incommunicado”… where does that come from?
Incidentally, the effect of the legal moves in London, as you describe them, would seem to be intended to ensure that Assange does not get a hearing on the sex crime charges. You’ve argued that his reputation has been slurred because he’s associated with the allegations. Yet his legal team seeks to prevent the allegations being tested?
Btw, the House of Lords is no longer the highest appeal court in the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom
“And all before it’s gone to court.”
All true, Fine, but let me remind you that Assange is now actually imprisoned in London’s Wandsworth prison. How come he is in jail and effectively doing time at this early stage in the proceedings?
I agree with that Fine, absolutely. And it’s going to get uglier on the political front if, as many suspect, the US one day sooner rather than later springs their own sealed indictement from a grand jury and make their own application for extradition.
Funnily enough I’ve read somewhere that it would be easier for the US to serve and gain extradition with the UK, rather than Sweden. Issues of politically inspired charges will seriously effect success of extradition in either the UK or Sweden.
The UK case could take a year or more as there is a right of appeal all the way to the House of Lords.
If as Crikey reports that AA is no longer cooperating with the Swedish prosecutor, being in Palestine, that could have a significant effect on the outcome as well.
@118 – he’s on remand:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/09/julian-assange-wikileaks-wandsworth-segregation
His bail application was denied because it was believed that he had “weak ties to the UK community” and constituted a flight risk. I think his peripatetic lifestyle isn’t in question, though I make no comment on that decision.
Another relevant link:
Assange’s extradition – what happens next:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-extradition-what-next
@119 –
As I said above, ain’t no such thing as appeal to the House of Lords any more.
He’s not on trial of course in the UK for the Swedish charges, however both at bail proceedings (UK law as in Australia) and extradition hearings, the strength of the prosecution case is a significant factor to be considered by the court. It’s all governed by the particular treaty between the two nations, (but again subject to European Human Rights law, theoretically he could lso appeal there.)
Assange considers he will not get a fair trial in Sweden that’s why he’s fighting the extradition. If he wins of course no trial at all. Reputations damaged irrevocably all round I’d say is the final outcome.
Yep, thanks Kim I stand corrected, 2009 the changeover. Supreme Court, but not as grand sounding is it?
Kim I understand that@120.
The point I am making, obviously badly, is that while Fine fairly talks of the sometimes creepy things that are being said – reputations blackened – about the women concerned he is actually spending time in jail. Not sure I would like one minute in Wandsworth, myself.
This is physical punishment for the equivalent of vagrancy- “weak ties to the UK community”- when the remand judge admitted, at that stage, the evidence looked weak.
@124 – I think there’ll be a chance to revisit bail at the next hearing on 14 December, joe2. It is worth noting, as the link I posted above does, that he’s being held apart from other prisoners, and is being provided with materials (including limited internet access) to further his legal case.
Re incommunicado in Sweden:
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-founder-arrested-in-london-20101207-18ogq.html
Probably better links elsewhere that independently confirm.
@126 – I find it hard to believe that Swedish justice would not provide someone with access to legal advice in gaol, Peter. Jessica Valenti noted above that a lot of the misinformation/misconceptions about what has occurred come from the fact that few non-Swedish people read Swedish! I’d also note – re comments about the statement by the women’s lawyer – you’d also expect Assange and his lawyers to make the strongest possible case in their favour in resisting extradition. No doubt the UK Court will adjudicate on that claim.
Kim, I think he is already doing time even though nothing has been proven against him. It is a mockery of ‘innocent till proven guilty’ and seven days in jail, here, would be the likely outcome for a fairly minor crime.
So do I. Presumably that could be only for the interrogation period. Can’t trust those inquisitorial systems now can you?
@128 – joe2, it’s far from rare for people to spend time in remand. Maybe you haven’t been following all the links, but the charges don’t seem to me to be minor at all:
That’s the Jessica Valenti article to which I already linked:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.html
“Grievance” is more judicious than the complainants’ lawyers use of the word “victim”.
By using that word the lawyer is pre-empting the decision of a court of law. Unless and until Assange is found guilty of rape, these complainants were Assange’s sexual partners, not his victims.
Under British and Australian law:
A person may sincerely but incorrectly believe that s/he is a victim of rape.
Unless an alleged rapist has formed a guilty mens rea, s/he cannot be correctly held to be guilty of rape.
I wonder if it is very different in Sweden.
Necessarily, when a decision is to be determined by the credibility of one story against another, a more severe test is applied to the story of the complainant, who from the point of view of the judicial proceeding, is both the alleged victim and the prime witness for the prosecution.
It is essential that the complainant testify and therefore by subject to cross examination, whereas the defendant is under no compulsion to testify.
I wonder whether it is very different in Sweden.
Here’s the Swedish Penal Code in English:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/sweden.pdf
That doesn’t deal, as far as I can see by a quick scan, with criminal procedure, but I’m sure if people are really interested in informing themselves, there would be reliable resources on that available in English.
Kim, I never said that the charges were minor- you are misrepresenting what I said- just that the evidence appears weak.
His remand judge admitted that, but then went on to put him jail, anyway.
Joe2, strength of community ties is a factor and a major one for bail. He was held to have weak ties, no permanent address. Which he never has unfortunatly for him as he moves around all the time.
That refusal will probably be overturned on the next application if other factors supporting bail can be improved.
@134 – sorry if I misread your comment, joe2.
For heaven’s sake JdM @ 99 go away, you’re interrupting a Very Serious Discussion. Who cares what happened to some stupid Nigerian kids?
And with that I believe I will take my leave of Larvatus Prodeo, a blog which promised so much and delivered so little. Ingat lagi.
This appears to be the relevant provision:
Note that the highlighted section appears to place more weight on the mens rea of the alleged victim than on the mens rea of the alleged perpetrator. This is very different from British principles.
That being the case, the mens rea of the alleged victim, aka the prime witness for the prosecution, is even more pivotal. On first blush this would appear to place even greater weight on the testimony and therefore the credibility of the prime witness for the prosecution.
Did the alleged victim really perceive imminent danger?
How did this experience differ from other experiences of danger in his/her life?
If he/she felt imminent danger at other times, did those feelings seem justified in the light of what actually happened?
Is, therefore, the prime witness a credible judge of “imminent danger?”
etc.
That could become quite grueling.
Katz, absolutely. Seems like first base to me.
It would be very surprising if the defendant would have to give evidence at all, as:
a) he’s not making the allegations (duh)
b) self incrimination is surely not a feature of the Swedish justice system.
That leaves us, exactly, nowhere. Or rather, with allegations, which are most likely untestable.
So why is Assange’s lawyer making such a fuss about conspiracies, etc. It can only be because this is but the first act. The main game is going to begin, when the big guns from the US are bought to bare on Assange and Wikileaks.
We have a war of one persons word (only one of the women looks likely to continue to press charges) against another, here, and even before the evidence is tested, one party is free to go about their business, freely, while the other needs to beg time for their defense.
It sucks.
Peter @135, this is exactly the kind of technical formalism that gives the common-law legal system a bad name. What’s Assange going to do? Run — and admit his guilt? He has, one assumes, chosen the UK not as a whim…
It’s also perhaps worth reflecting on the effect that this kind of civil case is going to have on any attempt by the US to charge him with more serious crimes in relation to wikileaks. Precious time is being spent on the sexual assault case, when in all probability it will not go very far, in fact some seem to think it unlikely that he will even be extradited to Sweden.
The UK context is also colored by the ridiculous antics of the US govt. wrt Gary McKinnon. Which has, in some respects similarities. Poor security systems which are not allowed to be penetrated for some strange reason. One can only imagine, that “citizens” from other countries, which do not have the same special relation to the US have wandered un-molested through the same security systems…
It’s all not very logical…
And joe2, even if both women press charges and are willing to give evidence, they are two separate matters, which means they would have no baring on each other.
The problem is, how are these allegations going to be corroborated? At this stage it just doesn’t seem possible. It doesn’t even seem probable…
Well, perhaps, joe2, but US charges are moot, and I’m not at all sure that there is any less chance that extradition proceedings couldn’t be launched by the US in the UK than in Sweden. Perhaps you could clarify this?
The fact that the Swedish process doesn’t work quickly is neither her nor there. In Australia, many people face long delays between being charged and proceeding to trial, much of which is routinely spent on demand. I don’t accept that bail should be automatic – rape is a very serious charge. That seems to be implied in this comment:
@142 -
The conviction rate for rape is low (and in Sweden too) because often there’s no corroborating physical or third party evidence, Joe. That does not mean that people never commit sexual crimes, or that such crimes cannot be sustained by a court even when there is no such external evidence. I’m sorry, but I can’t help reading a lot of these comments as dismissive of the possibility of a conviction, and therefore implying that charges should not be brought based on the word of the women who made the allegations. I’ll repeat that this sort of attitude and mindset has much broader application for the legitimacy of the law of sexual assault, and I find it very disturbing.
That’s despite Ken Lovell @137 claiming he’ll not be back, not the first time he’s made such a vow.
I’d hate to think that men would take the view that “women’s business” is a distraction from serious political stuffs and/or that Assange’s other activities somehow exculpate him from any legal accountability here, and/or that there’s some element of political failure in not joining in the “Free Assange Now” cries which completely drown out the issue of alleged sex crimes.
By the way, the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure is also available online (via the Government of Sweden) in English:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf
I’d like to think people wanting to make further aspersions on Swedish criminal procedure might take the time to inform themselves.
Also, there seems to be no provision for making restrictions which prevent suspects from accessing legal counsel:
Whether someone may not have the level of contact with others they may desire outside a prison doesn’t seem to me to be unusual. Again, I’m not aware that people held in prison in Australia have the level of access to the ‘outside world’ they might find desirable.
[My emphasis]
“I find it hard to believe that Swedish justice would not provide someone with access to legal advice in gaol, Peter. Jessica Valenti noted above that a lot of the misinformation/misconceptions about what has occurred come from the fact that few non-Swedish people read Swedish!”
You have a wonderful faith in Swedish justice. I am less sanguine (to say the least).
I’m glad that the debate has taken a turn away from discussion of Swedish rape laws and the individual character of the women, not because that isn’t relevant to the case, but because it has allowed the discussion to be a circular one where allegations of misogyny have been batted back as allegations of wilful ignorance regarding the reasons for Assange being arrested etc.
When I first heard of this case, weeks ago, my response was probably similar to thousands of other people. I hoped he hadn’t done it and I immediately wondered whether there was another agenda involved (whether he was being fitted up). Since then I’ve found it impossible to find a straightforward description of what is alleged to have happened. I’ve heard of burst condoms and an erect penis nudging into a back. I’ve heard of him holding a woman down forcefully to have sex and I’ve heard of him having sex with another while she was asleep.
If this was an ordinary case the answer would be a simple one about due process. We could have arguments about what due process was. We could have arguments about how women should be treated. It wouldn’t be easy. The old problem of “her word against his” would have to be addressed – the problem of presumption of innocence versus the rights of victims.
But there is another angle to this case which complicates it further. It is indicated by Assange’s argument that he wouldn’t receieve a fair trial in Sweden. Is this because he believes that Sweden is ruled by “feminist harridans”? Perhaps, though there is no evidence of him arguing this (the term I quote comes from one commentator on the net), and it’s hardly Assange’s fault that misogynists like Glen Beck have felt like defending him. I have a suspicion that other factors influence Assange’s concern about a fair trial. What do I base my suspicion on?
The first and most obvious basis is the fact (I state it as a fact, but I only got it off the Internet so anyone who wants to contradict me on the basis of a better source feel free to do so) that extradition to America from Sweden is easier than from Britain or, indeed, most European countries.
The second basis is the behaviour of the Swedish prosecutors that others have mentioned – withdrawing the prosecution then reinstating it without adequate explanation and on the intervention of a politician (albeit a Socuial Democrat – but more on that below). Particularly suspicious is the fact that this involved upgrading the charge at a strategic moment to a charge that would make extradition easier.
The third is a commentary on the Swedish state, Sweden is, as we all know, an icon of Social Democracy. It is an extremely generous social democracy but it is, and always has been, a social democracy with a twist (not of lemming – that’s Norway – apologies to non-afficiadoes of Monty Python). Sweden is a small neutral country with a huge armaments industry. Hence the contradiction of the progressive social democratic paradise that spent the Second World War supplying the Third Reich with iron ore and things that went “bang”.
Sweden has been revealed (quite recently – by a thing called Wikileaks, I believe) to have acted in recent times as an effective member of NATO despite its supposed progressive neutrality. Gore Vidal commented in his memoirs how his works were rarely translated in the Scandinavian press due to the servility of Nordic countries to the American imperium. It would appear that the small Nordic paradise has always secured itself by giving the Godfather his due obeisance.
So my concern is this. Whatever may have happened in a Swedish bedroom a year (or whatever it was) ago, our chances of establishing the truth are severly compromised. There will be no “due process” even if Assange isn’t instantly whisked away from Stockholm to the US to face a charge based on retrospective legislation drawn up by Joe Lieberman.
So,upraid those who allow their scepticism regarding motives to slide into miscogynist cliches. Defend the progressive nature of Sweden’s rape laws. But if that’s all you do then, I’m sorry that you’ve lost me. This is not just another case of alleged rape. This is not just an argument about due process. This is not a case where we can talk about how it would be good for the state to treat women, while forgetting that the same state is bombing women in the Middle East and funding rapists and misogynists that would make Julian Assange (even if he was guilty of all he was accused to be) look like the epitome of the sensitive new aged guy.
Robert, what is alleged is now fairly clear. It’s been detailed in the link I posted above to Jessica Valenti’s article. The reasons why the information hasn’t previously become public are given in the link to The Guardian interview with the women’s lawyer.
The allegations that he used physical force to pin one woman down, and had intercourse with another while she was asleep had not previously become public. Both are extremely worrying. I have no idea whether he is guilty, and do not presume to pre-judge that, but these are serious things, and ought to be considered seriously.
Over and above that, your argument appears to me to come down to a claim that the allegations can in effect be dismissed because of who Assange is, and who is opposed to his political and publishing activities. It has never been the case, I’d have thought, that an argument could seriously be made that women shouldn’t make allegations of sexual assault because the state perpetrates oppression against women in the Middle East. I’m sorry, but that’s just a nonsense.
Your other arguments – indicating some sort of claim that we should not now believe that Sweden is a social democratic paradise (not my view anytime) – could equally be applied here. Australia is also a US ally, is subservient to US imperialism, etc. Does that invalidate the legal protections women enjoy here from sexual assault?
Your argument, as an argument, is very sloppy.
I don’t say that the argument can “be dismissed” because of who Assange is.
I was simply arguing that due process was impossible because of who Assange is and because why the Swedish state, which is the one which will charge and convict him if he is extdradited him, is pursuing him.
Nor do I say that “women shouldn’t make allegations of sexual assault because the state perpetrates oppression against women in the Middle East”. But this is not a simple case of women making allegations. The women made the allegations (or allegations of some sort), the state rejected them, and at a later stage for reasons that are, to say the least, extremely dubious, the state decided to pursue the allegations it first dismissed with a ferocity that is unparalleled. That’s why my post focussed on the Swedish State and on Swedish Social Democracy. They are the actors in this drama – not the women (one of whom appears to have withdrawn her complaint in any case).
This is an important point and a reason (apart from the obvious ones) why I disagree with the dredging up of details regarding the women.
If Guy Rundle is to be believed the Swedish politics behind this case are somewhat murky.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/did-he-or-didnt-he-the-murky-politics-of-sex-and-consent-20101211-18tie.html?from=age_ft
Anna Ardin is alleged to have dropped the complaint. Don’t know if that’s accurate or not.
The thing that bothers me about all this, having thought about it a bit, is its all too tidy in terms of a sequence of events, except for the bureaucratic stuff up by the Swedish authorities over the extradition papers. It bothers me because I’ve read a lot of history, and things are just never that tidy. There’s always something that sticks out, that doesn’t quite fit the narrative, that makes the narrative untidy. I think that’s why I’m suspicious about it.
Okay. I’ll shut up now.
The whole thing is anything but tidy, Paul.
@150 –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations
Well, as of 8 December, Claes Borgström is reported in the interview to which I’ve linked as representing the “two women”.
This appears to be yet another rumour on which a huge edifice of speculation can be built.
It seems rather all too familiar doesn’t it–
Julian Assange is a man, who probably hasn’t got great social skills, (spent a lot of time in front of a computer,) who upon becoming famous finds himself in the position of having a lot of admirers and abuses that “power”. There’s a certain cerebral egomania of juggling multiple partners simultaneously, which probably appeals to someone like him. And pretending to be a rock star.
I think the comparison to, for example, the Matthew Johns incident is really interesting. I think, that by all accounts, what happened to the girl at the hands of Mathew Johns and his team mates was a factor more degrading and certainly more physically violent than in the case of Assange. That was a clear example of exploitation. There are also similarities as it would seem to be the psychological effects of sexual abuse, which are the deepest and also the most difficult to see. We shouldn’t assume that Assange’s relationships with these two women has not been, for the women involved, extremely painful.
Anyway, don’t take this too seriously, I just really like this quote, by Charles Bukowski:
when women stop carrying
mirrors with them
everyplace they go
maybe then
they can talk to me
about
liberation.
Uh huh.
Vanity (which seems to be an essentialised aspect of womanhood here – not misogynist much) cancels out equal rights. And then, at the centre of this garbage is the man adjudicating whether women are worthy of liberation.
Yes, what is this even doing here? What does liberation, essentialised vanity have to do with how these women are being treated in the media and the blogosphere? What does this have to do with complainant shaming, alleged rape, and wikileaks?
And why did you put it in? Told your readers you liked it and then asked your readers not to take it seriously? Take what Not Seriously? The misogyny in it? The power relations in it? The fact you saw fit to place it here? And then said, Just Jokes?
???
Lovely.
What Sabbath said. We’re talking about a man who is being made into a personality cult, and Joe goes off on a tangent about how vain women are supposed to be. (Quoting Charles Bukowski, whose views on women weren’t exactly progressive.)
Women carry mirrors to apply makeup to avoid accusations of dowdiness and letting themselves go. Then, however, they’re open to accusations of vanity and triviality.
As a famous woman once said, women fail to realise how much men hate them. And if you think this isn’t on topic, just go and look up some of the comments made by 4chan, the group supporting Assange.
I think Bukowski’s observation is a valid perspective on a complicated problem. I could kind of weasel out of it and say it’s a good critique of liberation. But I know how hard it to have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex in Australia. It’s hard here in Germany, as well. It’s not essential beauty that women can’t escape, it’s the essentialness. Period. Men can’t escape it either and I think Bukowski’s being provocative, when he writes this kind of stuff. What do women see differently to men, when they look in the mirror? Are men really responsible for that insecurity? What exactly is the power relationship, you’re alluding to? Who hates whom? We are all suffering. Does Bukowski hate all women, when he writes something like that?
Gender roles can really destroy people, look at the rate of suicide in rural Australia amongst young gay men. Look at the terrible relationships everywhere. Some would argue we are always suffering. That’s why you shouldn’t take things too seriously, no?
Indeed she did. But it’s a bit sexist isn’t it– and then she left the country as well, poor thing. I’d like to know a bit more about the Sydney push. Why did the counter cultures all fail?
Helen, I don’t think vanity is the point, sexual relations and freedom is the point. And I don’t think it’s a tangent, perhaps it’s a bit meta, though…
Joe 2 The women are in hiding because men have posted their images, addresses and phone numbers on the web in retaliation for making “false allegations”, although in a demonstration of heart-warming generosity the poster suggested that people should stop short of raping and murdering these women. We realise how much we are hated all right, but for our sanity we choose to live as if it was not so, until cases like this make it gut-wrenchingly obvious again. I can confidently predict that the number of women choosing not to go to the police after they have been raped is going to spike.
The Matthew Johns case illustrates just how damaging unproven or untested allegations can be to a man’s reputation – the man’s considered a hero and hosts his own television show. Oh yes, we are all suffering.
Joe, you are wildly OT, sorry. You’ll have to find somewhere else to chew over your personal anxieties about the Sydney push, the alleged failure of counter-cultures, the difficulty of relationships in Australia and Germany, the “essentialness” of “women”, what “women” see when “they” look in mirrors, power relationships, sexual relations and freedom, suicide amongst gay men, the provocations of Charles Bukowski, hatred and suffering.
Now, as Kim was saying: “If the issue is due process, why the complainant shaming and trial by social media?”
If you would like to say something germane to the topic, please take a deep breath and keep repeating to yourself this isn’t about me as you type…
“If the issue is due process, why the complainant shaming and trial by social media?”
a) Assange is a celebrity and newsworthy.
b) Trials are adversarial and inherently aggressive. Every prime time trial is surrounded by the same issues.
c) Wikileaks is political.
Madoff. Frazer Kirk. OJ Simpson. Etc.
I don’t think this will effect most women’s view of justice for rape victims.
Joe at #154, if you want to be taken seriously, quoting Bukowski of all people on the subject of ‘women’ is the equivalent not just of shooting yourself in the foot but of shooting your entire lower leg completely off from the knee down.
Re incommunicado request by the Swedish prosecutor, his lawyer mentioned it:
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=546703&vId=1982547
Another reason for Robertson to argue he won’t get a fair trial. Comparisons of Ms Ny with Beria are OTT but that request raises further legitimate questions as to what the hell they’re up to.
What Ms Ny’s department seems incapable of understanding is that riding roughshod over Assange’s human rights damages the credibility and integrity of their case, and (dare I say it?) casts doubt on the fairness of Sweden’s CJ in that its prosecutorial department appears to be a law unto itself.
I’m going out a limb here and predict that the extradition will be refused mainly on the fair trial issue.
Joe @ 141, it’s not clear what your point is ie how does an initial bail refusal reflect badly on adversarial/common law systems? Assange will get more opportunities and the longer the process takes the more reason to get bail. Even Pinochet was granted bail in the UK during his extradition process as I recall.
I am in the middle of completing a conversion course from the common law to the civil (Roman) law system at the University of Edinburgh, so that I can practice as an advocate (barrister) in Scottish courts. My common law qualifications are from the Universities of Queensland (Aust) and Oxford (UK). My home jurisdiction is now Scotland (a ‘mixed’ jurisdiction, in that the substantive law is Roman but the procedural [adjectival] law is common law and adversarial). Most Roman law jurisdictions (including Sweden) use the inquisitorial procedure.
I use the phrase ‘Roman law’ because ‘civil law’ has a number of different meanings. Apologies to any civilians reading this, but I do think this makes my explanations clearer.
Even Scotland’s circumstances are not very revealing; the ancient Romans used an adversarial procedure, much like we do at common law (think ‘Rumpole of the Bailey’ in togas).
Very roughly, there are two legal systems on the planet that are (a) proper legal systems with genuine due process that (b) weigh evidence on its merits, not on who is giving the evidence. I exclude Shariah because it weighs men’s and women’s evidence differently, something neither the English nor the Romans ever did. Using HLA Hart’s metric outlined in The Concept of Law, this differential evidence weighting means that Shariah is not a legal system, despite pretensions to the contrary.
This leaves us with Roman law and Common law.
Australia, the United States and the UK (obvs) are both (a) common law and (b) adversarial. Scotland is (a) Roman law and (b) adversarial. Sri Lanka is (a) common law but (b) inquisitorial.
As a general rule, however, common law is to adversarial procedure as Roman law is to inquisitorial procedure. The inquisitorial procedure, however, is not something the Ancient Romans developed. It is derived from Canon law — but European Canon law, not English Canon law. English Canon law turned into the equitable jurisdiction (derived from the better bits of Christianity). Roman law systems have no equitable jurisdiction (which stands to reason; all the Roman jurists who matter being pagans).
Are you beginning to appreciate how complicated this is now?
Then I should mention that Scotland and Scandinavia (including Sweden) also make use of both Celtic and Viking customary law, in addition to pagan Roman law.
I am going to do a Comparative Law 101: Roman Law v Common Law post over at my blog in due course, but right now I am trying to study for my Faculty of Advocates Exams … which are kind of important as they’re intrinsic to me joining stables (what Scots call ‘chambers’) and, you know, making a living:
http://www.advocates.org.uk/
In the interim, here are a few basic bits of info about Roman law and Common law that may be helpful when you’re thinking about the Assange case (about which I will not speculate, being originally trained in the common law and all).
1. Both Roman law and Common law are intensely mercantile and fundamentally capitalist, but the Roman system is more pro-market; Roman society, being pagan, didn’t have any issues with usury and egregiously unequal contracts. It’s possible to have an enforceable promise in Roman law; at common law ‘consideration’ is required. Roman law treats personalty (‘moveables’) and realty (‘immovables’) as simple instances of things (‘re’). Apart from a requirement for writing, there is essentially no difference between buying a car (chariot) or house (‘domus’) under Roman law.
2. Despite the capitalist character of Roman law, the primary economic unit in Roman law is the family (‘familia’). At common law, it was (and is) the individual. Despite the importance of the family, a woman’s status was unusually high. She retained full rights to ownership and management of property even after marriage, and Roman law expressly prohibited attempts by her husband or partner to interfere with her property. In modern terms, the idea of a woman needing her husband’s permission to open a bank account would have totally freaked out every Roman jurist after the 2nd century BC and before the rise of Christianity.
3. The Roman family at its best resembled My Big Fat Greek Wedding. At its worst it resembled The Godfather. The Romans recognised this, which is why they developed huge protections for witnesses, and relatively fewer protections for the accused (called the ‘suspect’). Ancient Roman procedure allowed the suspect’s character to be attacked without limit (called the ‘vituperatio’), but allowed witnesses to give their evidence – if necessary – anonymously. There was (and is) no ‘right of confrontation’ in Roman law systems. Accused rapists cross-examining witnesses was (and is) anathema at Roman law.
4. This witness protection extended to citizen women making an allegation of rape: it was always a crime against the person in Roman law, never a tort permitting the apportioning of liability (one never sees a ‘she asked for it’ argument from any Roman jurist).
5. In many Roman law jurisdictions, the law with respect to rape follows the Roman jurist Ulpian (2nd century AD). Ulpian pointed out how difficult it is to ‘prove a negative’, so while he makes strong arguments in favour of the presumption of innocence, he argues that when someone has to prove a negative (‘I didn’t do …’), he should only have to do it once. At Roman law in the classical period (ie, before the rise of Christianity), this meant a woman only had to prove that she didn’t consent (beyond reasonable doubt). She didn’t have to prove that her attacker didn’t know she didn’t consent (beyond reasonable doubt). That, according to Ulpian, was too much. His summarizing comment was ‘ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit’.
6. The Roman law jurisdictions (including Sweden), once they dispensed with canon law (and Christianity’s influence on family law more generally) tended to revert to Classical Roman law with respect to marriage, divorce and rape. Marriage was ‘free’, divorce was unilateral and no fault… and the law with respect to rape followed Ulpian.
7. Ulpian thought some forms of rape were more serious than others, especially if spousal or by a family member, as this involved a betrayal of trust. Remember that Roman law requires that even commercial contracting parties deal ‘in good faith’. This is not required at common law.
8. The inquisitorial procedure (derived from Canon law) gives judges immense power over their court. They are able to commence investigations of their own motion, put counsel and the suspect on the spot when and how they (the judges) come to ask questions, and exclude evidence based on their assessment of what is probative or prejudicial. Counsel are mainly facilitators, and before the matter comes to trial, the judge always reviews the available evidence. It is also fine for a witness/complainant unhappy with how the case is proceeding to hire new lawyers who seem more skilled at making relevant arguments. Lawyers on both sides liaise with the judge or judges. As a result, only strong cases make it to court, and civilian systems have very high conviction rates (Japan is the highest, at close to 100%). Until recently, there was no such thing as a ‘plea bargain’ in any Roman law system.
9. There is no rule against hearsay in any Roman law system. There is no rule against reporting cases that are sub judice.
10. In short, the presumption of innocence is weaker (but still present), there is a view that rape can be more or less serious depending on circumstances, and that if anyone is going to be subject to vituperation, it is the accused, not witnesses.
11. Before you let this information freak you out, remember that (despite being hundreds of years apart and never having intersected at any point), Roman law and common law are more similar than different. One of the joys of studying both is watching Romans and Englishmen come to the same conclusions and develop the same doctrines, especially with respect to contract and property law.
12. They are different enough, however, to put us all on our guard, especially with respect to family law and sexual assault. When you change the law, you do change the country, and to watch the transformation in Europe as substantive canon law was peeled off (‘as though it had never existed’, says the nice young chap running my conversion course) is one of the wonders of legal history.
It is well to bear this in mind when considering the charges against Assange, and then to do the appropriate common law thing: let justice do its work.
Apologies for the long comment.
@163 – Given that’s the very same lawyer who was ranting about “dark forces” and “honey traps”, I find it difficult to give his comments much credence.
I notice you’ve ignored the invitation to actually read the Swedish penal code and the code governing criminal procedure (in English), or the section I quoted at @146 which seems to rule out the legality of any such request.
Much easier to believe what you want to believe?
Peter, as I understand it, and as you yourself said, Assange’s lack of a permanent address in the UK were grounds for his bail refusal. This seems rather technical. Rather law-is-an-ass-ish.
PC: Yeah, well it depends which circles you move in, I guess. You make being taken seriously very difficult! Bukowski is one of my favorite writers. Do you really think he’s misogynist? Well, some of the commentators here are calling Assange and man-kind misogynist, so for them it’s trivial, I guess. But that’s a fairly generalising kind of judgement, as far as I’m concerned.
I condemn it!
“As a famous woman once said, women fail to realise how much men hate them. And if you think this isn’t on topic, just go and look up some of the comments made by 4chan, the group supporting Assange.”
Who is this famous women that would blight a whole gender and do you agree with her? It sounds pretty damn offensive and sexist to me. And apparently now Assange is doing time in Wandsworth for the cowardly words of some pimply nurd @Anonymous. Spare me.
Su@159 I still do not think it is equivalent. Give me verbal abuse, by nutters, over time in the slammer any day.
Can I just point out the slide between discussing this issue and then all women, as characterised by a male writer?
Stick to the topic. Or don’t comment on this thread.
Thanks.
No. Assange is on remand because he has no fixed address and “weak community ties”. He has another chance to make a bail application on Wednesday.
How is being homeless and friendless a crime@169?
This process is a hangover from a kind of vagrancy law. And I point out that he actually had more than one member of his “family” ready to provide bail and lodging.
They posted their addresses and phone numbers Joe2, the women can no longer return home. Why are you minimizing this? These actions are the forseeable consequence of the kind of trial by social media driven by baseless speculation and rumour-mongering which is the focus of this post.
And to those who are offended by the silly fools threatening the women involved, as I am, I would remind them Assange is also being threatened with death or life detention by people of such influence that they may be in a position to influence its implementation, in the future. Maybe this will scare off future critical whistleblowers.
Thank you for that very informative comment Skepticlawyer. As I understand it the absence of a prohibition of hearsay means that there was nothing wrong in Borgström’s characterising his clients as victims who had been assaulted.
Rules it in actually.
Clue: Risk = low legal threshold. Once risk is established, legal to hold him incommunicado. Easy to establish (Prosecution case for example): risk that his followers will be instructed to go after witnesses.
You have the wrong end of the stick there Kim, quoting stuff that spells out the exception.
Much easier to believe what you want to believe, Kim?
“They posted their addresses and phone numbers Joe2, the women can no longer return home.”
No way do I minimise this disgusting behaviour. I do not believe I have in any way but 4chan and these mobs are unmoderated and anarchic.
Any individual speaks as “anonymous” and do not discount such behaviour coming from other sources. It sure is not in the interest of Assange.
‘I still have an open mind on Assange’s guilt Peter. But, it’s obvious that the women’s character and motivation are on trial here.’
And so they should be. They have made allegations which have landed a man in jail. A man who, as it happens, is Public Enemy Number 1 to governments worldwide and a hero to a great many of their constituents. Even if Assange was a nobody the womens’ motivation ought to be on trial; this is just basic fairness in a ‘he said, she said’ situation regardless of which legal system or what bloody language it all occurred in. But the fact that he is who he is means that every effort must be made to ascertain the veracity of the complaints, and even more importantly whether there was any catalysing role played by the government of Sweden at the behest of the US, and/or perhaps by US intelligence agencies as well. Means, motive (to the max) and opportunity.
The complaints themselves are just.. well, I find myself agreeing with Christopher Hitchens for the first time in ten years. (The rest of his rant though only confirms that Assange threatens not just governments, but their propagandists as well. Assange is walking the walk that even the younger Hitchens could only ever talk)
‘They sprung a ‘honey-trap’,
Why not? It is a distinct possibility. Ever heard of Mordechai Vanunu? The naivete here is a bit of a worry. I suppose you’ll wait for ‘evidence’ to surface before jumping on that bandwagon, eh? What if it never does? Sometimes, in the absence of empirical data, inductive reasoning must be employed. It used to be called ‘common sense’.
‘they’ve ‘blackened his reputation’
Well, they have, and that action in this point in space and time redounds to the great benefit of The Hegemon, whose willingness and capacity to exercise control over the foreign and domestic policy of many nations, already demonstrable before Wikileaks but unarguable since, may well lie behind the incident. In short, many of the same ‘behind the veil’ mechanisms Assange has revealed have been used to collar him.
You may well believe that Assange’s identity and profile is external to the case and immaterial to it’s resolution. I respect your right to hold such a view, I would hope you could do the same for others who think differently.
This sort of thread would warm the cockles of diplomats, ministers and journalists everywhere, particularly in the US.
joe2, it’s possible to support Assange and not abhor what the women have done. It’s possible to support the women and worry about how Assange will be treated by the legal system. It’s even possible to think Bukowski is a very good writer and think he’s an absolute misogynist pig. We don’t have to do the either/or thinking as exemplified by Bush. “You’re either with us, or against us”.
There’s a couple of interesting articles in the Age today about Assange, including the most egregious piece of hero worship I’ve seen for a long time, comparing Assange with the protagonist of ‘Darkness at Noon’. I really hate the political activist as rock star trope. It seems entirely counterproductive for progressive politics.
Joe re:
Technical or not it’s a logical approach that strong community ties will give the court more confidence that the defendant will answer bail, as compared to someone with no fixed address. But it’s only one of several factors to be considered.
I’d agree that the law is “ass-ish” from time to time and in specific areas, but not for bail.
Post is up:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/12/12/comparative-law-101-roman-law-v-common-law-and-julian-assange/
I will do more in due course; that will do for now.
“Even if Assange was a nobody the womens’ motivation ought to be on trial; this is just basic fairness in a ‘he said, she said’ situation regardless of which legal system or what bloody language it all occurred in.”
And this is why it’s so difficult for women to actually go forward on rape charges. They might get turkey brain here on the jury. Here’s a hint: presumption of innocence doesn’t mean the complainants are presumed to be lying until proven otherwise.
And the hero worship is painful to behold.
Thanks for your explanation, SL. It’s hard one to get my head around, but very interesting.
Interesting developments:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas—Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html
I know it is difficult but I am being sometimes quoted for the words of Joe. I do not endorse what he/she says. I am a different person and said nothing of Bukowski, for instance.
‘And this is why it’s so difficult for women to actually go forward on rape charges. They might get turkey brain here on the jury.’
Thanks for that. You mean they might get someone prepared in the interests of fairness to consider that their version of events may not be true, that women are just as likely to lie as men, that people of either sex are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Heaven help an innocent if he struck you on the jury.
Sorry joe2.
I don’t think presumption of innocence means what you think it means, Greg Condell.
Thanks to Loon Pond, I don’t have to read the Devine Miranda coming out in support of Assange, doubtless solely because he’s been accused of rape by a couple of feminazis.
This whole thing really has brought out the worst in a lot of people (including some otherwise sensible commenters upthread), in large part because we’re all having some trouble separating Assange’s WikiLeaks activities from the legal turmoil surrounding his sexual exploits.
I don’t have any trouble believing that Assange is both a heroic glibertarian cyber-warrior and an otherwise thoroughly unpleasant person. I’m also prepared to accept that I may be wrong on both counts. I look forward to the accusations of sexual assault being tested in a court, which is the proper place.
His name is Glenn, Well!
Peter,
It’s freaking late and so I’m a gonna go all out and say that there is a lot of asstiness in the legal system. Couple of foo’ lawyers and the foo’ judge were having a bad day, so they jailed poor Julian, but they’ll get it right next time. Yesssireee.
‘Rr-righty-then. Just straighten that wiggelty up and carry on! Must maintain aura of respectability and superiority! Otherwise no authoritare.
Bukowski is a writer of exceptional beauty, both of poetry and prose, but I find it utterly unbelievable that anyone could cite his very, very, peculiar attitudes towards women as a defence of Assange or any other man criticised for treating women badly, sexually or otherwise.
Now, though I’d heard it before, I’m a little surprised at the pre-eminence of personal emotions motivating the women to provide information leading the Swedish prosecutor to lay rape charges against Assange. I’m much more concerned that the Swedish authorities are using the information extracted from the women for political reasons to do with their current right wing government’s desire to form closer ties with the US, leading ultimately to the abandonment of Swedish neutrality. Its hard to discern to what extent these women were pressured to lay charges, especially since the second prosecutor who took up the charges appears to have a reputation for integrity. This concern is amplified by reports that one of the complainants (the one with the political connections – And I am not referring to the CIA here, just broader right wing political connections – has apparently left Sweden and has stated she will not be returning to give evidence. (Hence, apparently, the delay in the extradition order.) Too many things are intertwined here – Swedish law on rape, sexual politics, Christian Democrat political connections wanting to have even closer ties with the US.
When I said earlier the sequence of events was all too neat I was referring to all the events, the rape charges,the murky right wing Swedish politics, in which one of the complainants is some sort of player, the political manoevres around Wikileaks and the US’s desire to get their hands on Assange, not just the alleged rape case. It still smacks to me of some sort of deal concocted by the Swedish Government and the Us to get Assange intro US custody. And then, God help him.
Yes, I think Peters faith in the sheer “logic” of the remand system, based on strong community ties, is ill founded though not surprising.
Romani for instance might score well on family ties but fail because of no constant abode. If you are poor, homeless and down on your luck you draw the jail card regardless. The system is prejudiced against a whole class of people.
Yes it is Joe, unfortunately, but that’s not all the fault of the CJ system which is not responsible for housing of lack thereof. (And you wouldn’t believe the time I’ve spent for clients trying to find them a bail address when the family and rellies have disowned them. Especially juveniles that have fallen through the cracks.)
Peter, I tried to explain earlier that seven days in jail is a pretty hefty effective sentence when even the judge admitted the evidence, some of which appears to have been tampered with, was a bit slim.
David @187 and others have expressed confidence in the court to test the allegations. I would like to myself, but already it has been shown to be wanting. Appearance is everything and it is starting to look mighty like a stitch up from a country that already has a pretty poor track record of dealing with those in custody on matters around the insane war on terrorism.
Source? Who tampered with evidence, what evidence was tampered with? I suspect you are just making stuff up now Joe 2 because as has already been established, none of us KNOW what evidence will be submitted.
@joe2, I’m not condoning the grounds on which he’s being held in remand, just stating them. It’s possible (though apparently very difficult for some) to discuss this thing without expressing value judgements constantly.
Yo #154. Did it ever occur to Chuck that women are using the mirrors to scan the room and check who’s behind them?
Anyway now that this whole thing is such a sticky, sad, funny, appalling and all so human mess, I think everyone should just go right ahead and turn it into a mashup reflective of their world view.
Only three people really know what happened and at least two of them sound like their word could be unreliable even at the best of times.
Anyway I’ve now learnt far more about Swedish jurisprudence that I ever expected to.
@174 – that seems to be quite a speculative interpretation, Peter. Why don’t you wait for the Swedish authorities to clarify? You’re quite happy to assume that Assange’s Swedish lawyer will be bringing evidence before the British court, and you cite what he says as if it’s automatically believable before he puts it forward.
On the question of “motives” – some people seem to be arguing that this is some sort of exculpatory thing. The complainants could have all sorts of motives and Assange could still have committed a crime. The attitude that people who are victims of an alleged sexual assault have to be somehow absolutely pure at heart, or something, is part of the stereotypical reason offered as to why women should usually be disbelieved. I don’t see any reason why Assange’s celebrity and other activity affects that at all, or gives people like Glenn Condell a free pass on what is an extremely common pattern of questioning the veracity of women making allegations of sexual assault.
I’m also with Fine, and thoroughly sick of the cult around this guy by now. Everyone should wish the allegations to be properly tested, and not rule out the possibility that should be done on the basis of alleged political machinations/consequences.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/11/wikileaks-backlash-cyber-war
Surely it is possible to see that the following scenarios are all non-overlapping domains of truth ie. they can all be true simultaneously, and without contradiction?
1) Assange and the Wikileaks project may (or may not) be a significant and important player in the struggle of peoples around the world to be freed from the cabal of governance that starts wars, conducts extrajudicial killings and set policies that devastate entire communities and ecosystems; without those peoples having a meaningful role in or knowledge of those proceedings.
2) Assange may (or may not) have committed sexual offences in Sweden under Swedish law.
3) Authorities in the USA and Sweden may (or may not) have opportunistically latched onto the possibility of (2) in order to pursue a beef they have with Assange over his actions regarding (1).
4) The truth or otherwise of (3) in no way compromises or traduces the rights of victims of sexual violence to bring cases, and for witnesses and complainants themselves not to be placed on trial (unless they have perjured themselves) or face trial-by-(social) media.
5) Nobody with the slightest concern about human rights would wish to see proceedings under (2) lead to Assange being stitched up on Espionage charges in the USA under (1) (and incidentally I’m confident Geoffery Robertson will be arguing successfully along that line against extradition in a UK Court.)
6) The level of vituperation directed at some of the people bringing the case under (2), and their supporters, does reveal important things about the prevalence of rape culture around the world and the inability or unwillingness of some people to perceive and acknowledge rape culture — and if that doesn’t include you, then it doesn’t include you.
7) The ease with which public opinion can be manipulated by state agencies who are trying to take out a ‘target of opportunity’ is grimly apparent, time and again.
Why didn’t you wait for the Swedish authorities, before citing it and “speculating” on it @146?
Do as I say, not as I do mmm?
@200 – happy to. On the face of it, I don’t see anything in there about denying access to counsel. I’m no expert in Swedish law. Neither are you.
Well said Mercurius.
‘The attitude that people who are victims of an alleged sexual assault have to be somehow absolutely pure at heart, or something, is part of the stereotypical reason offered as to why women should usually be disbelieved.’
Not so well said. Who ever said they had to be pure at heart? All I said was that the possibility they might be lying must be considered. Why should their word be any more valuable than Assange’s?
‘I don’t see any reason why Assange’s celebrity and other activity affects that at all, or gives people like Glenn Condell a free pass on what is an extremely common pattern of questioning the veracity of women making allegations of sexual assault.’
Didn’t I clearly say that even if Assange was a nobody the womens’ character and motivation ought to be on trial? Rape is unlawful but so is accusing someone of it. Should we not question the veracity of any woman making such an allegation? Anyone who accuses anyone of anything ought to have their backstory looked at, no? Isn’t that actually the first step, unpleasant though it may be, in any genuine effort to establish the truth of an allegation?
If we can accept that of all such cases, then we can move on to this particular one, in which Assange’s ‘celebrity and other activity’ (damn faint praise, that) believe it or not does play a part in determining the truth. His work eloquently reveals the lengths and depths the US will go to in order to subvert the sovereignty of other countries to suit themselves. Assange’s own case must surely be investigated with this in mind. The threat he represents to a power he has demonstrated is capable of controlling foreign institutions is material to his case.
If the fact that there is no hard ‘evidence’ of US involvement in setting this up is sufficient for us to make the assumption that it wasn’t, surely a similar dearth of (ahem) hard evidence that Assange raped these women would be enough for us to assume he didn’t – we can’t have it both ways. He may be the Messiah, but he may be a very naughty boy too. We can’t yet say for sure, and perhaps we’ll never be able to.
‘I’m also with Fine, and thoroughly sick of the cult around this guy by now’
Is this his fault? Do you think this distaste that yourself and Fine share for Assange might play into your notion of his innocence or guilt? Just as perhaps my high regard for his courage and expertise (allied to a suspicion of US involvement) might tend to make me more sceptical of the womens’ claims?
Does this rape allegation also play into your perception of Assange’s importance? He’s a ‘celebrity’ who indulges in ‘other activity’ for pity’s sake. This man has dominated the news cycles worldwide for the last month – is this just another celebrity story to you, some global beat-up? Does your dismissive characterisation of his work as ‘other activity’ give us a handle on how seriously you take it?
Assange, provided we can prevent him being thrown to the dogs, may end up being just a shade more historically important than you might think. More important than 3 or 4 Barack Obamas for mine, and any number of Robert McClellands.
Glenn Corbett, try to understand that under our judicial system, the complainant is never on trial. This is completely different than believing that everyone or anyone who is on trial is guilty. If you think that it should be different for rape allegations, then you’re part of how patriarchy functions to silence women and allows violence towards women to flourish. Think about how that connects, or not, into a progressive political agenda.
As I’ve said, I have no idea if Assange is guilty or innocent. I admire Assange’s actions as a member of Wikileaks and support what they’ve been doing. Being sick of the cult of celebrity is not a criticism of Assange, but a criticism of the cult. I’m always sceptical of narratives that utilise the figure of one man to explain a political phenomenon. Although, I do wonder what Assange has done to encourage it, or not.
My objection is how the women have been treated by some Assange supporters and how that plays into the patriarchy which works to minimise and explain away rape, which, of course, is what you’re doing right now. You need to learn to think and read a bit more clearly and not buy into false binaries. Binaries, by the way, which aren’t a very fruitful way into thinking about what progressive politics might mean.
And here’s the Swedish doco about Assange. Haven’t had the time to watch, so I have no idea what it’s like.
http://svtplay.se/v/2264028/wikirebels_the_documentary
“Source? Who tampered with evidence, what evidence was tampered with? I suspect you are just making stuff up now Joe 2 because as has already been established, none of us KNOW what evidence will be submitted.”
Source to the information below Su @149. I was not making things up and I did say, by way of qualification, that evidence “appears” to have been tampered with.
Surely, when deciding on bail this should have been taken into account when, on the basis of this persons word, somebody is about to spend time in jail for a week.
http://www.countercurrents.org/rudling081210.htm
@205 – Great, thanks, joe2, another link to some spurious thing in the intertubes that publishes the name of one of the complainants (which really is a no no in these sort of cases, for reasons which should be obvious) and relies on a chain of inference based on “reasoning” such as:
Yeah, right, there’s one official approved response to being a victim of a crime.
…and blatant value judgements, based on a string of so-called characteristics that this woman has such as:
That’s premised on a pretty strong insinuation that the allegations are false.
Like this:
FFS. Prejudicial much?
@202 –
I have no notion either way. Please try to read more carefully. I said distaste for “the cult” not for him.
I’m sorry that I haven’t praised Assange sufficiently highly for your liking. What I’m trying to emphasise is that the question of his guilt or otherwise should be decided outside of the context of his public activities, and indeed whether or not one approves of them, which I largely do – that is, my previous posts have made clear broad support for what Wikileaks has done. Anyone who’s done a bit of reading about it would realise, though, that Wikileaks’s mission is not identical with allegations from inside the organisation that Assange himself hardly acts in a democratic way.
What is this, the Great Man Theory of History or something? It should be very clear that the phenomena which combine to produce the Wikileaks phenomenon are multiple and complex, and potentially independent of the will and actions of one person (and of their character). I thought “the left” prioritised structural explanations, and actual explanations, not hero worship. I said earlier that the personalisation of all this around Assange is a political negative, and I stand by that.
As I said in the OP, the most useless and distasteful thing about all this is the way it sets up ridiculous friend/enemy distinctions. Either, apparently, Assange is a freedom fighter and therefore everything he’s alleged to be doing is some CIA plot/state persecution or I’m a bad leftie. Or something. These ridiculous binaries are hardly politically progressive, or for that matter, in the interests of truth and justice and the stuff people are supposed to be defending.
Also, what Merc said @199. All of it.
Incidentally, I note one of the profiles yesterday published on Assange suggested that some friends of his believe his politics are of the libertarian right.
Kim, I was accused of making things up and asked for sources.
Within the general link, that I agree is not well thought out, are the links to the primary sources which should have fairly influenced any bail court decision.
@208 – why not link directly, then, joe2?
Because, Kim@209, I assumed that since all the documentation links and script were within that post it would be easiest and that those here would be mature enough to read between the lines. It also clearly translates from the Swedish for those of us not fluent in that language.
I’m going to add my condemn.
I couldn’t agree more with Kim’s comment @207, and indeed the OP and all of what she, Fine, su and Mercurius have said.
Three things:
(a) The disgraceful readiness to traduce the character and motivation of the women concerned, and to be careless in doing so, shows that the supposed anti-patriarchy on the left is absolutely skin deep in many instances; it also betrays a dangerous inability to make judgements and distinctions well captured by the ‘friend/enemy’ dichotomy;
(b) It is absolutely the case that Wikileaks is a much broader phenomenon than one person; and that the reductive focus on Assange creates both a politically regressive notion that individuals can somehow save the world, not collective action. It also has the effect that the real ramifications of what’s going on are pretty much tossed out the window, and the agenda for discourse is now set by a bunch of ‘celebrity’ ‘human rights activists’ such as Jemima Khan and John Pilger. There is no sense in which any of this is articulated to a real political movement; Assange’s ‘supporters’ in 4Chan and Anonymous certainly don’t represent one – and not even an intelligent anarchism.
(c) Consequently, I see no one marching in the streets protesting about US imperialism and the revelations of how power actually works. Rather, it’s all reduced to the lowest common denominator of personalities and a liberal discourse of free speech. As a political moment, then, this only reinforces not challenges the terms of liberal power and government.
Listen, you could well be right Joe2, someone tweeting that they are with cool people at a party to which they invited the defendant may be considered evidence, my point was that we do not yet know what will be submitted as evidence, we do not even know the exact wording of the charges, none have been laid. People are claiming absolute knowledge of things about which they know nothing. I don’t know why this is so difficult to grasp.
I’ve been wondering for some time about how right wing Assange is. Libertarian right, eh? Fits some suspocions I had about his selection of cables.
I think that the whole thing is a horrible distraction. Not that I have followed the substance of the exposure, the little that I have gleaned is that there are a lot of exposed dipolmatic “he said, she said”s which every body knows any way, so big deal.
I’d be more interested if Assange had exposed how the coal lobby has our government pinned to the wall, or what Gillard is really thinking and intending to do by subtefuge on the environment, or why, when there is a half decent deal struck at Cancun, I get a Wayne Swane newsletter talking about…bank reform.
Here we are hurtling at breakneck pace towards an amalgamated catastrophy of global warming + peak oil + resource depletion + population overrun + really serious ocean acidification + climatic extremes and the many consequences + the certain global recession that will return in the very near future as a consequence of all of the prior, but what do we have occupying our attentions? “Emma” Assange medling with every ones “Sensibilities”.
Good grief people.
And Su@212 I am making no claim about what might eventuate as evidence in the case to come. Just that the information I provided through the link with sources (and crummy interpretations) should have been enough to allow bail.
It makes me suspicious that he is unlikely to get a fair go at all. The “weak community ties” line looks like complete crap, as well. He had a team to put up bail and was never going to abscond with a public face like that.
Mark @ 211,
On articulating to a real political movement rather than just some weird anarchist libertarianism of possible right wing dimensions. I’ve been wondering about that too. And not just that the people in Sweden he was associating with were right wingers – and I don’t just mean the two women.
Another case in point, and its relevant in terms of articulated collective political movements is this student demo in London – the Harry Potter radicals. As DI (nr) pointed out on another thread, and as I’ve commented a couple of times, it was apparently completely leaderless, ans even unfocused in direction everything from fees, lack of bus stops to roughing up royalty and a bi, a serious bit of damaging capitalist property, but even that was amorphously untargeted, a few shops in Oxford Street because, perhaps, they couldn’t get near the parliament.
I’m not going OT with that example,I hope but it does make me wonder about the nature of the new political protest. A kind of not well targeted vandalism, setting fires, smashiung windows, downloading 3rd rate political gossip on teh internet. Where are prople going with this directionlessness? It makes me cautious, seems a bit f#S4ic, if youy know what I mean. I know I’ll be Godwined but it reminds me of paramilitary in dark-coloured shirts a bit.
@216 – Paul, I think that the student/mob protests are potentially much more dangerous to the state and the status quo than the leaks, but also largely directionless. There’s the sense in which Assange represents a sort of anarchist/libertarian elitist thinking where a political response is supposed to follow the moves of canny players; perhaps the protests represent something of an unarticulated cry of rage. But Hero worship and a Great Man Theory of Politics is both wrong empirically and dangerous politically. The ingredients for the Wikileaks moment are long in the making; its technological, social and cultural conditions of possibility complex. Assange’s motivation, to the degree that it becomes the sine qua non of the events, reduces this to a story about personalities and the direction to the preferences or strategies of one individual. The reality that what is needed is a structural analysis of the moment completely falls by the wayside. This has become more and more clear in recent days, as both left and right move to reinscribe the raw flow of information into palatable and predictable narrative pathways.
Joe2, no evidence was presented to Justice Riddle, hence his remark about not knowing the strength of the allegations and his warning that the Swedes would have to provide some evidence at next week’s hearing if they were again going to oppose bail.
‘If you think that it should be different for rape allegations, then you’re part of how patriarchy functions to silence women and allows violence towards women to flourish.’
I am upbraided several times for not reading closely enough to understand the shortcomings of my thinking, but the lack of care evident in the statement above surely takes the palm offa me. So far from emitting any phrase that could be construed as thinking that ‘it should be different for rape allegations, I actually said ‘Anyone who accuses anyone of anything ought to have their backstory looked at, no?’ I would have thought that was pretty clear. Rape, murder, theft, whatever – the accuser must be prepared to have his/her story, background, potential motivations examined. I fail to see how any fair person can take issue with that, regardless of the legal system they live under.
‘to minimise and explain away rape, which, of course, is what you’re doing right now’
Really, how can you engage with such determined, not to say offensive nonsense? First I’m a turkey brain, then I’m mispelled twice and now I’m For Rape. Lovely stuff.
‘What I’m trying to emphasise is that the question of his guilt or otherwise should be decided outside of the context of his public activities’
What if his public activities were germane to, even the direct cause of, the allegations? I’m sure you would agree that this is at least possible. It rises to probable on my sliding scale, but then it would, wouldn’t it?
The real problem here is that there is no way we (or a Swedish court) can ever really know the truth. How is it going to be possible for any court, without videofootage of the events concerned, to decide with any certainty what occurred? Where is the smoking gun? If Assange gets it, the court will simply be preferring the accuser’s version of events over the accused’s.
It’s not that I am unconcerned about Ms’s A and B* or that I know Assange to be incapable of what they allege (which is let’s face it, hardly even jail-time worthy). I just feel in relation to the danger posed by simply going with the flow being carefully constructed for us (ostensibly only by the Aust, Swedish and UK govts and media but possibly with American hands on the tiller, as per so many of the situations Wiki’s leaks have described) and thereby licencing the quiet defenestration of Wikileaks in particular but the free web in general, that we will have scored the biggest own goal in history.
Let us be staunch in support of the complainant’s right to make an accusation and to have it examined fully and also of the accused’s right to have the complainant’s motivations examined. But let us not be useful idiots, entering from stage left with the noblest progressive ideals imaginable and falling into a trap designed to prevent further disclosures of the lies and self-interest that govern us. The stakes are too high for us to allow what may be a hot-button kangaroo court to convict Assange and heaven forbid deport him to the US.
This is a tipping point in our times. It is possible that Assange is such a dick that he would put that at risk with some boorish sexual behaviour, but to my mind unlikely. It is at least as likely that he has been framed. Should he go down, who in their right mind would take up the mantle? That is the sinister upshot of a conviction and provides ample motive for a set-up.
The fruits of elite secrecy are all around us and some of them still taste sweet enough, but that won’t last long. We don’t have a lot of shots left in the locker and if we end up wasting Wiki on a trumped up charge designed to claim the founder and front-man of the vital work it does, we or perhaps our children will have cause to regret it down the track.
Admin: *Edited to remove identifying details of the complainants.
@219 – I wish you wouldn’t name the two complainants. I’m going to have a think about redacting that.
I was also interested to read (though obviously it’s not gospel truth) that some of his friends see his politics as of the libertarian right. The problem with this focus on a leader is the idea (I think tied in with the idea of informational savvy) that elite players make the moves, the crowd/mob follows. It’s very far from being a democratic thing, though it is very characteristic of some right wing and Nietzschean forms of anarchism/libertarianism.
I’d repeat the point that the Wikileaks phenomenon has a broader genealogy than Assange’s own actions, and also note that a number of new leaks sites are launching tomorrow, apparently because of disgust among some of his associates at Wikileaks with the way Assange himself runs Wikileaks undemocratically.
As for the claims about ‘Free Assange’, well if it resolves to the rights of one individual (and no one is rallying to Free Manning as far as I can tell), it’s just a liberal discourse. Compounded with the high profile coverage (note a range of very long articles in Australian papers this weekend on Assange’s persona)… People like Pilger, Khan and Wolf also seem to be writing as much about themselves and their massive egos as Assange from what I can see.
People who ponder the idea that discrediting a ‘leader’ can destroy a phenomenon might also reflect on the converse – defending the leader not the phenomenon is the other side of that coin, and in fact supports rather than opposes that strategy.
Paul Burns @ 213,
I read on Poll Bludger the other day a post from someone who said they knew him about 15 years ago and his politics were definitely of the Left. A lot of people on PB (being hardcore Labor hacks) seem to think he’s a right-winger who just wants to bring down the Obama/Gillard regimes.
That would ignore all of the anti-Iraq/Afghanistan war cables, the posting of the names of members of the far-right British National Party, the posting of the hacked contents of Sarah Palin’s email account and calls for his assassination have been coming from the Right.
FWIW, I think Assange is more about truth and transparency from governments than a Left/Right thing but I think if anything he’s clearly of the Left.
@221 – Jacques, I doubt that the ramifications of #Cablegate for Australian domestic politics are much on anyone’s mind at Wikileaks.
But, if he is of “the left”, which I kinda sorta doubt, which left?
The 80s/90s cult of the Hacker/Hacktivist had very close parallels with the libertarian right, and indeed was celebrated by many prominent figures in it around Wired and other places. If it’s an anarchist mode of thought and practice, it seems to me to lean towards a very elitist/Nietzschean strain where those savvy manipulators of information can shake things up. That’s not particularly democratic, if at all. It’s also consistent with the inflated sense of power that hacking often produced.
“The left” is not a unitary thing. The dissonances over patriarchy show that; and others could be cited.
Mark @ 217,
Indeed. I’m very uncomfortable withe the hero motif and the Carlylean Man too. Just as I’m uncomfortable about the division it has wrought on the left – witness this thread. (I don’t care if it tears the right to pieces.) I’m not going to reiterate my fears about the political political nature of this controversy, muddied as it is by sexual politics.
Assange may very well be an important 21st century political figure and a harbinger of things to come, but I’m uneasy about the directionlessness of it. I’m all for challenging authority, whether its the state, church or monarchy, but it has to be done in a way that makes a dint or even a change for the better. While its great for journalists, great fo teh intertubes,and Wikileaks is entertaining, its not makingf that much of a dent, and seems slightly purposeless, telling us little an informed political tragic didn’t already surmise if not actually know.
And, to get it in some sort of perspective away from our on-line world – far more people turned out to see Oprah today (or yesterday?)than went to the Wikileaks demo.
@223 – Far more people, I suspect, Paul!
I see Assange much more as the final extrapolation of 80s/90s cyber-hacktivism and libertarianism than a 21st century figure. Some of these tendencies and currents just take some time to have their moment in the sun, is all.
Another thing that’s been troubling me is that insofar as Assange’s legal defence team and supporters appear to be claiming that a prime reason for fighting extradition to Sweden is to avoid putative extradition to the US, I’m left puzzled as to why such a possibility does not exist in the UK (unless he intends to fly to a country without a treaty).
It seems to rest on a fear that he will be held in custody in Sweden, which could be interpreted to lend weight to the view that there is more substance to the allegations than claimed (though it would also be consistent with a view that this is some inevitable consequence of the Swedish penal system).
It does seem to me that there’s a fair bit of obfuscation around the fact that he won’t now – in effect – face the allegations (despite previous claims of willingness), and the attacks on the women concerned have been disgraceful. It also doesn’t seem to me that polarising the whole thing into Assange v. the state does anything else other than represent the flip side of a strategy designed to bring something down by removing its head.
“Joe2, no evidence was presented to Justice Riddle, hence his remark about not knowing the strength of the allegations and his warning that the Swedes would have to provide some evidence at next week’s hearing if they were again going to oppose bail.”
I would have thought the very fact Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish prosecutors, presented no evidence would have been reason enough to give Assange the benefit of the doubt. Not for the judge to make excuses for it not being available because it “is normal at this stage in proceedings”.
They had months to get their shit together and failed.
“…and the attacks on the women concerned have been disgraceful.”
Indeed and so have been some attacks made against Assange, one particularly nasty one on this blog the other day and others also wishing physical harm against him.
Mark @ 224 and 225.
Yes re 80s/90s cyber hacktivism. I hadn’t seen it in that light, so I take your point, though, I’m wondering, as a type whether he isn’t a kind of individualist anarchist. They cross the centuries from 18th to now.
@ 225,
Ah, well, I might as well plunge into dangerous waters, though, as you might have noticed, I ordinarily avoid these gender debates because of the danger of their acrimoniousness. One or two LPers have taken me to task for my mealy-mouthedness in this respect in the past.
Assuming the rape charges might have some foundation, and it would at the very least be ungracious not to, I still see the women as pawns of the state, manipulateds by Swedish authorities into making charges they would rather have not. They are reported as being appalled at the legal situation having got so far out of control, if those reports can be believed. One of them is also reported as having left Sweden and stating she will not come back to testify. One would imagine, at the very least the opprobrium cast on her might be a factor in this. It is the political dimension in this that apalls me, even more than the sexual politics, but that may be because I’m a bloke.
OTOH, Assange asserts his innocence and seems genuinely puzzled as to why this is going on with the women. So its a he said-she said thing. I can understand his reluctance to go to Sweden. He is willing to be interviewed in an Embassy but doesn’t want to go to Sweden itself. My reading of this is that he thinks the Swedish authorities are likely to be much more willing to extradite him to the US after the rape case proceeds, whatever its outcome, than the Brits would be. Of course, once the Americans find a charge to fit him up with, the situation in the UK may change.
Paul, two things:
(a) I don’t see Assange’s mode of action as being democratic – to whom is he accountable? I’d suggest reading something about the dissent within his own ranks and indeed the way this is being viewed by the Swedish left (who mostly see the charges as not conspiratorial). Kim has posted some links above. Again, it’s important to distinguish between the possible democratic effects of Wikileaks, and Assange’s own practice.
(b) I’d also note that it wouldn’t be the first time in history a male activist ‘leader’ has abused power, abused power over women, and even to the extent of committing assaults and crimes. I do not assert that has happened, but it seems to me to be a real possibility significantly under acknowledged.
@227 – I can’t understand that line of reasoning, joe2. Assange seems to have a hell of a lot more defenders out there than those who are speaking on behalf of not traducing the character of accusers of sexual assault. I don’t see the parallel as being particularly forceful or ethically meaningful.
To go back to the Libby Brooks article linked in the OP:
In light of what we have discovered in the course of this thread, Brooks’ highlighted assertion appears to be incorrect.
As we have seen, the mens rea of the alleged victim is given much more weight than the mens rea of the alleged offender.
Why is this significant? It implies that Assange may be extradited back into a legal regime that he would have had no difficulty in understanding when he was having sexual relations with the complainants. But on closer inspection, this presumption is false.
While it is true that ignorance of the law (even in Sweden) is no excuse, nevertheless the mens rea of the alleged offender, so important in the system Assange grew up in will play a much smaller role in any legal proceeding he may face in Sweden.
To draw a current parallel, Afghanistan has draconian blasphemy laws. One could imagine a westerner breaching those laws quite unconsciously. Nevertheless having breached them, s/he has a case to answer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were to issue an arrest warrant to have the accused returned to Afghanistan to face justice there, one might feel some sympathy for ignorance of the alleged offender in this proceeding.
At the very least, one would expect a professional like Brooks to check her facts.
@231 – Katz, it’s not difficult to understand the concept of mutual consent to sex, and withdrawal of consent, whatever country one finds oneself in.
Glen Condell, you indicate endorsement of @199 but your posts @202 and @219 demonstrate a seeming incapacity to follow through on that endorsement. You seem to be conflating these domains, even as you endorse my statement that they do not overlap.
As for this:
WTF????? I will be extremely charitable and lend you the presumption that you left the qualifier ‘falsely’– as in ‘falsely accusing’ — out of that sentence. The alternative is too disgusting to countenance.
As for these, there are a few things I need to fix for you:
Your gendered assumptions are showing, and telling, a lot.
Well, yes, the process for ‘questioning the veracity’ of the allegation (note NOT the person) is called a trial before a jury of peers or a judge in a court convened through due process. Yet you seem to believe that this process is somehow inadequate to the task. Why? Do you have an objection to the formulation of rape trials in general, or just specifically, in this case? And how does that objection square with your endorsement of what I said @199, especially points (2), (4), (6) and (8)?
Furthermore, read Skepticlawyer’s explanation of the Swedish legal system (based on Roman law) @164. It clearly explains that there is no basis in Swedish/Roman jurisprudence for the kind of examination of witnesses that you deem to be so essential. You are universalising English Common Law jurisprudence as an ideal. Worse, you appear to be engaging in solipsism, asserting that “the Law should operate the way I think it should, because I think it should be that way”.
In Sweden, the witnesses are not on trial. If you endorse what I said @199, point (2), how can you object to the basis of Swedish/Roman Jurisprudence which puts the accused, not the witnesses, on trial?
In summary, I don’t accept your endorsement of my remarks, as kindly as you have offered it, because your statements demonstrate that you can’t follow through and apply that endorsement in a fashion consistent with their implications.
That is simplistic.
What constitutes mutual consent appears to be materially different in Sweden and in British law. The devil is in the detail.
To extend my previous parallel, the concept of blasphemy may be quite simple. But what constitutes blasphemy may be quite opaque to an outsider in Afghanistan.
Thank you Mercurius. I will add that if someone does not wish to be seen as minimizing rape they should think twice about dusting off their creaky schoolboy double entendres and using them in the context of an allegation of rape as Glen did at 202.
I recommend the link Fine posted to the documentary on Wikileaks. In particular from about 35 minutes in. Wikileaks is so much more important than the fate of one man and I have no doubt that the forces unleashed will never be fully contained, even given possible future attacks on net neutrality, and the documentary, especially the sequences covering the leaked videos from the Iraqi war, confirms this for me.
Snap.
I can’t wait to see what foam will rise to the surface from the pre-teens of the noughties, which began with Britney Spears and ended with Lady Gaga…
On a more dismaying note, we have yet to see the first real blooms of the “self-esteem” generation, who have been raised to think highly of themselves regardless of their actual level of aptitude, ability or achievement. Should be a right laff.
And now, back on-topic…
Maybe that is because you are looking at matters more general than at the case in hand Mark@230.
It should not be a contest about who has the most support and for all it that Assange is receiving, some of which I sure he would not want, he is the bloke in jail right now. Not the women making possibly false allegations.
Frankly I also find your reasoning on this difficult, as well, but I would not care to judge you for it as you seem to attack me, with regard to my stance.
I strongly support women around the issue you seem to think I am insensitive to but not where what I see and inform myself about tells me otherwise. Cheers.
I’m interested to know how a “21st century” person might go about it.
@237 – I intended no attack, joe2.
@238 – Katz: We’ll see (or perhaps not us personally). There’s a lot of 21st century left.
I doubt many people consider the law when they are having intimate relations. What they should consider is that it’s a space of mutuality, and one in which power imbalances should be minimised. Even that’s far too dry, it’s about respect surely. Sex is an ethical act, fundamentally. Or ought to be.
Pinning someone down with one’s body weight, and initiating sex while they’re asleep, and continuing when displeasure is made manifest, as Assange is alleged to have done, seem to me to be wrong regardless of penal codes.
Well, apparently honey-pots do exist and they aren’t just female.
Sorry, if it’s shit-stirring/off-topic whatever. But while all this debate is going on about the sexual proclivites/offences/whatever of some folks in Sweden, we’re missing opportunities to analyse and learn from this gold-mine of information we have been given. And to be honest, I’m having a hard time following this thread, but truth be told, I never was the sharpest tool in the shed.
If all “wrong” acts were criminal, very few of us would be out of gaol.
Luckily for us all, there is a hiatus between merely “wrong” acts and criminal acts.
Sometimes, it is true, there is a regrettably wide gap between what is rightly considered heinous and what is deemed to be criminal.
I hope Assange will be punished if he has broken the criminal law. I hope he won’t be gaoled merely for being heinous.
“It’s not that I am unconcerned about Ms’s A and B* or that I know Assange to be incapable of what they allege (which is let’s face it, hardly even jail-time worthy)”
Your rape apologia is really showing now. Have a read of a few links which tell you what the allegations are. If true, they’re serious.
“I intended no attack, joe2.”
Oh, ok, it just my “parallel” that is neither “forceful or ethically meaningful”.
Maybe your “put down” would have been a better way of expressing it than “attack”, on my part, Mark.
@241 – Katz, there’s always a gap between law and norms. Prudent people are better off staying within mutually acceptable norms. Sex is an ethical act, or should be, and desire for the other ought to include respect for the other’s desire, or withdrawal of desire. Adults know how to do this.
@243 – joe2, apologies if the language is robust, but there seems to me to be a very serious imbalance in power here between Assange and his multitude of defenders and the women, and one with very serious potential consequences.
Goes without saying Mark.
Every criminal lawyer would then be on the bread line.
Sometimes people make a genuine mistake that causes hurt to others. In jurisdictions that pay attention to the mens rea of the accused, the law is inclined to be indulgent towards these people.
Some aspects of the Swedish rape laws don’t adhere to that principle.
Joe2, ask yourself if you would ever make the following statement in regards to a charge of violent assault, theft, or anything not sexual in nature:
On the contrary Mark@245, in this particular situation, the “very serious imbalance in power” seems squarely on the side of the women. On their word alone Assange is spending 7 nights in Wandsworth prison when there is doubt about their testimony and the process involved in the charges brought against him.
In the context of replying to the comments Mark made @230 which were about a particular, possible, sexual assault I have had no change of heart, Anna@247. Maybe you are being too deep for me.
The complainants are Swedish, and their lawyer had to admit they didn’t know themselves:
Borgstrom told reporters asking about this that the women ”aren’t jurists. They don’t know what rape is.”
Of course, Assange’s Swedish lawyers will attempt to undermine the credibility of the only witness for the prosecution on these points.
As yet undiscussed is how much scope defence lawyers have in Sweden in challenging the credibility of a prosecution witness. That process is quite robust in Australian courts.
Katz,
I think you can be fairly certain, that the defendant, who I believe you’re referring to as the prosecution witness, will not have to testify if by doing so he may incriminate himself. And therein lies the crux. Rewind the last 150+ posts.
Everyone,
my impression is that this thread is about drawing attention to a certain anti-woman consciousness that exists somewhere — on this board, in many places, the actual places is not important. It’s an important discussion (!), but maybe, just maybe, we need to draw a careful distinction between such general matters and current affairs.
No Joe, the prosecution witness(es) is/are the alleged victims.
Katz,
oh, sorry, about that misunderstanding. Oh yeah, of course, Assange’s lawyer.
On the weight of the publicised evidence (I know, I’m going to get flamed for writing this. Apologies in advance.), I just think, this pantomime has to have an ulterior reason.
Anyway, I think we need to see what happens now.
Mark Bahnisch @243 –
Mark, there is an imbalance of power when you consider that the world’s biggest financial institutions, the US government, the Swedish government, and Interpol are taking on a guy who basically lives out of a suitcase.
Joe2 @249, I’m not being “deep” at all. I’m simply asking you to reflect on the fact that there’s rarely any angst in public about people falsely accusing others of theft and violent assault, even though you would assume the likelihood of false accusations would be similar. So it would be a good thing for you to reflect personally on why “false accusation” is considered such a big problem when it comes to rape.
That may or may not be true.
But it is true that those who accuse another of theft or violent assault usually have their names recorded in newspaper accounts of the crime and the subsequent legal proceedings, unlike the alleged victims of rape. So you can see that rape is not seen by authorities as an absolute equivalent of theft or assault.
This policy is taken to absurd levels. The woman who falsely accused Theo Theophanous of rape and who is now in gaol in Greece for criminal defamation still cannot be named in Australian newspapers.
Anna,
you are talking about two women who contacted the media (Expressen) themselves to publicise the case, and to name Assange. That details are out in the public area is all their doing. It seems they want the public to discuss it.
Well, if you play with fire….
Posting from an Internet cafe at balmy Bondi Beach, I want to completely endorse what Kim, su, Fine, Mercurius and Mark have said thus far, as well as seconding Sabbath’s response to pw further up the thread.
Joe2, your beef is with the remand system. At least, it should be. If Assange were accused of non-rape serious charge X, he would still be spending 7 nights in Wandsworth prison, Swedish accuser or no Swedish accuser, female accuser or no female accuser, power imbalance or no power imbalance, doubt or no doubt about the testimony.
Given that your real issue is with the remand system (isn’t it??), you might like to reflect on why you have so strenuously tried to maintain the rage for Assange by casting aspersions in every direction except at the remand system. Unless that is too “deep” for you, of course.
As for this:
Assembling a rape case that will stand up in court in only months would be quite speedy actually. Unless you think that such crimes have a prosecute-by date? In any case, your little throw-away line is yet another in the endless list of moving-goalpost demands that rape culture dictates for what constitutes a “good victim” – you must get yourself raped and then get yourself to a courtroom double-time, girlie.
Sorry if I’m being too “deep”, Joe2. Enjoy your swim in the shallow end!
The Ambassador for Rape Culture expounded…
…but forgot to add, if you dress like that…, if you walk like that…, if you look like that…, if you walk down that street…, if you go to those bars…, if you have that history…, if you spoke up about being raped…, well, you had it coming, bitch…
Uggh, I need to go wash my eyeballs.
Mark, sadly, if your statement were true, then this thread, and thousands like it on the intertubes, would not exist, and the entire history of human sexual relations would be utterly otherwise.
Unfortunately, as this thread spells out in letters a mile-high, it is a very, very, difficult concept for a great many people to understand…
@261
Mercurius, if complainants use the media to publicize their case, is what I meant. I thought that much was obvious. It wouldn’t matter if the case was about child custody, terrorist charges, assault, theft, or defamation.
An example of what I mean: the Haneef case was used by the Howard government as propaganda, but it backfired on them.
I take issue with your patronising tone Mercurius@260 and have no intention of responding any further to other than to say I do not believe what I have argued is “shallow”.
Nor lacking force or ethically meaningless as Mark suggested.
Anna@256 I now understand what you are asking and would say that my intention, here, has been to relate, from what I have learned, what appears to me to have happened to Assange in relation to particular accusations made against him by two young women and his failure to be given bail.
I appreciate that it is the wish of some, like yourself perhaps, to discuss the wider issue of the imbalance of power between males and females when it comes to rape allegations.
This is a matter I can assure you I have reflected on but have intentionally chosen not to engage in this thread because, in my opinion, it just muddies the waters where we are talking a particular case.
In general though I believe we have a long way to go before those subjected to sexual assault and abuse can feel free to bring their concerns to the courts without fear.
It also strikes me as unfair where particular individuals are involved to introduce a more generalised discussion over the top of specific bail proceedings.
Joe at 252 —
and Joe2 at 265 –
The whole point is that in this case, as in practically everything else in the world, the particular arises out of, and is embedded in, the general. They are not separable.
Mark, I think you’re wrong in several ways about this situation.
Firstly, Assange has no power. He had power in the bedroom, but now he’s a supplicant to the state, and it will decide what to do with him. He no longer has any power and – absent the internet campaign against them – the women now have the power. They have two governments moving hell and earth to get this man to trial. They have the power. Which, I would have thought, is how it should be.
Secondly, Assange’s self-aggrandizement is not reducing the whole thing to a sideshow about liberal freedom of speech. What happens to Assange is going to decide for the foreseeable future whether anyone is willing to stick their necks out for a project like this. Do you think if he is extradited to the US he won’t be fessing up a few other names to be destroyed as well? This rape case is a symbol, just like Ibrahim’s sodomy case – you oppose us and we will find your dark secret and destroy you. As ever, The Daily Mash said it best. Even if he doesn’t disappear forever into some dark American hellhole, the point will have been made – your freedom is contingent.
Thirdly, the old refrain for “don’t focus on the man, build a movement” is all well and good but it’s never gonna happen. All that’s left is the man and the website, and for all the elegant discussion of Swedish judicial systems here, the only people who seem to have worked out where the power really lies are the scum at 4chan. More than ever, Assange’s case shows that our only protection is anonymity, and learning to keep your head down when they’re picking the sides.
Which brings me to my final point: this rape trial is never going to happen. If Assange ever gets returned to Sweden he’ll be on a military jet to the US before any court case can get happening. Those women will never get their day in court, and wikileaks will disappear when the people running it see what happens to its representative.
I seriously doubt it. The advisory body for Wikileaks seems to have spent several years working out its logistics before the website ever saw the light of day, and I would be absolutely astonished if they didn’t have several plan B’s to choose from, up to and possibly including some of these alternative leak websites which have sprung up today.
Some of the stated dissatisfaction with Assange’s allegedly autocratic style of management may be true, but that doesn’t mean that spreading the concept around through alternative organisations hasn’t been part of the bigger picture for the transparency movement around Wikileaks right from the start.
Part of the documentary covered the relationship between wikileaks and a private NFP journalism organisation called The Bureau of Investigative Journalism which did a lot of the analysis on the Iraqi war videos and documents. Staff there are being followed, have received death threats and threats against their children and so on. People are already paying a significant personal price for carrying out this work but they continue to do it and I absolutely disagree that the fate of Assange will alter that. There are large numbers of people in TBIJ, Wikileaks and now openleaks who are just as motivated, just as committed and have no illusions about the dangers of what they do, they already pay a price, they have always known the risks but have demonstrated that they believe the outcome is worth that risk.
Anna to Joe:
“I’m simply asking you to reflect on the fact that there’s rarely any angst in public about people falsely accusing others of theft and violent assault, even though you would assume the likelihood of false accusations would be similar. So it would be a good thing for you to reflect personally on why “false accusation” is considered such a big problem when it comes to rape.”
Why?
Because even if you are not convicted of rape, even if the police are, quote, “completely satisfied” a rape never occurred, even if your accuser’s workmates go on telly and say you bragged about the alleged rape after the event, you will still be tarred with the rapist’s brush in the eyes of many. Just ask Matthew Johns.
I’m seeing a great deal of mistrust and anxiety being expressed about the possibility of false accusations of sexual assault.
But given the facts below…
Likelihood of a woman being sexually assaulted in her lifetime – 1 in 6
Likelihood of a man being sexually assualted in his lifetime – 1 in 33
Likelihood of a person being falsely accused of sexual assault in their lifetome – 1 in ?000,000
…a rational man (sic) should be several orders of magnitude more worried about the likelihood of being sexually assaulted than they should be worried about the likelihood of being falsely accused of sexual assault.
Is it possible you could be falsely accused of sexual assault, or that Assange has been? Yes — it is possible in the sense that it doesn’t defy the laws of physics, or logic. But it is far, far likelier that you yourself will be sexually assaulted than you would ever have false accusations levelled against you. If you are a man and your relative level of concern doesn’t reflect these likelihoods, then you have an irrationally high level of fear about the latter, and an irrationally low leval of concern about the former.
Likelihood of a whistleblower being smeared equals…?
Assange is not the whistleblower, that is an interesting mistake and tends to confirm Mark’s analysis of what is happening here. The alleged whistleblower, largely forgotten while people rally for Assange, faces 52 years in prison but very little anxiety has been expressed about the legal proceedings in his case. But to answer your question, the actual whistleblower will be smeared, bullied, sent for psychiatric assessment in close to 100% of cases.
Thanks for the reminder Mercurius.
sg’s comment is also a reminder of Mark’s argument as to why all this hero worship isn’t useful.
Su – technically you’re correct, but a whistleblower needs help. Whistles are fairly loud, but only make noise for whoever’s in earshot, and only for as long as you can keep blowing.
So in the past, whistleblowers would approach a whistle record company, who would record them blowing their whistle, then place that recorded track of whistling in a well-crafted mix, the better to maximise its melodic content for the listener’s enjoyment, then broadcast the finished product for fun and profit.
But over time, most of the largest record companies became unimaginative and shiftless, and risk-averse, and beholden to the very commercial forces they used to themselves control (or at least substantially affect/direct). They recorded fewer and fewer interesting new whistlers, and when they did they just autotuned them and slapped them over the same old tired backing tracks, to make tunes they knew their clients would be happy to sell and wouldn’t cause any major listener backlash.
Meanwhile, they took up amateur whistling themselves – substituting this for their former role as arbiters and analysts of whistling – filling ever greater shelf space with CDs of ponderous, pompous, self-important whistle-muzak.
So now along comes a new piece of technology (that’s the theory anyway) – an open source collaborative whistling sample bank. Now all the mix engineers in the world can hear all these unusual new melodies, and use them in whatever tunes they like.
So if, as I do, you view whistle-blowing as a bigger process than simply whistling, you must conclude that wikileaks (or similar) is integral to the whistleblowing process and will only become more so.
FDB @ 274 I agree with your last paragraph but you are wrong that in the past the traditional media were something like a first port of call, it was more like a desperate last resort because the use of the media has always had some paradoxical effects, one being that the issue could be buried in the back pages and then became old news, not interesting for journalists who place such a premium on novelty, and another being that it made it much harder for people to protect their anonymity.
It was Wikileaks’ creation of an intermediary between people with information and the press that was so crucial because, although clearly not perfect, it did offer greater protection for anonymity, meaning that people had some hope of avoiding the intensely negative effects of whistleblowing, like being saddled with a psychiatric diagnosis.
The risks of publishing were different to the risks of providing the information and although Governments are attempting to treat wikileaks as different to other publishing organisations, I still think it is important to recognize that it is the whistleblower who stands to suffer the most negative consequences.
If you read some of the informal guides about whistleblowing they are very ambivalent about media coverage and, this relates to the other current thread, state that sometime the most beneficial results do not come from revelation and then some sort of outside intervention from the justice system or regulatory bodies but from the growth of local groups of committed people who agitate for reform as a long term project.
Fine, there’s been no ‘hero worship’ of Assange, just an understandable concern for due process. There also seems to be a fair bit of nastiness against those who dare to go against what appears to be the LP consensus on this issue.
That’s OK if you want this blog to become a left-wing version of Catallaxy, because you can silence dissent with insults, patronising put-downs, and misrepresentations, but pretty soon many of these people will simply not return and you’ll all end happily in furious agreement.
The treatment of Glenn Condell is a good example. I remember Glenn from he old Surfdom days, and he was always one of the most reasoned and intelligent of contributors. Here his (in my opinion) worthwhile contributions are not met with constructive opposition or comment, but insult and misrepresentation.
It’s nasty, it’s not constructive and it will inevitably turn worthwhile contributors from this site.
adrian, I have no problem in calling out rape apologists when I read them.
Ah yes. I bet he cries into his fat television paycheck every single week.
The fact that you haven’t seen any, Adrian, doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any.
I’m gunna try this one more time…
Brendon, surely you can see how that same line could be deployed against Assange himself by an unsympathetic person? As in, “if you play with fire by antagonising the most powerful military-industrial complex on Earth…”
Now do you understand why your approach is so very, very, wrong?? Do get why victim-blaming is never OK?
I have to say that though I frequently find the ‘hero worship = bad politics’ line reasonably convincing, I’m not convinced it applies in this type of case.
Id wager most people going to rallies (which incidentally are now called “Defend Assange and Wikileaks” rather than “Free Assange” – which I have to tell you is very ‘last week’!) are doing so to:
a. Defend Wikileaks from fairly hysterical, and, it must be said, hugely misleading campaigns by govts AND /OR
b. Because Assange has become a symbol, at least partly as the US govt has decided he rather than Wikileaks is the easier target for their anger. Bear in mind here that potential charges on espionage, ‘treason’, computer related charges, even receiving stolen goods are all being mooted publicly. Id wager very few are motivated by a desire to “free” him from the Swedish charges (provided they are made with due and fair process).
More broadly: This is very much in the tried and true ‘Amnesty International’ mode of activism: you highlight the plight of individuals to demonstrate the wider political freedom at stake. This in itself replicates our international refugee regime – which has never been concerned with groups as a whole, or altering the situation so much as protecting individuals who are the victims, and represent the wrong being done.
However, this IS in itself a systemic critique: No – the international community will NOT respect your ‘state sovereignty’ on this issue; we will label your so-called “prosecution” an act of “persecution”; and we will defend the individual in flight.
Admittedly, its a liberal humanist / liberal internationalist mode of doing so – but there is a tradition here with a long history. Its by no means a simply case of “elevating the individual, obscuring the issue”. There a deep-rooted liberal internationalist strategy here with an extensive history.
Of course blaming the victim is wrong, it’s just at this point it’s unclear who the victim/s actually is/are. That I would think is up to a court to decide, if it ever gets to court.
It’s a disturbing state of affairs where hitherto uncontroversial statements adhering to basic principles of our legal system are being interpreted apologies for rape etc etc FFS.
… which arguably has had a long history of elevating the individual and obscuring the issue, Lefty E! I’m not sure things are as clear cut as you suggest. Remember:
(a) few people go to rallies;
(b) most people are paying little attention – therefore the Assange freedom stuff may be what comes across – always easier to dramatise personal motives. Note a hell of a lot more profiles of Assange in the weekend papers (which a lot of people still read) than analyses of what’s occurring;
(c) symbolic implications of wearing Assange masks at rallies – translated to news and tv coverage, and all the people turning Assange into their profile pic on Facebook, how that’s read by others.
Plus, the extradition stoushes will soon dominate the headlines – again, a story about an individual and his rights, dramas, etc.
Ps, Lefty E – on Facebook just now, from EFA (probably went to Twitter as well):
Note also all the comparisons to David Hicks, the nationalistic discourse about the rights of citizens, and a plethora of stuff I’ve been seeing all day about “freedom of speech”.
This stuff gets circulated/disseminated and discussed much more than the actual content.
All possibly true and potentially concerning from one angle Mark – but anyone actually noticing any of that happening (and lets not assume that’s a majority of the public) would also presumably notice the daily “leak story” in any major paper. Its difficult to see how a reader of the news could avoid the wider story.
More generally: Im wouldn’t say its my favoured brand of progressive politics either Mark – but I would question the assumption that its simply a case of raising the individual at the expense of the issue.
eg Aung San Suu Kyi: there’ could scarce be a bigger case a “hero-worship” in the sense of elevating the individual – but Id be surprised if anyone remotely interested in her story didn’t understand there was an authoritarian Burmese military regime behind her persecution.
Certainly, I for one would hesitate before concluding “Free Aung” T-shirts werre holding the cause back!
I know youre not saying that, but I wonder if the category of people likely to express any interest in the person are really poorly informed enough to miss what its really all about.
OK, but here in Melbs its definitely called ‘Defend Julian Assange & Wikileaks’
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=167587746610490
I don’t know, Lefty E, but I’m seeing people I know from activist circles on Facebook and Twitter posting tons of stuff about “Liberate Assange” and “Freedom of Speech”…
A military regime for which Aung San Suu Kyi is a synechdoche for opposition to is also an easier story to tell – everyone knows “we” should be opposed to “dictatorship”. The threads of this one are much more messy – because it’s a discussion from within the metropole about the behaviour and actions of the imperial centre. So, therefore, easily assimilable into a pattern of “defend dissident x’s legal rights” traditions, and generally difficult to keep distinct from becoming an argument within the liberal order.
Hence my point in the Theses posts – it would be better to view this from the periphery, where Assange’s celebrity characteristics are likely to be much less culturally visible.
If it all becomes a shitty little argument about the right to publish, and liberal freedoms, the political heft has pretty much gone out of it.
The other danger is for it to become a story/conflict about the rights of the media/the wonders of new media. No more apolitical and tedious frame could be imagined. “Implications for journalism”…
Hey Adrian, nice to see your moniker again
I had a rare lazy Sunday afternoon yesterday and thought I’d have a surf and a spray, just like the old days.
To my mind this forum lacks the character of some we used to inhabit, there’s a depressingly grey, censorious academic sameness to much of the commentary. Exceptions abound, but not as many as you’d like.
Mark, sorry to mention the names of the two women concerned. I hadn’t twigged to the protocol here on this (it is the first place I have seen it employed). As for your comments at 211:
‘the reductive focus on Assange creates both a politically regressive notion that individuals can somehow save the world, not collective action.’
Well I’m a little more sanguine about the capacity of collective action to save the world in these fearfully conformist and socially atomised times. Examples of success? In any case, collective action is arranged by individuals and those that do best are characterised by charismatic and effective leadership. The other thing to say here is that by it’s very nature – being a necessarily secretive group trying to expose the lies of powerful governments and institutions) who will stop at nothing to stop them – Wikileaks and similar outfits do not exactly lend themselves to broad counsultative management, do they? Even a Politburo style set-up would pose problems. For Assange to deploy the materials effectively and manage his own movements safely and flexibly he would need far more freedom to decide things on the run by himself than would your average CEO.
There may be a way forward for a Wikileaks governed by committee but I’ve not seen it yet and would have doubts about its effectiveness.
‘It also has the effect that the real ramifications of what’s going on are pretty much tossed out the window’
How are the ‘real ramifications of what’s going on’ destroyed by a perceived focus on Assange himself? Surely the sight of this man being pursued by the most powerful forces on earth concentrates the mind more effectively than a diffuse argument with some sort of Wiki board of trustees? I would argue that the real ramifications are more clearly demonstrated by this hounding of an identifiable individual than they would be by a group, which also increases the risk of the goals of the setup being suborned either by dissenters operating in good faith, or by infiltrators.
‘and the agenda for discourse is now set by a bunch of ‘celebrity’ ‘human rights activists’ such as Jemima Khan and John Pilger’
Oh for God’s sake, leave them alone. Jemima Khan nee Goldsmith is a brave lady, one who has been unafraid to ruffle for example the feathers of her local Israel Lobby in the pages of the Guardian and elsewhere. She can’t halp having been born into a prominent family and marrying a famous sportsman. Her heart is in the right place and I find it hard to see that comment as much more than an ill-informed sneer.
As for Pilger, well we’ve come to a pretty pass when John Pilger is belittled on an Aussie progblog. Which of Mr Pilger’s stances do you find hard to stomach Mark? Or is it just him and his holier than thou airs, his admintory vicar’s droning voice, whatever?
‘Consequently, I see no one marching in the streets protesting about US imperialism and the revelations of how power actually works.’
Well I was there on Saturday – were you? Did you perhaps ask any of us why we were there or did you just assume that we were all there to save Our Julian? I was there because I am over seeing my government toss our sovereignty overboard every time they think they need to come to heel. Because I see the hounding of Assange as a harbinger, and a warning. And because, believe it or not, I want to see the sunlight he has provided on ‘US imperialism and how power actually works’ continue to shine brightly into the future so that we may negotiate its challenges with a bit more confidence and a bit less fear.
Mercurius
oh all right, sorry to have mentioned you, keep your hair on.
Good comment from sg: ‘This rape case is a symbol, just like Ibrahim’s sodomy case – you oppose us and we will find your dark secret and destroy you.’
(I would quibble and add ‘real or imagined’ to the dark secrets)
Well it’s a rape case too, but it is possibly another in a long and less than honourable line – Hans Blix went to bordellos remember? And Scott Ritter was a kiddy fiddler, recall? David Kelly was ‘under extreme pressure’ and then all of a sudden he wasn’t. Look out if you stand between the Americans and whatver the hell they want. Why indeed did Hillary command that diplomats and intel operatives try to steral the credit card and ID details of foreign diplomats and politicians? Could it be to make such smearing easier? This is the type of regime we are dealing with and that Wleaks is trying to white-ant.
News this am is that the US is preparing charges to lay against Assange. Will Sweden extradite? Of course, the US could just swopp in secretly and rendition him to some black hole somewhere (as they reserve the right to do to any one of us, don’t forget) but I think they will restrain themselves and follow the correct form. But once they have him in their grasp, who knows?
If he disappears I’d hope some of you might venture out to protest in support, not just of Wikileaks but of Assange himself.
What we need now are a few more Wiki leaks – one from McClelland’s office over the last few weeks, and one from a mole buried deep in the Swedish Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Agree with 288, Mark. I dont quite see what the alternative is though when the avenue of legal prosecution & defence has already been chosen for him, by a powerful state.
I certainly believe we need to run the “what does this material tell us about imperium” line in parallel.
That will be hard – but dare I say, it was always going to be, ‘Assange cult’ or no!
Perhaps where we differ is I’m not convinced the Amnesty style liberal internationalist approach is an enemy/ distraction in that task; it could even be an ally.
These people are organising the wrong rally.
Assange isn’t Wikileaks.
Wikileaks isn’t the leaker.
The leaker is already rotting in a US Military Prison, and none of the douches on 4Chan seem to give a hoot about him.
Assange has explained in public statements — and I take him at his word on this — that he was reluctant for a long time to become ‘the face of Wikileaks’ or have anyone’s personal identity associated with the project for the exact reason that it would tend to fuse his personal identity with that of Wikileaks in the public imagination. He (and Wikileaks) were stronger when they were Anonymous — he referenced the Bourbaki mathematicians. He was, and is, right, and if only his ‘followers’ would heed his words.
Leaders like Mandela and Suu Kyi (and Liu Xiaobo) had to do a lot of hard time in hard places before anybody in the ‘liberal humanist/liberal internationalist’ got too het up about their plight. Yet apparently seven days in remand is an unbearable *outrage*, according to some of the sentiments expressed upthread. Even Assange doesn’t seem too ruffled right now — the strongest public expression he has made is that he is ‘disappointed’ by the abuse and manipulation of the Swedish legal system.
Assange already has a level of high-profile international support that took years if not decades to coalesce for the likes of Mandela and Suu Kyi (and that’s a good thing). Don’t cry for him, yet, Argentina.
“Implications for journalism”… Agreed there.
Or equally bad would be some “the internet and free speech in the 21C, FTW is happening?” type yawn.
Or even a sole focus on “free speech” etc, rather than the behaviors of the state in question. On this we agree.
My concern would be, however, that drift too far and exclusively from the liberal order around alleged political freedoms, and rights of citizens to information which affects them and we cease pointing out contradictions in the system, and end up once again ranting from the sidelines. ie ignored.
Gramsci would surely approve of pointing out contradictions in liberal democratic discourse as a means of developing political consciousness. We have some gaping holes at the present conjuncture, not just the secret state, unaccountable elites, shady corporate deals masquerading as “national security” but also GFC bailouts, “save the Billionaires!” nonsense as well.
Again, too: the speech from the dock is a great historical institution which remind us that power’s attempts to individualise and criminalise a wider political issue are frequently doomed to complete failure; and supporting the emblem aint always a failed movement strategy.
Plus: it works. This the Irish know well: you cant write a popular song about systemic causes. But you can about Bold Robert Emmett, Pearse & Mcdermott, or Roddy McCorley.
adrian, do you realise one of the tactics of rape apologists is to blame the complainants, which is precisely what you’re doing with your line about not knowing who the victim is.
There seems to be this total confusion that canvassing the idea that the women maybe telling the truth somehow contradicts the presumption of innocence. No, it doesn’t. Glenn Condell said the women were on trial. No, they’re not. That’s a complete reversal of legal process. Admittedly, that’s what women have had to put up with for years. Barristers who have attempted to discredit their story by questioning their motivations, their behaviour etc. That’s why it’s so hard for women to go to the police with rape allegations. They know they’ll be the one’s put on trial. That’s how misogyny works.
You know what I’m sick of? People saying that of course victim blaming is wrong and then doing precisely that.
Mandela and Suu Kyi were/are also in a position to have a direct impact upon the abuses which brought them to prominence, whereas Assange is far removed. Brigitta Jonsdottir says towards the end of the documentary that what has happened is that Wikileaks and Assange have become THE story, rather than the information they provide, and as she says “that is not what wikileaks is about.” So her concerns are clearly along similar lines to those raised by Mark, Kim and Mercurius.
“Wikileaks and Assange have become THE story, rather than the information they provide”
Well, I challenge anyone to look at any Western paper today and tell me that is so.
My copy of today’s Age, for example:
Front page:
1. leak about Iran and fear of Nuclear War
2. Associated leak about Ahmedinijab
Page 4
3. Wikleaks bad say soldiers in ADF
4. US -NZ alliance back on, according to leak
5. More on front page leak stories
PAge13
6. Op ed about how something else would replace Wiileaks even if it were stopped, misleading public much harder now, has implications, Assange may pay price for “his role in this inevitable development”
OK, thats just one paper on one day, but aside from number 3, it simply wasnt true that Assange ‘was the story’ at all.
(….Maybe on the blogs its true!!?)
Fine, I find your line about rape apologists deeply offensive, particularly as I am simply pointing out the obvious.
Anyway, it’s pointless discussing this matter further.
@296 – Lefty E, but the newspapers are a poor guide to political discussion/activist response. Note also their inability/refusal to synthesise.
I also think that focus will change as further legal proceedings begin, your cosmopolitan/internationalist/humanitarian/liberals really ramp up their discourse.
Well as you say, one paper on one day Lefty E, but it is clearly something that some Wikileaks personnel were concerned about – that the organisation and/or its figurehead would draw attention away from the information, hence Domscheit-Berg’s decision that Openleaks would not publish any information, it would just be a conduit.
@277
I’m sorry you feel that way, Adrian. Perhaps, since you’ve found it to be such a bruising experience, you might yet be able to find some sort of shared perspective with what complainants who bring rape cases routinely have to deal with. If you multiply your travails by about, oh, a hundred.
I think you have established, conclusively, Mercurius, that you are the only one of us capable of feeling and understanding the pain levels of both women and men in adversity, but do you need to go on about it?
Mercurius said:
‘But given the facts below…
Likelihood of a woman being sexually assaulted in her lifetime – 1 in 6
Likelihood of a man being sexually assualted in his lifetime – 1 in 33
Likelihood of a person being falsely accused of sexual assault in their lifetome – 1 in ?000,000
…a rational man (sic) should be several orders of magnitude more worried about the likelihood of being sexually assaulted than they should be worried about the likelihood of being falsely accused of sexual assault.’
That might be true of you or me mate, but it’s not if your name is Julian Assange, or Scott Ritter, or Hans Blix, or anyone else who has the courage to stand four square against the imperial power. I reckon you’re pretty safe calling yourself Mercurius on a middling blog at the arse end of the world, but if you inserted yourself into the pointy end like Assange has had the courage to do, you might find your odds a bit on the long side.
Really, how dense can an intelligent person be?
‘Is it possible you could be falsely accused of sexual assault, or that Assange has been? Yes — it is possible in the sense that it doesn’t defy the laws of physics, or logic. ‘
A pearler that one. But it is topped by this:
‘But it is far, far likelier that you yourself will be sexually assaulted than you would ever have false accusations levelled against you’
Again possibly true of your garden variety punter, but Assange?
If you can’t see that such a person is far more likely to be so accused and that those most likely to do so have runs on the board in that regard, your naivete precludes your being taken very seriously in any discussion on the subject.
I don’t think the turn this discussion has taken is particularly edifying. Everyone should read and abide by the comments policy guidelines on treating other commenters with respect.
“This the Irish know well: you cant write a popular song about systemic causes. But you can about Bold Robert Emmett, Pearse & Mcdermott, or Roddy McCorley.”
Yup.
Show me the major cause with no leader, and I will show you a failed cause.
leaderSHIP, I ought to say. There needn’t be only one.
Glenn, nice spray. Now, if I were in Assange’s shoes, and I knew that Geoffrey Robertson had my back, I’d sleep very soundly in any size cell.
Certainly more soundly than a whole lot of people throughout history who had “the courage to stand four square against the imperial power”, yet spent years or decades in a cell before anybody outside even knew their name, and who had never been charged with anything of substance — falsely or no — much less afforded due process. Contrast that with a guy who is on remand for, so far, less than a week.
If Assange is innocent of any crime then it is awful that he has been detained for any period of time — but as I have repeatedly tried (and somehow failed) to get the point across — the problem lies then with the remand system, and the fact that innocent people do end up incarcerated — and which system would continue to operate in the sledgehammer fashion it does now regardless of what charges Assange or anybody else faced, and regardless of any of the multifarious issues of sexual politics and what-have-you that have been endlessly picked over upthread.
I fail to see why people can’t let go of their hobby-horses around rape trials when the proximal reason Assange is in prison is because of the decision of a UK bail judge operating under the strictures of the remand system in the UK. You want a villain to boo-hiss? Go for the guy in the wig!
“I fail to see why people can’t let go of their hobby-horses around rape trials when the proximal reason Assange is in prison is because of the decision of a UK bail judge operating under the strictures of the remand system in the UK.”
Your qualifier is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and deserves to have its heroic contribution recognised.
FDB – it may be a counterfactual, but it’s nevertheless true that Assange could’ve been accused of you know, not just Swedish-you-call-that-rape? but even well-OK-I’ll-accept-that-could-be-considered-rape-in-a-certain-light or even, heaven help him, actual-real-rape-rape, and eating babies, and defrauding millions, and, and, and…yet could still be out on bail preparing his defence while couch-surfing in some plush London apartment.
The reason he isn’t preparing his defence while couch-surfing in some plush London apartment is because of the remand system. Is that really so hard to accept?
Phew, that’s a relief, seeing as Mercurius is, you know, my name. I mean, I tried Fifi Trixibel Remoulade III for a while, but I just couldn’t carry it off.
Mercurius, I think you’re going a little off-base here. You seem to be saying that we should all respect immediately without question the trouble that rape victims have bringing a case to trial, while at the same time you seem to be saying that Assange hasn’t suffered at all compared to suu kyi and Mandela, so we should just get over it until he suffers some more appropriate level of pain. I can’t square those two principles very well.
All this talk of rape-apologism is bullshit, too. Nobody here is offering such rhetoric. Some people are offering the possibility that these rapes are false. Trumped up. Politicized. The long pedigree of US involvement in such cases has been presented. I pointed out at the beginning of the thread that you can’t raise this possibility without impugning the credibility of the witnesses. In this case, it has to be done, because it’s not a normal case. It would be nice if we could ignore the underlying issue here but we can’t.
In fact, today’s wikileaks info includes strong evidence that the UK Government assassinated a human rights lawyer and has been refusing to cooperate with inquiries for 20 years. They kill people who do things they don’t like. It’s a little silly to pretend that a false rape accusation is beyond them.
Lefties are fond of saying “I can walk and chew gum at the same time.” We should try it in this case: we can all respect the importance of treating rape as a serious crime and not shaming the victims, while recognizing the very real possibility that this case is a trumped up, false attempt to keep Assange pinned down until he can be extradited to join his source in hell. And we need to accept that this involves questioning the validity of this rape case.
Oh and Fine, you won’t find any hero worship from me, and if you re-read my comments here that should be obvious.
The other counterfactual is that absent the success of wikileaks, he’d just be tooling around being a narcissistic douchebag on the internet – you and I take this freedom for granted – with no charges laid.
Oh wait, no charges have been laid.
I don’t know whether this thread makes me laugh or cry. I think it makes me give up.
Incidentally, Mercurius, those rape figures you quote above are bullshit, and I think you know it. There is no definitive statistic on the proportion of women who have been raped, sexually assaulted, or harrassed, nor of men, and that 1 in 6 figure is not correct.
sg @ 309,
Hear hear. Good to see somebody put it so clearly.
@313 – Yes, it’s clear for all intents and purposes that we *have* to question the motives, whatevs, of the women because of Assange’s political activity. FFS. It’s nothing but the same stuff that’s been peddled throughout this thread, and pretty much everywhere else.
SG – I wouldn’t be so sure about doubting the 1/6 figure.
Of the women I’m confident I know well enough, the figure sounds about right.
You know, important blokes’ business, wimminz interfering, probs inspired by CIA.
Just dressed up in much more verbiage.
?
Yes, sg has really hit the old nail on the head @ 309.
“You know, important blokes’ business, wimminz interfering, probs inspired by CIA.
Just dressed up in much more verbiage.”
This sort of verballing is meant to help how?
Statistics: http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html
It means I’m pissed off with a thousand different ways to say that it’s legitimate to dismiss allegations of sexual assault.
I’d have thought the contradictions in this paragraph were obvious.
Compromise does not entail contradiction Kim.
not shaming the victims
a trumped up, false attempt to keep Assange pinned down
If the victims weren’t involved in said trumped, up, false attempt, then how can that be?
What we have here is a bit of pious rhetoric, followed up by… shaming the victims.
I bloody well hope that the use of the phrase “pinned down” is coincidental – since Assange stands accused of having pinned one of the women down with his body weight. Something I’m sure sg knows.
Meanwhile, some links:
http://www.boganette.com/2010/12/wikileaks-rape-apologist-bingo-part-z.html
http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2010/12/rape-myths-and-julian-assange.html
http://fightingthesky.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/link-roundup-assange-rape-case/
Ive been steering clear of the rape-allegations side of this debate lately, but might I suggest the following:
1. Let not presume the allegations are false just because of the timing and inconvenience to other issue being played out.
2. Lets not presume they are true just because allegations have been made. This is not in any way a betrayal of feminism, as several women’s organisations have already pointed out. There is, sadly, a non-dismissable possibility in this case that the process has been politicised, exaggerated, or was even a trap from the start. There is also the possibility that it hasnt.
3. Id support ANYONE in their attempt NOT to be deported from country A (where they face criminal charges) to country B (where they nakedly trumped up political charges).
Boganette:
Here’s a Gednakenspiel for you:
Kim makes another thread where she frames rape in terms of sexual discrimination, someone brings up the Julian Assange case, but from the outset the context is sexual discrimination.
@327 – Too deep for me, dude.
As I understand it, Kim, the women did not lay the charge/initiate the investgation or whatever it is the stage the process is up to at the moment.. The Swedish prosecutor did. And both women were alleged to be appalled that the legal procedures had gone so far and were virtually out of their control.
But hey, I won’t go any further, but will revert to my usual attitude of never participating in gender debates on LP. And if you want to know why I generally take that stance, just look through some of the comments on this thread.
@329 –
Paul – why is this being repeated? I’ve posted, about three times I think on this thread, a link to an interview in The Guardian with the lawyer for the two women, who’s made it clear that he represents them in this matter, and that they want the allegations sustained in a Swedish court. Yet some rumours from the intertubes continue to be repeated, and then used to hang a conclusion on.
I’ve also made that point before on this thread.
Well people, if you’re going to start doubting rape statistics without even a reason as to why…you are engaging in exactly the type of minimisation Kim and Mercurius and Co been denunciating for the past zillion comments.
And this is why we can’t have nice things.
Such as civilised discourse and threads that don’t run in circles.
PS. Oh, and to compound the head-desk-moment of such doubt, inaccuracy in rape statistics is likely to come from *undereporting*. The head. It explodes.
This reminds me of the sort of argument were 3/4 of the argument is building you up for the realisation that it was the counter argument. Here you have people responding to an argument about sexual discrimination and rape but initially at least in an unguarded kind of way, because the main game is wikileaks.
But- quelle surprise, or whatever, youse been had! That’s what I mean.
Whatever you say, dude.
For shizzle!
I missed that one: comment was tl;dr
According to Eugene Kanin’s paper “False Rape Allegations” published in Archives of Sexual Behavior February, 1994 volume, 40% of rape allegations made over a nine year period were determined to be false in a mid-sized American town. I think this study needs to be borne in mind when consider the prevalence of false accusations. Naturally, such a statistic tells us nothing about particular cases.
As an aside, I note that Kanin’s work has been cited approvingly at the feminist blog Hoyden About Town on several occasions including here: http://hoydenabouttown.com/20090312.2130/rape-myths-rape-myth-acceptance-and-community-perceptions-of-victims-of-sexual-violence/
While women do lie about rape, I re-iterate my point that each individual case should be judged on its merits in a court of law. Trial by blog is distasteful, to say the very least.
Sg: These are all quotes from LP over the last few days-
“Even if someone is asleep, unless they have been drugged, they would need to say stop as I’m sure you wake up pretty quickly”
” But who is it that “redefines” rape away from rape, so that, so that we end up with a case like Assange’s, where there is no actul rape, ecept by the arbitrary pronouncements and definitions offeredby the pedatic and the sexual Taylorists with their stopwatches?”
” And since when was consensual sex (admitted by all involved) rape?”
“The thread topic concerned the real world problems associated with Wikileaks exposure of the system, not women’s policing of the sexual economy in bourgeois society. Assange is a- powerless- victim of a form of psychic rape perpetrated by vested interests,”
“Is this stupid middle class stuck up woman for real? She bags a celebrity, boasts about it, calls herself a feminist, then has him charged with a bad attitude.
Of course she is lying. They could not have charged him with the initial rape charge without her say so.”
“Hell, he might well have attitude problems and be a lousy root, he might even hate women, but he hasn’t committed rape or what any normal country would consider a crime”
“And anybody who still believes that these sex charges are merely coincidental must surely believe in the tooth fairy.”
No we didn’t imagine the rape apologism.
@335 – Rule #8729303303 of the Intertubes: Threads concerning allegations of sexual assault must contain disputation about statistics.
@336 – su, I should note that the person responsible for a lot of that shit is now complaining about being a “victim of censorship”.
Yep, we’re all about censoring such deep political insights and profound contributions to debate (!@#!$!$!!@@@)
That’s what we’re here for, folks. Come back soon, we’re here at least til we forget to re-register the domain name again!
KIm,
Your fellow moderator, Mercurious, presented a statistic on false rape allegations without a link to any evidence. I thought it prudent and proper to provide a response. My apologies if this causes offence.
Sheep weather alert(you seem familiar), there are local studies: here’s one that puts the rate of false allegations at 2.5%, in general it is said that the rate is around the same for false reports of other crimes.
Speaking for myself, but if I’m going to get my Wikileaks-related Two Minutes
HateShaming on, I’m reserving it just for one Adrian Lamo. He’s the assflange who dobbed Bradley Manning in.Actually the report you cite does not “put … the rate of false allegations at 2.5%”
The researchers did nothing more than examine the Victoria Police LEAP database and they found:
“In 17 cases (2.1%), the case outcome was clearly categorised as a false report and the alleged victim was either charged or told that she (there were no male victims among these 17 cases) would be charged unless she dropped the complaint. The report states that, while this only represents a fraction of the sample, there were a much larger proportion of cases where police were confident, or reasonably confident, that the allegations were false, but there was no attempt to institute charges against the alleged victim.”
su, must read link. Thank you.
Mercurius presented statistics on sexual assault and then proceeded to discuss statistics on false rape allegations. They’re not the same thing and they shouldn’t be conflated. We’re talking about rape charges here, not sexual assault. Nothing I’ve seen in the allegations made suggests that they’re in anyway congruent with the 1/6 figure that Mercurius quotes – legally they appear to be much more serious than sexual assault. (and no, claiming that rape and sexual assault are not the same thing is not the same thing as “belittling sexual assault”).
This is why discussions about rape end up in a debate about statistics – because people quote sexual assault statistics instead of rape stats, in a discussion about false accusations of rape.
Kim, that “pinned down” comment is really poor form. The purpose of these charges is to get Assange in jail so that he can be extradited to the US. I’m allowed to call that “Pinning someone down” regardless of what he did to someone else. The defendant has rights too, right?
That shit about “important men’s business, women interfering” is also rubbish as well. The “important men’s business” being revealed by wikileaks concerns a large amount of crimes against women by men (e.g. what Shell have been up to in Nigeria, all that stuff done to civilians in Afghanistan, support for Saudi Arabia). We also know (as has been pointed out time and again) that sexual assault and rape and paedophilia are the preferred method for discrediting enemies of the state. So let’s not pretend that everyone who’s suspicious about these charges just wants the women out of the room.
su, you seem to have quoted from only one or two people. Maybe my “nobody” was exaggerated, but the point stands: most people are aware that the charges have a high risk of being trumped up. That doesn’t make them rape apologists or denialists or anything else, and we can all do it without making misogynist claims.
Ok, I’m drawing a line under the discussion of statistics. The point is to discuss the protocols of not automatically subjecting women who make allegations to disbelief and scorn. The discussion of statistics from the point of view of trying to find numbers alleged to indicate the rate of “false allegations” clearly is very loaded indeed in this context, and defeats the purpose of the thread.
All further comments in that vein will be deleted as off topic.
I have no idea what your choice of language has to do with Assange’s rights, sg. What you need to consider is the highly offensive and inappropriate nature of using that language in this context. It’s clear that you understand what I mean. It’s actually quite a strange construction to use about someone’s imprisonment on remand, I’d suggest.
I’ll also observe that your language about him is measured, whereas as soon as you start discussing the putative necessity of examining the motives of the women, we start reading stuff like “false. Trumped up. Politicized.” It is possible, also, to contemplate the way in which this matter has been prosecuted, and the trail of events which led to his arrest and proceedings in the UK, without necessarily believing or implying that the women had some sort of political motivation, or that they’re responsible in some way for the actions of various state authorities.
That would seem to me to be the more prudent and judicious course to adopt, given what you say about “respect the importance of treating rape as a serious crime and not shaming the victims”.
Not only is it possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, the range of possible alternatives are not limited to the two you set out ie Assange is guilty, he was framed by the women. In other words, the simple dichotomy which leads to an exception to the rule a lot of people want to make here is based on a false set of presumptions. That should be very clear, and the expectation that women who are subjected to sexual assault have to act in a stipulated manner, conduct themselves just so, in order not to attract suspicion is obviously in play in this discussion.
You’re implying that some language is reserved only for the victims Kim, by dint of its having been in the statement of facts about the case, but that’s just not reasonable. “Pinning someone down” is pretty common usage for a moving target, and I used the words in that context – nothing more and nothing less. You’re the person implying some sinister motive or carelessness behind my remarks.
Similarly with claims that I’m using measured language about Assange, but not about the women. Where do the words “false. Trumped up. Politicized” imply that this is the motive of the complainants? They’re clearly about the prosecuting authorities. As for measured language about Assange – I made it pretty clear early on in the thread that I think he has been “behaving odiously” at the same time as I made it clear that questioning the validity of the case is independent of opinions about the women.
I have nowhere implied anything about the political motivation of the complainants. I have pointed out I don’t think they’ll get their day in court, implying I think they’re being used. I genuinely don’t have an opinion about their motives, though I’ve made it clear that I think speculation on and questioning of their motives is inevitable given the assumption that it’s a political case.
I haven’t set out two possible alternatives of 1) women lied or 2) women told the truth. I haven’t set out any alternatives vis a vis the women. I have simply pointed out that the case is almost certainly trumped up. That could mean that the women have been induced to reopen the case, that it’s independent of them and they now have to play along as witnesses, that they lied from the start, that they were “honeytraps”, whatever. My suspicions about this case do not preclude the possibility that the women are genuinely aggrieved victims [and now I'm sure someone is going to jump on this statement as if I'm being condescending].
The only alternative I haven’t considered is the possibility that the timing of the court case is unrelated to the wikileaks situation. Because to assume so would be tragically naive, in the context of governments who murder their political opponents in front of their families. And if we assume the timing is related, we are essentially assuming that the case is political, not about justice, with all the implications for complainant shaming that potentially flow from that suspicion, as I mentioned all the way back at comment 4.
No, the charges are of rape, sexual assault and the apparently virtually untranslatable ofredande or misconduct.
4 and there are more examples. Glenn Condell says the rape/assault/misconduct allegations are “let’s face it, hardly even jail-time worthy” and then acts all shocked that anyone would consider this to constitute a minimization of rape.
Nobody is an absolute term not some sort of sliding scale so it was your point, and no, it doesn’t “stand”.
High risk according to what, that infallible internal barometer you have? Common sense? A risk that is rather difficult to quantify I should say. Evidently it is exceptionally difficult for some to “do it” without making misogynist claims. It is also apparently difficult to do so without making claims to knowledge they cannot possibly have, continually getting known facts wrong, confusing ranty-boy hearsay for “evidence”, making proclamations of guilt(of the women, of course) or innocence in advance of charges being laid, let alone a judgement being reached and using base insults to describe the complainants. I defy you to find a single comment in reply to that fucking load of ordure above that plumbs similar depths in their characterisation of the accused.
sg – I’ve been walking and chewing gum since @199.
It might seem that way to you sg, but in line with my earlier comments that some people’s level of fear of false accusation is out of proportion to the likelihood of it happening, some people’s level of outrage is out of proportion to what Assange has had to deal with to date. He himself seems like a very cool customer — some of his supporters should take a leaf from his book. I repeat: If I were in his shoes, with the sort of high-calibre and high-profile people who are already leaping to his defence, I’d sleep very well in my cell. For serious.
BTW I’m still waiting for the ‘Free Bradley Manning’ rally.
Also, I think Glenn Condell and Brendon have provided us with another of those handy verb conjugation thingumies…It goes something like this…
I am on a middling blog in the arse end of the world.
He is standing four square against the imperial power.
She is playing with fire.
Have I got the grammar right?
He’s tough, he’s cool, got influential friends… a cot in Wandsworth would be a soda for me.
I think we have it already, Mercurius. Well done!
But never that particular study, which cites uncritically the self-reports of an unnamed police force in an unnamed town so that nobody else can ever check his work. Indeed, the widespread criticism Kanin received for his methodology in that study is probably why he lifted his game in his later work.
Sorry Kim, just read your previous about no more stats stuff in this thread. Sorry, please feel free to delete my comment above.
You’re ‘allowed’ to say whatever you like. The corollary of free speech is that you take responsibility for whatever you’ve freely said and cop whatever response you get.
come on Pavlov’s Cat, don’t be facetious. In this context “allowed” doesn’t mean “you can’t censor me.” It means that a common term in the english language, typically used to describe stopping someone from moving around, is suitable description for what is being done to Assange, regardless of whether it was also used in a charge sheet for a rape.
Yes Mercurius, you’re giving the impression that people should have to suffer some certain amount before warranting our sympathy. By extension in this case, the possibility that he’s being targeted by shady international dealers doesn’t deserve consideration because he has rich and powerful friends, right?
The “free bradley manning rally” aside is pretty rank too. We’re all just a bunch of hero-worshippers tricked by the media fascination on this one man, right?
su, I agree that some of the comments here have been off, but as I observed before things took a turn Southwards, a lot of the suspicions directed at the case, no matter how measured the tone they take, are going to appear ordurous. Look at your rogues’ gallery of nasty phrases, and you’ll see that even the most a-(un-) misogynist version of them is going to be unpleasant. The reality is that we [by we here I mean reasonable people with a sensible understanding of rape] don’t question the case at all until it goes to court, and naturally assume that the complainant is serious and not vexatious. As I have said multiple times, it’s not possible to be so sanguine in this case, because of the long pedigree of trumped up sexual charges in this field. So, suspecting the case is trumped up – and presenting this charge – means questioning the evidence, the motives of the complainants, etc.
Think if you will of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. He was imprisoned on a trumped up murder charge for being a political activist. Everyone being well aware of the possibility the charge was a political one, we picked over the bones of the case before and after it went to trial, looking for inconsistencies and evidence of state involvement. The same is being done here. This time it’s a rape case, and that’s going to make the process unpleasant no matter how carefully we present our suspicions.
The counter-argument seems to be that because it’s a rape case questioning its validity is off limits. You, for example, seem unwilling to accept prima facie the possibility that it’s a trumped up charge. I don’t even need to see the evidence to believe it’s trumped up, and in fact I concluded it was a political charge without looking at any of the details of the case. I don’t have to look over the details of the case because the nature of Assange’s enemies and the timing are all the evidence I need (I hadn’t read anything about the details of the case until very late last night). Were I the kind of person who felt I needed evidence to defend that position I suppose I might then start raking through the coals (as seems to be happening at crikey). That’s what’s happening here, and the language is getting increasingly intemperate as the dispute heightens, but the basic problem remains. These suspicions can’t be put nicely, and that’s that.
Joe2, sg
The only alternative to the hypothesis that you are shaming these women to the point of calumny is that you think they are unwitting dupes. This alternative flies in the face of the evidence and is, in its way, no less problematic.
How are these women going to be heard, unless Julian Assange faces charges in Sweden? They are entitled to justice every bit as much as Julian Assange. Assuming you agree with this proposition, how do they receive justice unless Julian Assange comes before a Swedish court?
Do you really think that,in Sweden, it is likely that a well-represented man with a very high public profile will be wrongly or wrongfully convicted of sexual offences?
And if the women are unwilling participants in inter-national conniving, or are out-and-out liars, or are unreliable and leaky, where better than a Swedish court room to establish this, once and for all.
Guy Rundle provides a very detailed timeline of the case.
Notable are:
1. The thorough cleansing of the two prosecution witnesses’ twitter messages, which Rundle suggests may have been done professionally.
2. The changing nature of the charges against Assange.
Destruction of evidence should weaken any case, provided that it was done by or at the behest of material witnesses. Moreover, if it were done at the behest of a material witness, this act of destruction should tell against the credibility of the witness.
There is nothing particularly remarkable about accusations and charges changing, so long as these changes were unconnected with the destruction of evidence.
Anita, claiming that our suspicions “fly in the face of the evidence” is all well and good but part of the advice being given in the OP is that we shouldn’t sift through the evidence on the internet – it’s trial by social media. You (or the OPers) can’t have it both ways. Do you want to sift the evidence for contradictions to my (our?) suspicion that it’s a trumped up trial, or do you want to wait for it to go to court?
If we do the former, odious things are going to have to be done and said, as Katz has shown.
I don’t believe the women are necessarily unwitting dupes; they could be quite happily going along with the process thinking they will get their day in court; they may not be involved at all anymore if the prosecutor’s office has opened the case by itself. They could be complete out-and-out liars; their evidence may be being misused against their will; they may not have seen any of the new charges, but have been assured “we’ve reopened the case and will contact you when we need you in court.” I really don’t know. I don’t think questioning this case requires that I be intending to shame them or seeing them as unwitting dupes.
But look at Katz’s comment at 356 as an example. He has made two completely valid points about the (a? there seem to be several) timeline of the case. In any other type of crime, everyone here would say “ah! yes, that appears to be an issue.” But because it’s a rape case, there is uproar. It’s possible in this case to accept that even though we don’t usually do this sort of thing (question witness credibility etc.) in this instance it’s essential.
It’s not that I was being facetious (?), it’s that you were missing my point, which is that one’s choice of language reveals certain things about one’s attitude, and other people have a right to point that out.
No PC, I’m not missing your point. I’m disagreeing with it. My choice of language in this case doesn’t say anything about me, and Kim pointing that out was mean-spirited. I have very carefully avoided saying anything about the women themselves or the seriousness of rape as a crime, and Kim has scoured my writing for evidence that I’m a r-pe apologist, but that’s the best she could come up with. Which is why I say it’s cheap and unnecessary.
Assange moves around, from country to country. The US needs him in one place so they can extradite him. That’s the classic definition of pinning someone down. I’m sorry if it’s also used in discussion of these kinds of crime, but it really is just an unfortunate coincidence, unremarkable unless you’re looking for ways to be mean-spirited.
No, not a single one of Katz’s comments on this thread have provoked uproar, this is because none have been in any way objectionable, even if one or two have been wrong
. It isn’t the argument that there are inconsistencies and apparent actions that may cast doubt upon the case that is objectionable. The fact that you cannot discern the difference between that argument and slanderous accusations against the complainants, minimization of the seriousness of the allegations and prejudgement of the case indicates you have not understood the OP.
@359 – No, sg, you’re seeking to evade the consequences of what you actually wrote. I don’t need to repeat what I said about the overtones of “pinned down” in this context.
I claimed that
1.there is no reason nor sense to considering them dupes. If this was not the basis of the arguments I am reading here, then it is the case that
2. unless you or anyone is able to see that there is a genuine requirement for the women to be heard in order for justice to be done, then you are just slagging them off – a carrion flower by any other name …
Will the women be heard unless Julian Assange faces the Swedish criminal justice system?
My answer to that question is that they won’t. Certainly not at this point.
This is such a good comment from boganette I’m pasting it again.
“I wish people could attempt to understand that there’s a bigger picture to all this. It’s about the world where live in where rape is excused and women who allege rape are treated with contempt if the person they claim is a rapist is someone respected by certain people. When women see how other women are treated when they come forward with rape allegations – and they see how these women are crucified – it stops them from wanting to report rape. It makes them feel like nobody will ever believe them, that they’ll be judged, that if they don’t act like the perfect rape victim after the offence then they’re lying. Bloggers and the media just don’t seem to understand the message they’re sending when they pick apart these events and the women involved. It’s encouraging rape culture, it’s normalising sexual violence and trying to impose degrees on rape. It’s so offensive. Assange is just a man. He’s not a hero. He is capable of rape – maybe that’s something you and others don’t want to think about (and that’s fine) but don’t smear these women when you have no proof of the things you’re saying in this blog. You can support WikiLeaks and not comment on the charges. That is possible you know.”
People who are worried about the political forces ranged against Assange, may like to think about the political forces ranged against women within patriarchy and see how rhetoric is feeding into it.
Indeed, Fine!
I can’t get over the undertone that this could be a serious Bloke Issue if only the pesky wimminz weren’t raising their pesky points.
Yep, Im happy to leave all this at “lets see what happens at trial now”, and cease all speculation on the women’s actions, motives, Assange guilt or innocence etc.
Lets face it: this is going to be one of the most heavily scrutinsed legal processes of the decade. I’d say the chances of Assange being rolled in some dodgy prosecution process are – at this point – pretty slim.
Its the extradition possiblity that concerns me more.
Kim there are no consequences to what I wrote, because I used a common English phrase that happens to also be used in the charge sheet – along, apparently, with “rubbed” and a variety of other phrases. Had I said “this rubs me up the wrong way” would I also be being insensitive? You’re reaching for an accusation.
su, I don’t know about you but I consider the claim (in 356, by Katz) that the complainant destroyed evidence – possibly in cahoots with a professional, i.e. likely in this case a security agent – and the associated implication that they are making the whole thing up after the fact to be quite a nasty assertion about the motives and honesty of the witness. I consider that to be a “slanderous accusation against the complainant, minimization of the seriousness of the allegations and prejudgement of the case.”
it doesn’t say anything about me that I confuse these things, because they aren’t to be confused. They’re the same.
Which I pointed out at 4. Katz and I aren’t using misogynist language, but we’re doing what misogynists do – picking apart a rape case on the basis that it doesn’t appear genuine. I’m pretty confident that in a different case – any other case – Katz wouldn’t have written anything resembling comment 356, because he wouldn’t be suspicious about the motives of the complainants.
We need to distinguish between these two situations in order to understand what’s going on here. Trying to do so doesn’t make us misogynists or rape apologists, unless we throw in a whole bunch of nasty language that is specifically misogynist, or we justify our suspicions of the case on misogynist grounds, rather than those of international politics.
I’ve been trying to make this point consistently since comment 4. This is not a normal case, and it needs to be recognized as such.
@366 –
To be sure, sg, even James Bond needs Q to show him how to delete a tweet.
You’d think if “a professional” had done it, they might have known something about google cache.
Let me just point out:
(a) All Rundle’s timeline shows (and boo to him for publishing the women’s names yet again), on a reading of it (and a lot is not gospel truth, but an amalgam of stuff culled from all over the place) not coloured by the desire to find CIA agents and state conspiracies lurking, is some women who were upset and confused about how to proceed;
(b) What I’ve previously said about the “perfect victim” – things are messy, rape and sexual assault are rarely perpetrated by strange men leaping out of the dark, a range of emotions and behaviours can result, which can include deeply ambivalent reactions towards the assailant (because it’s often someone you know and/or admire; a breach of trust is fundamental here).
Of course, there’s a big pattern here common to rape minimisation, but we know you’re only talking about this case. Funny how you use all the standard tropes. Mixed in with a stack of other masculinist fantasies about secret agents.
I’ll say again, it’s perfectly possible, and I’d say it’s more probable, that any desire to bring Assange into custody quickly because he’s Assange has bugger all to do with Ms A and Ms B.
I think you’re more optimistic there than I am, Fine. When you say that someone’s use of language is revealing of their attitude and they say ‘No it isn’t,’ there’s no point in arguing further. If someone believes that their slip couldn’t possibly be showing, because they didn’t intend to show it, then no amount of pointing it out will convince them that they need a safety pin.
Damien Carrick had a chat with Rob Stary, Julian Assange’s Australian lawyer, on The Law Report this morning. There will be a transcript in due course. I’m not going to risk paraphrasing from memory anything he said.
sg @ 354 said, inter alia
It’s not compulsory or even desirable for you to be sanguine or not sanguine about something you don’t know for sure. But you don’t seem to need evidence at all to attain certainty.
Frankly, I find that appalling.
Kim, I was quoting Katz quoting Rundle, as evidence of how things that would not normally be said get to be said/even technical questions inevitably lead to imputations of bad motivations. I don’t have an opinion either way and I agree, a professional would probably know about google cache.
I don’t think Katz would be questioning the motives of these women in a normal case, or giving much credence to claims about tweet-deletes.
As to “using the standard tropes,” I made the point at 4 and I’ll make it again: the standard tropes are inevitable when you question the validity of the case. I quoted Katz in support of this point. FFS, I agree with your last sentence, but that doesn’t change anything about the inevitable consequence of questioning the validity of a rape case. And that’s exactly why the state chooses to use sex crimes for its dirty work – because the water gets muddied far faster than if it was robbery or assault.
It seems like you want this case to be off limits because it’s rape. But that’s impossible if the case is a setup. And the possibility that it’s a setup doesn’t have to be related to our opinion of Ms. A & B, only to our opinion of the likely actions of a state that has been shown to interfere with the Scottish judicial system; another state that has been shown to have murdered a human rights lawyer in front of his family; and a third state that is chummy with both of them.
I like to think that I always argue in good faith here, but I’m finding some of the stuff said in this thread quite unpleasant.
Particularly:
- I state that I conclude that this case was a setup based on its timing and the people involved, and Brian finds this “appalling,” I can only presume because this is evidence that I belittle all rape (is there some other reason)?
- A single phrase that happens to also be in the description of the rape is taken as evidence of callousness towards rape victims, and refusal to agree with this claim is taken as further evidence of said callousness
- I quote someone else as evidence of how reasonable-sounding statements (that su, for example, considers not to cause any uproar) have the same underlying implications as misogynist statemetns, and it is assigned to me as my own opinion
This is classic bad-faith argument. I think some greater effort to distinguish between those genuinely concerned about the way this case might be being used to sinister ends and those people who think all rape victims are liars might be a good idea. Because at the moment the main argument being used is a deliberate attempt to conflate the two.
Wouldn’t it be more likely that a fake rape would look like the kind of rape people think is, you know, rape? All the weird inconsistencies, difficult questions and the claims that it’s not really “jail-worthy”…
It’s entirely possible – likely even – that the powers that be have latched on to this as a way of getting to Assange. But the very things that people are keen to point to to argue that there’s a good chance the claims are fake? Are actually evidence to the contrary.
It would Anna, but that doesn’t change the political nature of the charges. And we don’t know how much of the new set of charges are related to the original ones (which were dropped and then changed, it appears) or even whether Assange is going to face trial for the new charges.
This is also why sex crimes are the mode du jour for silencing annoying voices. They’re the most dependent on witness testimony and the ones that create the controversy. Do you think that an interpol warrant would be believably issued for an assault claim that had no accompanying physical evidence, no doctor’s report, just the word of a victim who walked into a police station for guidance? It’s the special importance of witness testimony in rape cases that makes them fabricatable in this way.
[which, sigh that I have to say this, doesn't mean I think all, most or even some rapes are usually fabricated]
sg @ 371, you move constantly (but not seamlessly) between being suspicious and knowing with great certainty. We do not know what you claim to know, and even if Assange is later extradited to the US that doesn’t constitute proof.
*me files most apt metaphor away for future use*
sg
the thing I took away from Katz @356 is that if there has been an interference with evidence in which Ms A and B were involved, then this will go considerably to Julian Assange’s defence.
I cannot see where you are getting the rest from.
If the women have been manipulated in some way, as you seem to think, don’t you think a court is the best available place for this to be established?
You fail to realise that the issue of Julian Assange’s potential deportation to the U.S. – from wherever – should only be dealt with separately from the issue of the complaints made by Ms A and Ms B. If you persist in conflating the issues, then you must end up taking the position that it is okay to ignore Ms A’s and Ms B’s complaints.
Probably Brian because my great certainty that this is a political setup leads me to be suspicious of elements of the case. I don’t see what I claim to know that you don’t, except my confidence that it’s a set up. And I’m hardly surprised that in the wash-up the whole thing would be plausibly deniable. If only we had some kind of centralized website where leaked documents about the Swedish, American and UK govts involvement in this case could be dumped, so we could learn the truth…
Anita, you’re right, the information Katz provides, if true, would presumably work in Assange’s favour.
I do think that a court is the best place for the manipulations to be established, but I am not confident Assange will end up there.
I don’t “fail to realize” the distinction between Assange’s potential deportation and the rape case. It’s perfectly possible for me to think “this is all pretty shit isn’t it?” and be pissed off at the politicization of a genuine case to punish someone for something unrelated – essentially the manipulation of Ms. A & B’s pain for the political gain of the very people their attacker was working to undermine. In which case it would be a very good example of the social consequences of personal crime, wouldn’t it? In that case the only people satisfied would be the people trying to destroy wikileaks.
In short, I don’t have to take the position that “it is okay to ignore Ms A’s and B’s complaints.” I’m pretty sure that the people most likely to think that are the ones planning to extradite him to the US before he goes on trial for whatever he did or didn’t do to those two women.
Sg, Katz simply repeated allegations about actions which have yet to be tested in court and made a judgement about how those actions would be viewed if (and this is where I differ from Katz) those actions were shown to be true and to have a particular meaning. He managed to do this without drawing any concrete conclusions and without maligning anyone. The thing is that a single action can be interpreted differently, what is a cover-up to one person may appear to another to be evidence that someone wished to expunge all mention of a person about whom they felt aggrieved from their personal records.
What makes me weep with despair is that people are genuinely hopeful that Wikileaks is the key to a transformational politics which will produce a more just society, all the while participating in, excusing or ignoring the very rhetoric which is integral to the perpetuation of injustices in society as it exists. Welcome to the new world, same as the old world.
“Joe2, sg
The only alternative to the hypothesis that you are shaming these women to the point of calumny is that you think they are unwitting dupes.”
Anita, could you please link to comments I have made that are about “shaming these women” or please apologise?
Pav @ 368, I’ve always been a glass half full sort of gal. But Su’s last para @ 376 is extremely apt.
Following up on the issue of bad faith arguments, I’d like to point out that Mark Bahnisch has put up a link on the “five theses” thread to an extremely nasty, misogynist piece in Salon that attacks Naomi Wolf for supporting Assange. It explicitly:
- drags her personal life (previous experience of sexual assault) into the argument
- sexualizes her (as a “person with a vagina”)
- calls her crazy (often derided on this blog as a classic attack on women)
- and generally belittles her
but it finishes with this doozy:
Now, “blow me” isn’t the first word on my list of “expressions for consensual oral sex” and “ending a dismissive tirade against a woman with an offer to suck my dick” is not the first thing on my list of feminist arguments. Maybe I didn’t go to enough women’s studies classes at uni?
But no-one here seems to be accusing Mark of being a rape apologist, or the woman in the linked article for that matter. I of course just assumed Mark hadn’t been paying attention during the thick of battle, etc. blah.
It’s as if everyone is making some reasonable, good faith assumptions about what he stands for and what he thinks. Now, maybe the same basic respect could be applied to me when I say “pinned down” when talking about a moving target. Or maybe not…
And, similarly, nothing has been said at all about just how nasty and offensive that article is, and what it might mean for feminism that a well-known feminist cops every traditional sexist slur from an (apparent) anti-rape activist/polemicist when she breaks ranks on an important political issue. This in an emotionally charged issue where lots of commenters have been accused of linking to “ranty-boy” threads that I rather doubt will top that one. Is this just a slight double standard?
Bored now.
sg, it’s well known that linking doesn’t imply endorsement or approval.
Instead of lashing out at everyone and endlessly telling us how wounded you feel, it’s open to you to admit that the words you used were capable of a very nasty interpretation, to say you didn’t intend it that way, and to leave it there. Instead we get this graceless and increasingly shill defence of yourself, which apparently can’t be conducted without casting a heap of stones at others.
Note the bit in the comments policy about making a thread all about oneself.
Move on.
Kim, this type of rhetorical overreach happens all the time in threads like this. It’s not just about me. But it’s getting boring and I don’t want to breach the comments policy, so I’ll do as you say.
Good, thanks, sg.
Kim,
There is certainly a sickening current of misogyny on this thread but I also note it is mostly the usual suspects who are implicated. On the other hand I think there is also an element of misandry, to wit the willfully ignorant comments #159 and #279 from two feminist interlocutors. I question the double standard (your # 367) of freely bandying about the name of a man accused of rape while insisting that the accusers have a right to anonymity.
I note double standards such as these run very deep. The hyenas at both extremes ought tame themselves.
Maybe someone who knows the relevant bits of international law can clear up something that I don’t get.
It seems to me, speaking just as a common-sense layman or l’homme moyen sensuel as it were, that Sweden would have no right (nor any obligation either) to extradite A. to the US under the present circumstances, even in the far-fetched and unlikely situation that the US could show a valid claim.
If he’s extradited to Sweden, A. would not be venturing there voluntarily, so it seems to me that Sweden’s claim on him, if any, should be strictly limited to the Swedish charges and nothing else.
On the other hand, since he presumably went to the UK voluntarily (and so put himself under UK jurisdiction) I could understand (if not approve) a UK extradition, provided all the tests and conditions for that were legitimately met (which again seems very unlikely).
But I fail to see how Sweden can have any legitimate say in A.’s status w/r/t US claims, at all.
Can anybody explain that?
j_p_z, that has me a bit puzzled too.
I can’t see any good reason why extradition from Sweden to the US, if a request eventuates, is more likely than from the UK. Perhaps it’s possible to tie up such a request in the UK courts for longer, but I don’t know.
It may be that the concern is that extradition will be easier if Assange is already detained, but that doesn’t seem to me to affect his legal options. I think he would also have zero chance of flying to a country without a US extradition treaty, now, if that’s what some supporters are speculating about.
One thing: I understand the UK wont extradite for ‘political crimes’. Not sure where Sweden stands.
j_p_z and Kim: there was a nasty bit of CIA-organised extraordinary rendition from Sweden in 2001. Mind you, the process should have been stopped in 2006.
@DownandOut, I’m pretty sure Assange, given his prominence, isn’t in danger of extraordinary rendition.
From a pr perspective, if you pay attention to what Obama and Eric Holder (US Attorney-General) have been saying, I think they’re going to be careful to observe legalities. Hence the discussion about what charge might actually stick. I think there will be US charges at some point.
@389 – Same, Lefty E, I understand.
Here’s some more on the extradition stuff, which still doesn’t throw a lot of light on why it’s better to be in the UK than Sweden:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025523-281.html
I’m not questioning the motives of the complainants.
The question on the tweet deletes (nice rhyme) has to be established by interrogation of persons who may have claimed to have seen those tweet deletes.
Once the factuality of the tweet deletes has been established, then presumably it would be possible to shed some light on how tweet deletes could be achieved at any relevant level of permanency and untraceability. If these qualities of permanency and untraceability are established to be at a high level of expertise, then the question of conspiracy arises.
Only after it can be established at some reasonable level of certainty that these alleged tweets were erased by expert means does the question of the credibility of the complainants, in relation to these alleged tweets, arise.
To be quite blunt, who connected with the complainants had the requisite level of expertise? And if the complainants know no one who could perform the hypothetical act of tweet delete, then persons unknown did it.
And if this is the case, what persons unknown would be interested in destroying evidence concerning Julian Assange?
Katz, I could go and delete an LP tweet right now, should I wish. You do it by pressing a little trash can with “Delete” written next to it. When you’re logged into your Twitter account, that is.
It isn’t hard.
Does that delete it from the records of everyone following your tweets though Kim?
As I understand it, that’s what’s been done.
Kim, I assume that Rundle knows that.
Then again he may not. If it is possible to remove all traces of a tweet simply by pressing delete, then we need look no further.
Then the question is, why might a complainant delete a particular tweet, especially one that brags about meeting very famous persons?
Understand that the act of deleting a tweet undermines the credibility of a witness.
“Understand that the act of deleting a tweet undermines the credibility of a witness.”
And to say so places you within the ranks of the shamers of women to the “point of calumny” if my experience on this thread is any example, Katz. Anita, I notice you have not taken up my request @380.
Nope, Joe2.
Undermines ? destroys.
There may be a very good explanation for deleting tweets or even deleting tweets at a level of industrial strength.
The complainant who did this has some serious ‘splainin’ to to.
Is all.
It may undermine it. Or it may not. It’s entirely plausible that a woman could be raped by a powerful, popular or socially connected man and then spend some time trying to make sure she keeps her place in that social group and ignoring/repressing what happened to her. It’s also entirely plausible that she may then delete such a tweet knowing that there’s plenty of people (men, mostly) who would be utterly incapable of understanding such a reaction.
joe2, you’ve become tedious now. If you think it’s fun to play gotcha games with people who find it upsetting to see rape charges treated flippantly, may I suggest you find somewhere else on the internet to go play?
As long as she can explain these actions to the satisfaction of a jury that may even contain men, everything will go swimmingly for her.
“Undermines ? destroys.”
Did not say it did, Katz. Some doubt, for sure. And enough that Assange should have been given bail.
“(men, mostly)”
Humbug.
The judge who refused bail to Assange did so for reasons not connected with the merits of the pending Swedish litigation.
@396 – I believe so, FDB, not entirely sure if it’s been re-tweeted. But I doubt it’s insuperable – anyone who really knew what they were doing could have sought to make sure they weren’t cached. There’d be a ton of people who’d know how to do it, and you can probably google it. Also quite possible the account was hacked, which happens pretty often on Twitter, and given the skillz a lot of the players in this thing have, I wouldn’t exclude that.
I think the de-tweeting merely goes to the fact that the complainant/s were confused and ambivalent. Clearly, they wouldn’t have met Assange unless they were interested in this stuff. I made the point up thread that it can take a while for the full ramifications of a breach of trust to sink in.
It really doesn’t prove anything much to me.
Guy Rundle, btw, is notoriously an abstainer from social media so I doubt he knows much about tweeting and untweeting.
“joe2, you’ve become tedious now.”
I am sure this feeling about my opinion is not new, Anna.
FDB, I didn’t say most men, I said mostly men, meaning that of the people who don’t understand such an instinct, most of them would be men.
Do you mean: if they’re men who actually listen to women about what is and is not a common reaction to sexual assault, then she’s in luck ?
Yes, I guess if the jury draw happens upon men who think they know better, it will be bad luck indeed.
Just one of his appalling failures Katz @405.
Joe2 – is granting bail a function of the likelihood of guilt now?
I thought it was meant to be about the likelihood of the accused reoffending or absconding.
@405 – Indeed, Katz. As has been pointed out to joe2 numerous times on this thread.
Litigation occurs in the court you get, not in the court you want.
I heard what you said Anna.
As has been noted at plenty of totally right-on places, women are approximately as likely as men to blame or question the putative victim in a rape allegation.
Just by the by, they don’t have juries in Sweden, except in cases involving “freedom of expression”, perhaps ironically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_system_of_Sweden
OK, Kim. I presume that there is the occasional male judge.
I have no doubt of that, Katz. Probably a majority of them, I would suspect, just like a (small) majority of Swedish parliamentarians are men.
Interestingly, as in may Continental countries following variations of Civil Law, judges in Sweden train as such and aren’t ex-lawyers.
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_prof/legal_prof_swe_en.htm
“It really doesn’t prove anything much to me.”
No, proof would require something much more than suspicion. But suspicion adds up, and it’s important.
@418, Oh, we’re back there, are we?
I’ll just repeat what I and others have said about a gazillion times about the “perfect rape victim” and refer particularly to my comment @367.
When the credibility of the witness is the difference between conviction and acquittal, such actions are sometimes pivotal.
And as we all have agreed, this case revolves around one person’s word against another.
Btw, how to delete a Tweet: note they disappear from search in time – http://support.twitter.com/entries/18906-how-to-delete-a-tweet
Also note, as I said, not rocket science or requiring the assistance of spies.
@420 – I’d suggest we don’t actually know that, Katz. I don’t think it would be normal practice for the Swedish prosecution authorities to reveal all they have as evidence by way of Rundle timeline.
So the CIA didn’t delete the tweet…
I’m very interested to know what other evidence the Swedish authorities may have, naturally.
I’m sure you’re not the only one.
“If you think it’s fun to play gotcha games with people who find it upsetting to see rape charges treated flippantly…”
And also, Anna, I think your suggestion about me is quite offensive. Making up a story about someone to then damn them is quite unbecoming, to say the least.
Yes, Judge Riddle wants to see it before he decides whether or not to extradite Assange from Britain.
“not rocket science or requiring the assistance of spies.”
No, but also not materially different from burning or shredding correspondence, which has a long and distinguished history of undermining the reliability of parties to a criminal proceeding, if it can be proven.
I’m just going to retire now, before I’m accused of propagating rape culture.
FDB — I think we can make 5oo. Thereafter, we dec14123.
This thread is a good example of how communication doesn’t require a consciousness, just a brain. Model for the internetz btw.
@428 – Actually, I think it is, FDB. As a Tweet is an expression of passing emotion, not some incriminating document.
Anyway, anyone got anything new to say? This thread is getting very stale.
I’ll give it til midnight.
I’ve just discovered Assange’s old blog:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/#Femalemathematics
Also, this, what could it mean?
http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/#Krilltothebaleenofthefeminine
http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/#Canberra
And…. now for a bit of Nietzscheanism:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/#Arrowsforfalsegods
And Mr Assange on the unimportance of rights, compared to politics:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/#Whatarerightsanyway?
Hang on… I know I was out for half an hour, but wasnt the obsession with Assange the grave political error of recent posts?
Found the link here, btw: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/12/dating-profile-assange-okcupid
Irony, Lefty E, irony!
Just my mischievous little way of parodying the fixation on Tweets. All Assange is and does isn’t reducible to these rather eccentric blog posts, just as an Untweet is not a smoking gun.
Ce ci n’est pas une pipe, and all that!
New jail van pictures of your hero coming through now Kim.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/14/wikileaks-julian-assange-court-appeal-live-updates
You read my mind, joe2! I was about to post a link to the Guardian liveblog for people’s info.
Hey, Kim, looking at the puicture from his old blog, I’m sure I’ve run into this guy at a party or two. The face is very familiar, but not in the way it would be from a newspaper or TV. Unfortunately that’s all I can remember.
Watch that space at The Grauniad.
Interesting, Paul!
Oh shit, it’s a demon!
But honestly, if only most people would think as freely as Assange’s trying to, we might not be in the shitty political/ cultural situation we’re in today. It’s good to write down this kind of crap, when you think it. Helps reflection. Serves as some kind of record.
(Luckily he’s not a politician.)
Maybe he was just trying to blow some snot out. We all know how journalists get things wrong.
Not disagreeing entirely, there, Joe, but there are other ways of thinking freely than reading Nietzsche…
I believe #433 was the source of NickWs’ quips about Assange the fake god.
Yep, that makes more sense now!
Must have been the phase we’re he was reading lotsa fantasy/ sci-fi. Too much David Eddings. Show how completely non-human technology/ maths is though. If he’s good at maths/ programming/ computer administration etc. this means nothing about his ability to think about other issues.
Maybe a bit of Greg Egan too … that sort of thing. I coulda given him a good feminist speculative fiction reading list that might have broadened his horizons!
I agreed btw with the point about the social psychology of the hacker… and the physics/maths stuff in some people inspires a disposition where people are often seen as information, the world as a collection of objects, etc.
I can’t pretend that his blog makes him less attractive in my eyes. In fact, very much the opposite:
Reminds me of my days playing D&D etc. Is this to be taken as a manifesto? No way…
Not very Nietzschien to write:
Interesting observations.
Wasn’t saying it was all Nietzschean – a bit of a collage.
I think he was probably also studying/reading some analytical philosophy, something just suggested by a friend on Facebook – makes sense.
I find this one interesting:
Link borked Desipis, is it from iq.org?
Yeah, archive.org must be doing something funky with referral URLs. This should work.
“…so the CIA didn’t delete the tweet…”
To the tune of “The House Began to Twitch” and, 5-6-7-8…
Elites began to tweet,
The tweets
Took heat,
And suddenly some unknown persons
Pressed “delete,”
Just then,
A suite
Of folks who thought it meet,
Went buzzing through the blogosphere
To tweet about this treat.
And oh! What happened next was neat!
Repeat!
He’s obssessed with IQ! Makes him a wanker in my book, immediately.
This one’s cute though:
Tell us a little more about this, Julian…
I see The Graudian is keeping everyone up to date with the number of celebs attending the bail hearing.
About 30 protesters outside apparently.
Speaking as we were of Tweets, anyone else get the idea that court hearings don’t really lend themselves to the artform?
http://twitter.com/#!/AlexiMostrous/statuses/14684240834732033
This intrepid reporter’s also been noting how many celebs are there: http://twitter.com/#!/newsbrooke
I shouldn’t be unfair, perhaps one of these two being featured by The Graudian will actually start writing something about the hearing now it’s begun. And I guess, before anything actually happens, we need all the information we can possibly handle
Here is the actual quote from Rundle (redacted for sensitivity)
As any sensible person will acknowledge this passage refers to much more than merely hitting the tweet-delete button.
Of course, at this stage this is mere speculation and perhaps even self-interested speculation but I imagine that a person with expertise could explain to either a British or to a Swedish court the likely methods used to perform any alleged thorough cleansing of the intertubes.
The British court may well conclude that the evidence has been so fundamentally tampered with that natural justice would not be served by extradition to Sweden. Again, this is speculative.
All this is speculative, of course. Complainant W’s internet presence may well be unimpaired. Or at least there may be a perfectly innocent explanation for its sudden disappearance.
Nevertheless, fixation on tweets alone fails to address this interesting mystery.
Until these claims are tested in court there is no way to assess the truth of any claims, either prosecution or defence. However, at least in a British court, the claims of the prosecution are subjected to scrutiny first.
Granted bail, now appealed and detained for a further 48 hours pending an appeal of bail conditions. Due process. Something too, too few people in Assange’s position have received in the past. I call that progress.
A trial conducted under full public/media scrutiny, the world watching, the UK justice system, remand system and extradition system are on trial as much as he is. Something too, too few people in Assange’s position have received in the past. I call that progress.
Assange is going to be fine. Unless he raped somebody — in which case he won’t be fine. I don’t understand why that prospect is so alarming to so many people.
Incorrect Merc.
Assange will be fine unless a Swedish court decides that he raped someone.
A Swedish court may never get a chance to test the evidence. This will be the outcome if the British courts decide that the evidence of the Swedish prosecution authorities is too thin or too corrupt.
this story at the ny-times is a great example of a confused narrative:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/swedish-prosecutor-raises-possible-extradition-of-wikileaks-founder-to-u-s/
be sure to read through to the end.
Total farce. 9 days in solitary confinement as punishment without the slightest bit of evidence sighted.
That’s right joe2. And the Swedish authorities are appealing to the High Court despite the fact that Assange has agreed to surrender his passport, be electronically tagged, report to the police every day, and has the required assurity despite the fact that his bank account has been frozen.
But not to worry, Mercurius says he’ll be fine.
Yes, adrian, it appears the British have ceded sovereignty of their legal system to Stockholm.
I agree, this is absolute ridiculousness from the Swedish prosecution. Complete over-the-toppedness.
joe2, solitary confinement was not imposed as a punishment but arranged at the request of Assange’s lawyer, presumably reflecting his clients own wish for security and privacy. Judging from his journal entries I imagine he is having a wonderful time in there.
And why the cruel, unnecessary and preemptive punishment by the British, Joe? He is being treated like a criminal. Not something that it is supposed to happen while you are on remand.
And some people round here wonder why some of us are suspicious. well, now they should know.
I think you have been mislead Patricia. Rudd had requested a laptop for him as his communication has been cut, legal access limited and mail pulled or tampered with.
Can anyone suggest what the Swedish prosecution has to gain from keeping Assange in gaol? Due process, well fine, but this is just bloody-mindedness.
Joe @ 477,
It makes it more difficult for Assange to prepare his defence. He hasn’t been charged yet. He’s guilty of nothing. His lawyers are now claiming publicly that the women are lying.
Think about this. If Assange’s lawyers are rightm and it turns out the charges are bogus, like, how embarrassing is that for the Swedish Government, especially if once they get him to Sweeden they deport him to the US on espionage charges. Well, probably not much. If the allegedly false charges are dropped but get him into the hands of the Americans, I don’t suppose anybody will give a pig’s arse. After all, they got what they wanted.
So much faith have we in due process…
This whole business has been handled so badly. So incompetently. Evolution would seem to dictate that we need a new world leadership. How China, Russia, the countries of the Middle East and others must be enjoying the way the US is dragging the democracy part of the Western democracies through the mud.
First the unilateral action against Iraq. By the end of this the UN will be a complete and utter side show. And so begins the much touted century of new global governance with cheap nationalistic strong-arm tactics.
And for some reason the grand jury process in the US to indict Assange on espionage or computer charges is secret. Well, okay. Perhaps somebody who has more knowledge of American jurisprudence can tell me if this is the norm at this stage of the proceedings. I have a sneaking suspicion it might be so in all cases. Mind you, they still have to find grounds for indictment, much the way an Australiam magistrate has commital hearings. But those commital hearings are public.
If wikileaks has information about the relationship between wall street and the US-government/ federal bank i want to see them urgently. For what have nation’s taxpayer money been used?
Certainly projecting here, but this is the dynamite that could cause a serious schism in national politics/governance. The smoking gun, if you will — it remains to be seen in which direction said gun was pointing.
Clinton said famously, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’, but more and more it seems like it isn’t the economy at all. The economy is completely unhinged– look at the national debt in most countries, but especially the US! The economy is a plaything, it remains to be asked, who’s plaything?
If we make it to 500 – the Data Base blows up.
What’s really interesting is how effectively the vulgar hypocrisies of the US, so visible to foreigners has been hidden away from US citizens:
a) The US is completely in debt and yet they tell other industrial nations whenever they meet that they need more economic discipline
b) The US is completely subsumed by state secrecy and yet they tell other countries that they need more open forms of government.
c) The US is based on greed and corruption and yet they present themselves as some sort of moral ideal.
d) The land of the free is characterised by being the most heavily armed civilian population in the world — with the most advanced army in the world. 50% of fiscal expenditure is used for the military. And yet they tell other countries that they shouldn’t invest in military spending, etc.
Who the f*ck are these people, that can be so innocent and yet so guilty?
Yes, Grand Juries always sit in camera.
I imagine that the Grand Jury referred to in the link above is a federal Grand Jury. It may simply be a matter of convenience that this Grand Jury is comprised of residents of Virginia rather than residents of Washington DC.
Or perhaps the Department of Justice believes they will get a more tractable grand jury in Virginia than in DC.
Perhaps the most famous Grand Jury in history was a DC grand jury that came to be known as the Watergate Grand Jury. Some of its members became celebrities. Its personnel were by no means secret.
“His lawyers are now claiming publicly that the women are lying.”
Gee, PB – let’s look at the heading of the OP again. Way to go to vilify those women. I heard one of his lawyers on the news say that his client is innocent. This is not the same as saying the women are lying.
Assange grand jury report “purely speculation”…at this stage, Katz. Maybe we should wait for an official U.S. denial before being able to confirm it for ourselves.
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/14/assange_grand_jury_rumors
Fine,
Unless I misheard it that is what Assange’s woman lawyer said this morning on ABC 2. Something along the lines of ‘these lies.’ I’m only quoting what’s reported by his defence team. It was pretty strong, strong enough to really make me sit up and notice. She was pretty angry.
Reading between the lines of the ABC story, Julian Assange’s team probably thinks that it is to his best advantage to remain in custody at this point: saying they don’t have the full cash bail amount yet and it takes a week to clear cheques !!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/15/3093354.htm
The Guardian website is down, one possible reason is the intense interest in this matter.
Paul Burns at 475: well I am certainly cynical about the US being ‘hands off’ on Julian Assange and I despair of the Australian government’s spinelessness thus far but it is completely wrong for the two complainants and their claims to end up as collateral damage. Given the rhetoric (to put it politely) around this matter, I am not surprised by the appeal. Good to see that one state is standing up for its citizens.
As Katz has pointed out, any tampering with the evidence will be in Assange’s favour. He has a superstar legal team.
Remember the recent Gabe Watson saga? Even our government demanded – and was obliged to demand – assurances in line with its international obligations before it surrendered a US citizen to the US. Jumping the gun and empanelling a grand jury secretly at this stage – if this is what has happened – will surely stymie any US extradition effort.
Ive certainly heard it said (though dont have it confirmed) that extradition to the US would be easier to facilitate from Sweden rather than the UK.
As always, I dont think anyone should be deported anywhere on nakedly trumped up political charges.
I assume his lawyers will be opposing any extradition to Sweden unless formal guarantees on non-extradition to the US are given. There may well be some basis in UK law to support such a stance.
Both prosecution and defence are jawboning and playing hard to the media.
The defence knows they have a cause celebre and are not above indulging in rabble-rousing.
What either side says on the pavement outside the courtroom has to be taken with a tablespoon of salt.
Katz @ 490.
Yes. and I suppose its going to get worse, since presumably thw sub-judice rule doesn’t apply with deportation orders.
His Swedish based lawyer has made the unfortunate lie and agenda claim, Fine. They obviously do things differently there. And not in my opinion to the good of anyone at such a stage of the proceedings in that country.
http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/julian-assanges-accusers-are-jealous-liars-says-lawyer-bjorn-hurtig/story-fn79cf6x-1225969824914
On the Twitter deletes – its quite possible to imagine circumstances in which the complainant was initially ‘starstruck’, posted it, was disillusioned (possibly, as alleged, by an assault) then deleted them in anger/ embasrassment etc. Its by no means necessarily a sign of bad faith or trying to hide evidence.
However, in lawyer world, the fact is that this will absolutely not play well in court for them, if true.
I think deleting all record of someone who you initially liked who pissed you off is quite normal in the internet age – it’s the digital equivalent of burning photos.
A neat photo from Sydney Demo…LOOK RIGHT.
http://www.news.com.au/pictures/gallery-e6frflv9-1225971317831?page=8
While you are making up hypotheticals @493&494 why not go for ‘just evidence gathering for the safe hands of the Swedish prosecution’.
@465 –
Hadn’t seen that bit, Katz. Skimmed Rundle’s thing.
It’s also possibe:
(a) Swedish hacker sites have the same level of institutionalised paranoia hacker sites usually have;
(b) The complainant knew some hackers.
Think about the latter one for a bit.
joe2, that demo’s funny. I suspect che guevara wouldn’t have approved of wikileaks, and would have found a much less subtle way of dealing with Julian Assange than an interpol warrant and an extradition clause… but there we see his flag, flying high …
Also important is *when* the internet was laundered.
If the laundering took place before the complainants talked to the police, then all sorts of innocent explanations may be credible.
If the laundering took place after the police started to talk about the possibility of rape charges, then those innocent explanations become less tenable.
Nevertheless, the possibility (as yet unproven) that both complainants laundered their internet presence, whenever it happened, suggests collusion.
The internet needs a good laundering, Katz!
Of course, if the complainants did “launder” their presence, maybe they foresaw a stack of personal attacks and slurs? … you know, like they got.
Whatever the motives for laundering, the effects can be reasonably characterised in a court of law as obstruction of justice.
Yer sg@500 and a firm press!
“Also important is *when* the internet was laundered.”
Katz did you see my link @205? For all appropriate warnings see Kim@206.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/12/10/wikileaks-cablegate-if-the-issue-is-due-process-why-the-complainant-shaming-and-trial-by-social-media/#comment-251104
joe2, since you were concerned about Assange’s conditions in remand, you’ll be happy to read that if the Swedish appeal fails, he’ll be staying in a “country mansion” on Vaughn Smith’s “estate, Ellingham Hall, on the Norfolk-Suffolk borders… set in 600 acres.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/14/julian-assange-bail-sweden
So?
Just trying to cheer joe2 up!
Anyway, perhaps Assange would be well advised to avoid partying with the “celebs” The Grauniad noted attending his bail hearing while at the said country mansion.
La Ti DO.
I understand that is a valid argument against extradition, but if that’s true then English law is farked.
That’s the very definition of a gilded cage, Kim!
I’m sure that Mercurius’ assurance that Assange will be fine has cheered joe2 up already.
Kim@505, since the Brit’s now run with any request from the Swedish prosecutor, by default, his chances of leaving solitary confinement are most unlikely.
Strange how his time and conditions in prison are to be constantly trivialised here, by some, and he is also apparently guilty of a newly determined crime of ‘celebrity connections’. At least the evidence is clearer on that charge.
Su@508 I would be surprised if there were not many married English women who would prefer it that way.
joe2, I’m sorry but “celebrity connections” is a crime in all statutes everywhere. Unless it’s done quietly under the covers, and the pictures put on facebook, in which case it’s a coup for ugly ordinary people everywhere. My ability to sympathize with someone is inversely proportional to the amount of time they spend shmoozing on 600 acre estates because “I’m a hacka with mad skillz!!!”
@511 – joe2, Judge Riddle granted him bail, against the wishes of the Swedish prosecutors, they appealed.
@508 – my thoughts exactly, su!
Hi Joe2. Prefer what exactly in “that way” exactly?
I’d prefer Assange to be out on bail because there doesn’t seem to be much chance that he’d disappear and it would take some of the heat out of the debate. But, people like joe2 need to understand that the Swedes have every right to appeal and there’s not much the Brits can do but accede to that appeal.
Re @494
I’m sure there were many happy snaps burned after one person found out that the other was sleeping around.
Sabbath, I think joe2 is trying to imply that it’s better to sleep through sex with the average British husband.
Sabbath, I think that’s joe2′s way of proving that there’s no rape-minimising going on here. None at all, move along…
Fine said:
I find it curious that one can be placed on remand in the UK without being charged with an offence. To be placed on remand, seek bail, be granted it and then be returned to remand on the basis of an appeal against the grant of bail seems to pile Pelion upon Ossa.
There’s a presumption in favour of bail, and moreover, the purpose of bail is to ensure that those charged with offences present for examination in court. If there are no specific charges then why is bail even necessary?
Yeah, ‘cos rape jokes are hilarious.
But everyone here thinks rape is a terrible thing. Of course. How dare you doubt that. That would just be insulting and offensive. No rape minimisation here…
Further to the bail issue, any reasonable person would conclude that the appeal is preposterous when Assange is agreeing to the widest possible range of restrictions (short of being locked up) including electronic tagging.
Mmmm, I haven’t larfed so much since an LP thread on whether Queensland should be boycotted if Tegan Leach and her boyfriend were found guilty of procuring an abortion. Some hilaaaarious stuff was going on there.
Arguably OT, but at a deeper level I think not.
but adrian, he’s a hacker with Mad Skillz, so he’ll probably break the electronic tag and fool the surveillance cameras that he’s wandering the estate while he sneaks out the back and steals David Cameron’s school diary.
It is very difficulty to take you at all seriously Joe2. You burst into tears and got hysterical several times upthread about being misunderstood, indeed you got offended, felt misrepresented.
Nursed by your ever faithful Adrian, we then had to endure yet more bouts of his passivity aggressivity on teh naughteh Mercurious. And BTW, Could ya do us just one favour Adrian and address your target directly – just once – instead of fretting on the sidelines and wailing at everyone that passes and notices your comment? How many brain injuries do you like to inflict on your unwitting readers exactly?
Then you, Joe2, put that up. How is it to be borne that on a thread about complainant shaming, where one of the charges relates to the woman being asleep and rape, you put up a joke about women WANTING to be raped when they are asleep, you fracking big fat PORKCHOP. Yes, PORKCHOP. Frackety frack frack frack.frack.
Now I understand I have broken comments policy, don’t worry about that. Please
Someone moderate me now. Feel free. That way I can’t come back again and read this 73457##$$$$83648723647823Y4872&&^^%$%$$##@@@@!3$$%%%$$#$^^^$$#$^^%^ stuff again.
Many thanks.
Right.
As you were.
Well, no-one is reading the Afghan War Diaries any more.
Mission Accomplished.
Well at least JA is gonna get to chillax on some brit’s 600 acre estate.
I was worried he might have to spend the time somewhere on Michael Moore’s 600-acre person.
Fran@521: I assumed that the brits were responding to the extradition request rather than the details of the Swedish charges (or lack therof). Just because english common law requires charges before extradition doesn’t mean that everyone else has to.
Rundle today:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/15/rundle-cue-the-circus-and-the-end-of-wikileaks-as-we-know-it/
See you should not have worried Sabbath@526.
Rubbishy, bullying, rants like that one are often encouraged around here. Particularly if you belong to the official rape apologist policing squad who are always happy to act in unison to challenge opinions, ideas and thoughts that do not fit within the recognised guidelines.
And thanks, nobody has ever called me a “big fat PORKCHOP” before. I kind of like it. Maybe I would feel differently about it if I were Jewish.
Enough of the meta.
Kthx.
when did Pilger enter the decadent establishment? That’s news to me! Who’s next, Chomsky?
I think that should be “meata”, Kim. I don’t eat pork, either.
Now now joe2. Enough of the meta. Youse has been told.
Rundle doesn’t know what “decadent” means. But he knows that it is a bad thing.
Rundle needs a good rest on a 600 acre estate.
@535 – youse has too.
Btw, I thought the other day Rundle could do now wrong, when he wrote his “timeline” which apparently is the Official Intertubes Summary of Everything.
Rundle isn’t the messiah, but neither is he a very naughty boy.
It is easy to verify his work on the timeline. Rundle did us all a favour and he got it right.
joe2 @ 531, why don’t you just go the whole hog and say ‘feminazis’. You may think of yourself as amusing, but your joke was really offensive and inappropriate in this context.
Frankly, I thought the pile on was over the top, Fine. The abuse and bullying I have copped on this thread is nothing to what I have returned serve.
Though, if the non joke has offended, so much, I apologise.
Kim and Katz all I reckon Rundle has done is use the link I gave above, plus others, and repackage as scoop.
Btw, just because you agree with something someone writes on one occasion, doesn’t mean to say you have to agree with everything they write, does it? Or is this a new LP rule of which we are unaware?
Exactly, adrian. It would be foolish to reduce this issue to personalities and taking sides.
That’s called a non-apology, joe2. You’ve been told by several people it was offensive, so there’s no “if” involved.
As was pointed out, you keep sulking about how you’ve been bullied but seeing nothing wrong in telling what you term a non- joke about rape. So, if it was a non-joke what was it? I’m genuinely curious.
I am not playing Fine. Apology made. End.
You know a thread’s made you feel really dirty when a fat-hate joke looks like an innocent and welcome diversion.
Agreed Kim.
But PC it’s just as well Michael’s not Michelle.
I can’t believe that on an LP thread this long and this ugly that nobody’s had the courage to mention the huge undiscussed issue surrounding Scandinavian sexual assault and consent law: Swedish sperm thieves.
Pavlov’s Cat, surely you have learnt by now that no joke about Michael Moore is fat-hate, merely a cogent critique of global warming science?
Incidentally, sg you were correct@519.
Sleeping through sex without consent is, like, rape (in marriage out of it etc etc.)
Now, you were apologising, yes? Stick widdat.
Oh yes Liam @549, the classics. God, we were all young and cute back then.
I have nothing useful to add to this potential thread of doom beyond trying to egg it into four figures.
You know what I mean right? You can’t have sex with someone who is asleep without sexually assaulting them because you need their consent to have sex. You need to know it’s okay to have sex with them. they need to let you know. That’s why the joke was inappropriate.
???
Oh please look at the original quote @508, you loon@552, there is nothing there about sex without consent.
“Sleeping through sex without consent”
You may have wanted to phrase that in a slightly less ambiguous way Sabby but I get your point.
I don’t think anyone on this thread would like to wake up and discover liberties have taken with them.
That was not addressed to you Nabs, it was addressed to the prime cut, and it does not matter Joe2 whether you eat it or not, no one accused you of cannibalism.
US air force blocks staff from websites carrying WikiLeaks cables
Makes you feel sorry for Obama. Almost. Governed by F.E.A.R.
But maybe the US’d be safer if they had more weapons?! Waddaya think?
If someone can’t say no to you (eg because they’re, say, asleep) then they can’t say yes to you either. There’s a whole bunch about consent in what you wrote. Whether you realise it or not is another matter entirely.
Yes, Nabsikoff, thats why I clarificated myself by addressing you by accident.
You with me?
I know that collapsing a prospecting and minerals company is hard work, but try.
Sabbath hath declared you a pig, joe2. Wadda-ya-gonna do about it? Sit back and take it?
Look at the quote, Anna, from 508 and give up on the pseudo analysis.
No mention of non consent at all.
Look I asked to be moderated for that comments policy infarction. It’s not my fault if I’m running around here free as a bird.
What about if before the person goes to sleep they say, “have sex with me — but wait until I’m asleep!”
Just saying…
What a steaming load of cow poo.
Anyone who hasn’t woken up and found themselves having sex with someone they’ve willingly gone to sleep with and had sex with previously, why, they haven’t lived imho.
Jc – different strokes… I’m with you brother. Let’s live a little more..!
Joe2, I stand by my comment and raise you a WTF?
If you don’t see anything to do with consent in that comment or your joke in response to it…
Oh Joe2, you are really dismaying me. I had you down as one of the Ok ones but this is just horrible. Tell me you are just playing ignorant to avoid saving face? Are you really saying that you can’t see how a sleeping woman cannot consent to what is done to her?
Avoid saving face? Freudian slip is showing.
It is perfectly possible for a women or male to consent to having sex at some time while she/he is asleep. An prior agreement could easily be made to that effect.
Not all women require a signature on the dotted line registered in a court of law to have “consensual” sex.
Waking up having sex, and one does wake at some point, otherwise how could one know the sex had taken place, is a thrilling experience for women in many instances, and for men.
To assert otherwise, as a rule, just makes you a puritanical, anti-sexual wowser, sorry.
“Anyone who hasn’t woken up and found themselves having sex with someone they’ve willingly gone to sleep with and had sex with previously, why, they haven’t lived imho.”
Aside from “previously” sticking out like dog’s balls in that statement, you’re assuming that the initial sex was mutually satisfactory.
“It’s not my fault if I’m running around here free as a bird.”
As blithe as a cat may be a better analogy.
“I know that collapsing a prospecting and minerals company is hard work, but try.”
Oil and gas actually. And it’s not work, rather sport. The share price is seriously falling. Drill baby drill.
Why, I am sorry I called you porkchop. It is now obvious to me you are mad as a cut snake to state that you think this is fine, publicly on a blog. Given that consent can be withdrawn at any time, you have no idea if consent is still given. See?
We are officially approaching the 6oo post mark. Pat yourselves on the back fellow larvateus-prodeoestrians. The DB has not already packed it in. Think big. Think 1000.
I want to know about the legal/ethical position of falling asleep in the middle of sex — joe2, this may have been a more apt metaphor for laying back and thinking of Engrrrand?
Being a dud or less than satisfactory sexual partner now constitutes abuse, does it?
Sabbath, dear, if consent were withdrawn then you would no longer have consent would you?
JC– the market has spoken. If it’s a dud get a new’n!!
If you start having sex with someone when they are asleep, you will have assaulted them before they could withdraw consent if they didn’t want to. Do you understand now?
Joe this is but a baby. Go up to the search box there and type Missy Higgins and we’ll see you in about a week.
su– WHAT?!!! The Missy Higgins thread cracked the tousend mark?!
Joe@578 exactly. Precisely my point.
‘O, wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in’t!’
And the top was is missy higgins lesbian?!! ROFLMFAO.
OK. I won’t admit that this isn’t a setback. The new goal is 1600 posts, we are but a bit of a third of the way there. The question at this stage has to be:
Is it ethical if after your partner has told you to only initiate coitus after s/he has fallen asleep if you fall asleep while attempting said maneuver?
Sabbath, if you started having sex with someone when they were asleep, without prior consent, that would constitute assault, obviously.
This could be because the latex booties were digging in a bit to deep, for example. Just trying to help Your imaginations…
You’ve not seen The Truth is Out There – Saturday Salon yet have you?
You can’t have prior consent if they are asleep can you Joe2 – given that they are not conscious, they cannot let you know if they have changed their mind to their prior consent – can they?
There can be no prior consent if one is not conscious is what you need to grasp. Do you think you might try?
And what is it in the other instances JC, out of interest? God Joe, you said the word Market, how did you know about JC’s errogenous zones when you’ve only just met, or are you already familiar with the Catt?
I don’t want to get too basic here, but I can’t believe someone would not wake up while someone was having sex with them. I can believe someone being touched for a while. But not full on sex. I never heard anything about her being drunk, or having had taken drugs. And I believe Assange isn’t known for that.
As a matter of fact he isn’t known for much of that. Unlike some celebrities who get accused of such behaviour, there is no other women getting up saying “I should have reported him in 2004. And maybe this would not have happened.”
Sabbath seems to view the construct of consent as some sort of tabula rasa that signifies Truth. Weird.
Brendon, for some people saying market is enough. The central [scr]utinizer has spoke. It has to do with wiring and other household appliances.
su@589 …is a thrilling experience for women in many instances
And what is it in the other instances JC, out of interest?
Instances in this instance was referring to [some] women rather than instances in the other meaning. So you misunderstand once again.
So much misunderstanding. Very unfortunate situation. So sorry…
Negotiations are still quite liberal, Sabbath, and as yet you do not need to write up a contract before hitting the cot. If you want to be fucked while you are asleep the law will still allow you that choice. But if that is the case it might still be better to put it in writing if you are not real close, yet.
… at least in Schweden. In the UK you’re fine, probably.
“given that they are not conscious, they cannot let you know if they have changed their mind to their prior consent – can they?”
And yet many loving couples do this frequently, and to mutual joy and fulfillment.
Sometimes things don’t conform to simple rules, do they?
Preemptive note: I’m not suggesting Assange and Ms. Anon had any agreement on this issue, nor anything like the depth of relationship I would personally consider necessary for forming one. On the former, we’ll see what the they say in court, but on the latter – again, things other people get up to with their parts don’t have to suit MY sensibilities, do they?
“And yet many loving couples do this frequently, and to mutual joy and fulfillment.”
Thankyou Dr Comfort and I want your Preemptive not too!
Here:
“Having sex should always be your decision and is only legal if you’ve given consent. The law says you can’t give proper consent if you’ve been drugged, held against your will, forced into it, or if you’re asleep, afraid the person will turn violent or unable to say no because of a disability.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/support/help_for_rape_victims.shtml
Do you understand that according to the law in the Uk, Sweden and Australia, you cannot give consent if you are asleep?
Here:
“Having sex should always be your decision and is only legal if you’ve given consent. The law says you can’t give proper consent if you’ve been drugged, held against your will, forced into it, or if you’re asleep, afraid the person will turn violent or unable to say no because of a disability.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/support/help_for_rape_victims.shtml
Do you understand that according to the law in the Uk, Sweden and Australia, you cannot give consent if you are asleep?
All right then, what is it for the other women then?
@600 so what is Geoffrey Robertson up to, I wonder.
Give up, su. What is the other woman, then?
@ 603Mmm yes that was directed at joseph.carey @593. He qualified his pronouncement about how thrilling it is and that is significant.
There is a particularly horrible scene in McGovern’s The Lakes built around this scenario so I just know, contrary to opinion here, that there are men out there, including men from an older generation who get this. But how depressingly few in number they seem to be.
Sabbath – like I said, the way people choose to live is hard to rigidly define and codify.
Right now (given my experiences in numerous past relationships) by quoting Law in response to my descriptions of the messy world of lived experience, you are calling me a rape victim and a rapist.
I hope that’s not your intention.
Sabbath@600 it also says… “If anyone makes you have sex in these situations, they’ve committed rape”. If you had already agreed to sex while asleep then you would have given consent.
Presumably,if you had made it say, last week, a court would be unlikely to find that persuasive. But if the agreement were reasonably fresh, you would have to buy it, unless you woke up and then withdrew consent. If then forced it would be rape.
@521: This time it was Fran Barlow who tried, once again, heroically but forlornly, to direct attention to the issue that is causing all the heartburn:
And again, the issue sails straight over the heads of the people who want to keep flogging the hobby-horse of the interfering wimminz.
Back in the halcyon days of the comments back in the @100s, when we were young and carefree, and had our whole lives ahead of us, I held out some hope that people might be able to drop the complainant shaming and cast a critical eye over the remand system. But every opportunity to do so just keeps whizzing past…
Kim, surely the Doom of this Thread of Doom approacheth??
Assange: I deny the charges.
Sweden: You can’t deny the charges
Assange: Why can’t I?
Sweden: Because there aren’t any.
Judge Fudge: I find the defendant guilty. Take him away!
Look we’ve all been there but there is a significant difference between an unwritten understanding based upon a relationship of trust (no, we don’t ask people to sign consent forms) and a one night stand and I doubt that anyone here attempting to elide the two would feel so confident that their partner would be thrilled with them initiating sex when she was asleep when they had only known you a matter of hours.
There is also a significant difference between this kind of experience in the context of a loving relationship and one which is in the process of breaking apart. In most cases I suspect, women who no longer find the experience erotic would give you the benefit of the doubt, trusting your essential good will and just tell you not to approach her thus thereafter, but in some cases it is definitely a nasty, malicious and selfish act, in the context of a relationship where one partner is being rebuffed and it is a profoundly depersonalizing and traumatic experience for the person unable to consent and for those women/men I am glad that they have some measure of recourse to the law.
Au’ contraire Mercurius: glorious future awaiting at post 16oo! That’s enough of the defeatist talk! O’er you go!
“I doubt that anyone here attempting to elide the two”
Well nobody’s doing that, cos it makes no sense.
If you meant ‘equate’, then nobody’s doing that either, except Sabbath, who has thus far refused to accept the any circumstances exist where a sleeping partner may be approached sexually without it being rape.
She’s been absolutely clear about equating the two. But only she has done so to any degree I can spot.
How we got here was via a joke made about English wives not enjoying sex with their husbands, which was IMHO in poor taste in the circumstances, and a conversation then ensued about sleep-sex (for want of a neater expression) and how it is or is not always rape.
Nobody as far as I can tell has claimed any intimate knowledge of Assange’s particular circumstances, but I’m sure someone will set me straight.
In the meantime, I’d really like Sabbath to address her accusation that I am guilty of rape. It’s a serious one (though if she were to admit to say, just being a bit pugnacious and refusing to concede a point for a while, then I’d understand and forgive immediately).
I think this thread needs to be shut down.
Mercurius@607 your interest in the remand system seemed to begin later at 260 after others had been talking about it for quite some time. All was good and dandy with the system is my impression of your opinion when you were not berating me for my shallow, continued and unnecessary concerns about the time Assange was doing in Wandsworth.
I hope there’s no particular connection between me objecting to being labelled a rapist and shutting the thread down.
That would be pretty poor form.
Hang on! I think we won.
Many of the comments in the missy-higgins-lesbian-i-don’t-know? thread are duplicates.
This is the most important thread of all time on Larvateus Prodeo.
We came, we saw, we added words, sometimes we read, we didn’t understand one another, we were grossly arrogant in our ignorance — it doesn’t really matter we made it to 6oo+ This thread is the BIGGEST.
FDE Oh all right, elide the distinction between what may happen in long term relationships and what we had here which was a hook up. Can’t speak for Sabbath but I can’t see any comment about your personal circumstances, just a quote regarding the law, all of that stuff about how your being accused is just your mistaken inference.
Hooray FDB is no longer labelled a rapist.
I don’t think anyone labelled FDB a rapist. Let’s settle down.
That is completely dishonest. Leave you to it, should have done so before.
Joe – there’s a (deleted I think) Saturday Salon which made nearly 2000 without duplication.
9/11 Truthers were involved, it need hardly be said.
And yes I take back ‘labelled’ for a start (way too much), and I’ve been harping a tad too
But I still think in the context of numerous people talking about things in the context of relationships and patently making a general point, Sabbath did stick to her guns in what I did actually find an offensive way.
But enough about me, srsly.
Oh Goddess and now I have to make another stupid comment just to point out that my 619 is a response to 617, becaue 618 (I do know you don’t I?) had not yet appeared. This is how wars start.
Oh wait, I never even said ‘labelled’.
‘Called’ was too strong too though.
As you all were…
Wait, yes I did.
How embarrassing.
Waiter!? Cheque please.
I am very pleased to see, FDB, that you can pluck a feverishly imagined insult from thin air, an insult which bears no resemblance to anything I said, develop a stoush to fever pitch all by yourself, and then quietly demolish your own argument and resolve it without any help or input from me whatsoever. And you can accomplish all this by reacting to a comment which was not addressed to you in the first place no less.
Why, I think you are rather brilliant, in your own way. If only you used your powers for, well, something else.
You know, in terms of the ethics of sexuality and the State’s intervention, did you see Mark Bahnisch’s comments on a Rundle piece at Pavlov’s Place?
http://stilllifewithcat.blogspot.com/2010/12/assange-case-and-great-feminist-schism.html
Very interesting I thought.
@613 – Joe2, I long for the days when you thought I was too patronising to speak to. Cf. @199 point (8).
Yep it is there Mercurius, small paragraph and buried@ point8. Granted. The first discussion of remand? not
What about all the later bravado about how easy it would be for you to do solitary confinement? Enough.
I agree the issue of remand is the important one. (Our system is also quite abysmal as well I have heard.) Maybe also unresolved and clumbsy E.U. extradition procedures.
No one wants to talk about evidence destruction and collusion in relation to perversion of the course of justice?
Wiki helpfully provides a starting point:
I will happily talk about it Katz. I think that one very obvious failure of the remand procedure, in this case, and I am sure others similar, is the failure to look at the chances, based on the solidity of a needs be cursory look at the evidence, of a conviction.
In short, since evidence of the kind you are talking about was around at the time of the remand case it should have been briefly examined and the accused, at least, released on bail.