It also is ignorant of how prosecutions are done in Sweden. From what I understand (and others have posted here with much better detail), “charges” as we might think of them in the US, Canada, or the UK, aren’t brought in the early stages of an investigation, they occur later in the process and require the accused to be present. Since Assange wasn’t present, they couldn’t reach the part of the process where charges are brought against the accused.
I think @L0ki had a really great post on the topic in a previous Assange thread.
I’m just always amazed at the persistent and direct contradictions in the conspiracy theory version of events. Often argued by the exact same person.
Somehow the charges are supposed to be simultaneously a concocted plot to really get him without fail, and are also argued to be incredibly weak to the point of being ethereally non-existent.
The people out to get him are supposed to be highly motivated to capture him at any cost, and simultaneously completely disinterested in any action of any kind against him.
(What I really think happened is Assange’s various defence teams and the Wikileaks Twitter account floated counter-narratives to every event that happened, and fans absorbed and repeated them all, like a rat king of PR spin, rejecting none, repeating all.)
Once again, from 2010, Reuters: There was no rape…https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-charges/special-report-std-fears-sparked-case-against-wikileaks-boss-idUSTRE6B669H20101207 So the conspiracy theories are not on the part of Assange didn’t commit rape, but that this discourse even has any merit. That Assange’s crimes are still unclear – and they’re not crimes of rape. You all need to ask yourselves “why am I so convinced Assange is guilty of rape?” Assange is an unwanted actor in a theater that is supposed to be highly controlled and orchestrated. Whether the “actor” is good or bad is insignificant. History plays itself out to its own tune. But to not understand that you and I are meant to be nothing but pawns, passive viewers, in the “theater” is, in my opinion, naive.
How the hell would you know any of that victim-blaming shit was true?
Without a trial, the evidence for the women’s accusations has not been given, It has been held. The women have not publicly testified. You can’t know what they wanted beyond what they’ve said, which is that they say Assange sexually assaulted them.
If you ignore every statement the women and their lawyers made, you’re just badly parroting a contradictory narrative offered by Wikileaks.
Your older references don’t even back up your idea that the women didn’t accuse him of rape. This was from a time when the only representation of the women’s views were from a report by the Daily Mail, that treated them like garbage (as you’re doing here.)
Assange’s accusers then hired a lawyer who declared he would press prosecutors not only to keep the investigation going but to reinstate rape charges.
The women have pushed for this rape investigation at every opportunity, and have said the “only wanted an STD test” story was never true. They wanted him tested because they said he assaulted them.
You’re perpetuating a rape apologist fantasy.
That’s not the sum of what happened here. The rape charge isn’t solely about a condom, one woman said there was physical force, the other said she wasn’t fully conscious. That’s sexual assault in any country Assange has lived in. And the women haven’t even fully testified in public yet. You can’t make the claims that you have.
Assange’s story should be tested in open court, where a lot of the bullshit rape apologist propaganda floating around it would fall away like autumn leaves.
I’m sorry to hear Reuters is no longer a respected news source. Just for reference, can you post a link supporting your claim that the woman say she was physically forced and that the other woman was unconscious.
Reuters is fine. You’re ignoring most Reuters stories on the subject in favor of a very early one that only includes material from a Daily Mail story.
Even back then, we knew that part of the womens’ accusations included testimony that “Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs…” and “She had awoken to find him having sex with her…” This isn’t complete testimony, so it’s not all the women would have said on the matter, so we can’t draw any conclusions about what totally happened. That’s why it should be tried in court, to be fair to all parties.
And I’m sorry if this is your first time hearing this, but its almost a decade later. Please don’t make claims about the women’s testimony, especially when they have been robbed of the chance of giving it completely.
And there’s a nice summary of Swedish criminal procedure here by a Mr Christoffer Wong of the University of Lund:
Essentially, if there is a suspicion that a crime has been committed the prosecutor and/or the police conduct an initial investigation as part of which they question anyone they think may have relevant evidence. That includes the suspect of course but the suspect is also entitled to tell the prosecutor about anyone the suspect thinks should be questioned and is entitled to be present at such questioning together with their legal representative. And the “aggrieved person” also has similar rights.
Once the preliminary investigation is concluded, then a decision is made whether to prosecute.
Since they never managed to interview Assange, they never reached that point.
To quote Mr Wong (page 2-3):
It is a feature of Swedish criminal procedure that a person is formally charged – through an indictment – at a relatively late stage of the process. As pointed out above, this takes place when the preliminary investigation is to terminate. This differs quite markedly from legal systems in which a person is charged on a lower degree of suspicion and is then detained or given bail while the police or prosecution authorities continue with the investigation. It is therefore not at all unusual for the Swedish Public Prosecutor to issue an European arrest warrant or a request for extradition of a suspect, before making a decision to indict the person. This does not detract from the fact that the request nonetheless is made for the purpose of prosecution, albeit that there is no actual indictment.
By most accounts they absolutely did NOT “allow it to be unprotected sex.”
If you had multiple sexual partners who are willing to testify in court that you committed some form of sexual assault against them then you are almost certainly a horrible human being.
Removing or damaging a condome during sex may or may not be rape. That would depend on a country and its laws. I did not read in the article that the woman felt like they were raped but that they felt like they were treated poorly or their wishes/desires were not respected or met while having sex with Assange.
So doing skeevy things that obviously disrespect the wishes of a sexual partner isn’t necessarily rape in a lot of places. If it is rape in Sweden, then maybe Assange should have stuck to doing those things in countries that weren’t Sweden.
Rape (or assault, if it isn’t sexual in nature) is about doing something to a person they did not consent to. Jurisdictions may define the specifics differently, but I think we can all agree here that if you take an action that someone did not consent to, it is assault. Whether or not the jurisdiction recognizes that is a whole other kettle of fish, but that’s a legal grey area, not a moral one.
This isn’t a topic about just one user. Let’s keep to the actual topic at hand, please.
Further, whether or not the alleged crimes constitute legal or moral rape are two different things. The former is not required for the latter to be true.
The UK pressuring Sweden sources claim I haven’t gotten to. I had to work today. I am tired.Seeing that I have to work tomorrow, and I have to dig around in the Net, it might take a day or two.
That is not what the women are alleging. They didn’t “allow it” to be unprotected sex, and having any kind of sex with someone without their consent to that particular sex act is a form of sexual assault.
I lived in China for over two years and in Germanyfor twenty-two years. I lived in the Czech Republic for six months. I’m originally from Chicago. Spain just changed the legal age of consent from fourteen to six-teen a few years ago – that’s the EU. Should we go elsewhere in the world?`So yes, the world doesn’t live by US norms. I can tell you that much. No disrespect. I’m just trying to have a converstaion.
That has literally nothing to do with what I just said.
We have zero interest in the argument that sexual assault has not occured because it doesn’t meet legal criteria in some jurisdiction. If you are trying to make the argument that there is a situation where someone can sexually interact with someone without their clear consent, you are not welcome here.
If on the other hand you are arguing that what was done won’t end up being legally considered rape or sexual assault in some form - well, that remains to be seen, though you are welcome to your opinion. Whether or not that ends up being true, however, has zero to do with whether or not Assange is an asshole rapist or not, though. That is the exclusive territory of consent. Not consent laws.
I quoted the women’s lawyer (from eight years ago) and in it he states there was no charge of rape. I perpetuated the rape apologist fantasy? What about the women’s lawyer?
