Taking a leak

[supergee]

Maybe Wikileaks aren’t the good guys.

Comments

[legionseagle]

Maybe?!? Given the bail jumper Assange has been hiding out for four years in order to avoid answering charges of rape, all I can say is that it takes a lot to convince some people.

ETA The reason that we're going to have President Trump by the second week in November is because so many people are so steeped in the "women always lie" myth that notwithstanding the point that Assange has had a case to answer on rape for years the likes of Jon Pilger and Noam Chomsky and a whole lot of other people have continued to back him. "Women always lie" allows Trump to promote the "Crooked Hillary" meme while continuing to refuse to show his own tax returns and continue to come out with ever more blatant distortions of the truth. "Women always lie" means Alies and Allen and Assange...and that's only the A's ... are never challenged. "Women always lie" is the meme that's going to destroy the world.

And now people are starting to say "maybe" about Wikileaks, because guess what? Someone who's a real person and not just a woman (because "women always lie") has suggested that their credibility is shot.

But you could have known that from the fact that Assange has been provably lying to avoid answering questions about rape for years.

[supergee]

Whether Assange is a rapist and whether Wikileaks is giving us good information strike me as two different questions. I'd love to see a court decide the former, and I am now convinced that the answer to the latter is a definite No.

[legionseagle]

Assange isn't proven to be a rapist and can't be unless and until he answers the charge in a Swedish court and the court finds one way or the other. However, he has been blatantly lying for years about things such as the jurisdiction of the Swedish courts, the status of the European Arrest Warrant, the availability of extradition to the US from a third country such as Sweden and so on. These lies all strike me as very much on point with the kind of bad beahviour highlighted in the linked post. You don't have to believe Assange is a rapist to believe that someone who calls Sweden "the Saudi Arabia of feminism" is a misogynistic prick (as the article points out he is) or that someone who has historically broken with every legal team he's instructed (not paying their bills in each case) as well as all the newspaper collaborators who originally worked with Wikileaks, usually over the failure to redact information which would expose the rank and file to danger for no discernable purpose is not a man of honour. But he perplexingly maintained his credibility among a lot of people despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[johnpalmer]

Well... not proven, but I'm not sure he contested the facts. The story I'd heard was that he had consent for sex-with-a-condom, and decided to use that to have sex without.

My concern was only this: Assange was unpopular with the Powers That Be. Unless they prosecuted this crime (and it *IS* a crime - "I'm willing to have sex if we use good protection against STDs, but not if we don't" is a clear consent violation) against any and all, they shouldn't make the unpopular guy the test case.

Now, if they prosecute any and all folks under those circumstances - good for them, and Assange should find a way to answer the charges that avoid the (justifiable) extradition fears.

[legionseagle]

If you read the evidence presented to the magistrates on his initial case against extradition you'll find that the allegations go beyond the condom issue:

There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm,
Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of
movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful
spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from
moving or shifting.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange
deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual
integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a
prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual
intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured
party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a
manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked,
erect penis to her body.

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange
deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to
sleep, was in a helpless state.

In order to justify extradition, the magistrate had to be satisfied that the acts as alleged also constituted offences in English law. The magistrate found as follows:

Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 lists the circumstances in which the complainant is taken not to have
consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the
complainant consented. Also the accused is taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant
consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. Where
a section 75 evidential presumption arises there is no question of the issue being removed from the jury. The
circumstances in which evidential presumptions about concerned apply include:

2(a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence
against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be
used against him;

(d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act.

(There are other circumstances that are not relevant in this case.)



Offence 1, set out in full above, specifically alleges that Mr Assange “by using violence, forced the injured party
to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s
arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight prevented her
from moving or shifting”. This brings into play section 75(2)(a) above. These are circumstances in which the
complainant is taken not to have consented and the accused is taken not to have reasonably believed that the
complainant consented. This is an extradition offence pursuant to section 64(3) in that:

(a) the conduct occurred in Sweden

(b) If the conduct had occurred in England and Wales it would amount to sexual assault

(c) The maximum penalty that may be imposed in Sweden for the offence is 2 years
imprisonment




Offence 2, set out in full above, says that M a “deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner
designed to violate her sexual integrity. Mr Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured
party and a pre-requisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual
intercourse with her without her knowledge”. The obvious and straightforward way of reading that allegation is
that the complainant had made it clear that she would not consent to unprotected sex, and yet it occurred
without her knowledge and therefore without her consent. Mr Assange was aware of this. Unprotected sex is
wholly different from protected sex in that its potential repercussions are not confined to disease and include
pregnancy. Again this meets the criteria for section 64(3) set out above. In addition the terms “molested” and
“violated” are inconsistent with consent (see below).

Offence 3, also set out in full above, alleges that Mr Assange “deliberately molested the injured party by acting
in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity, by lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her
body”. Deliberately molesting someone so as to violate their sexual integrity is not language that is consistent
with consent or belief in consent. Molest means to cause trouble to; to vex, annoy, to inconvenience. A
secondary meaning is to meddle with (a person) injuriously or with hostile intent. (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary: Third Edition.) Among the various meanings attributed to “violate” in the OED is to ravish or
outrage a woman; to do violence to; to treat irreverently; to desecrate, dishonour, profane or defile. A secondary
meaning is to destroy a person’s chastity by force. There are other definitions, many of which have at their core
the use of violence. If this conduct is attributed its ordinary meaning, then if proved it would amount to sexual
assault in this country. Again section 64(3) applies.

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape.
The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very
little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here
would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange
“deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a
helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

All the stuff about the condom was cherry-picking the allegations to make it sound as if Assange was being singled out.