As you’ve all no doubt heard by now, this morning at Belmarsh magistrates court Howard Riddle, the chief magistrate, ruled that Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.
Click here to read the full ruling.
I’ve read through it, and I just want to pick out some key points Riddle made:
“Mr Hurtig (Assange’s Swedish defence counsel) said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.”
“The defence have had the opportunity to attack the credibility of the witness (Ny, the Swedish prosecutor), and have taken that opportunity. In fact the attack on credibility amounts to very little. The main criticism comes from the Swedish judge, Brita Sundberg-Weitman. She does not know Ms Ny. She bases her opinion on what she has been told by this defendant’s lawyers and articles she had read in the press. In fact she produced comparatively little evidence to support her strong criticism of Ms Ny. I refer briefly to that part of her evidence at page 3 above. Moreover she confirmed that she had no direct personal knowledge of what had happened in the investigation. Her evidence is based upon facts supplied to her by the defence lawyers. Mr Hurtig denied telling her that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He has never met her. There is therefore no clear evidence as to the source of the information on which Brita Sundberg-Weitman formed her opinion. One probable explanation is that Mr Assange’s London lawyers provided her with material they had in turn received from Mr Hurtig. However there are other explanations and the evidence is simply unclear on this point. Mr Alhem expressly made no judgement on Ms Ny. Mr Hurtig clearly does know the prosecutor personally. He has not directly accused her of lying, or of malicious intent, but has strongly criticised her judgement. However, insofar as there were significant differences between his evidence and her evidence on facts known to them both, he conceded in cross-examination that her evidence is substantially correct.”
“Here is it necessary to focus clearly on the facts of the case. Clear and specific serious allegations have been made against Mr Assange in Sweden. Attempts have been made by the Swedish prosecutor as long ago as September to interview him. He has not been interviewed. The Swedish system anticipates detention and early questioning in allegations of this type, but this has not taken place. Mr Assange is not known to have returned to Sweden since September.”
“As a matter of fact, looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person and is wanted for prosecution.”
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.
It is an aggravating circumstance that 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, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.”
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 imprisonmentOffence 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.”
“In fact as I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant’s Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden.”
Once again I reiterate that I don’t know, and have made no assumption about, whether Assange is innocent or guilty of the accusations that have been made against him. All I and others have been arguing from the very beginning of this debacle is that those accusations would indeed amount to rape and sexual assault in this country, and that as they are such serious allegations Assange should go to Sweden and answer to them.
For saying that, and for daring to stand by my principles and by women, I have been met with a shit-ton of abuse, some of it unfortunately from self-proclaimed “feminist men” on the left. I’ve been accused of being a “useful idiot” for example, a running dog for the CIA and the American government who want to see Assange locked up/executed for treason and Wikileaks destroyed. Ridiculous accusations from people, mainly men, who have become so caught up in the cult of personality surrounding Assange that they appear to believe that some people are indeed above the law, and who are prepared to sell out women at the drop of a hat in order to protect one of their own.
I just hope that some of those who have rushed to defend Assange will now stop and reflect on one of the key points Riddle made today – that in this country the accusations against Assange would amount to rape and sexual assault. And I also hope they’ll stop and reflect on how some of their obnoxious and nauseating rape apologist arguments have led to so many of us feeling completely let down by our so-called comrades.
For my previous posts on Assange see:
Why it’s wrong to casually dismiss the allegations against Julian Assange
Too Much To Say For Myself 
well said cath.
i don’t think the rape apologists and the conspiracy theorists will be satisfied though.
i have been shocked by how willingly women have been sold down the river in defence of someone who is accused of rape.
and i’m glad that this judge stood up in court and asserted that the sexual assault, if it took place, would be illegal in the UK, that there is no such thing as ‘rape rape’ and that a woman cannnot consent to sex when she is asleep.
I too am happy at this ruling and it will be interesting to see what the appeal statement contains. Absolutely right no one knows if he is guilty of what he has been accused of but this legal process is not about that. It’s about:
“that in this country the accusations against Assange would amount to rape and sexual assault.”
It’s worth repeating again. And again. Because some refuse to take the fingers out of their ears and stop singing lalalalalalalala
Excellent quick post!
It was strange, but back in August/September/Ocotber it seemed that only feminists and “due process” liberals who held back from all the frenzy and idiocy, which has turned out to just be based on wild conspiracy theories.
The judgment is damning on so many points.
they’re still trying to push the idea that if he is extradited to sweden then the evils will hunt him down and smuggle him in to the states and bad things will happen.
It seems to be completely beyond the conspiracy theorists/rape apologists that if someone is accused of rape (and yes, having sex with someone who is asleep and therefore cannot consent IS rape) and sexual assault (and using force and refusing to respect another person’s bodily and sexual autonomy IS sexual assault) then they need to stand trial, and that innocent before proven guilty means having to answer questions in court and following due process. It seems so many liberals and lefties have completely forgotten what justice means, and that it should be universal, and even applies to Julian Assange!
supporting the aims of wikileaks doesn’t mean Julian Assange gets a get out of jail free card IF he’s guilty.
And it’s not like Sweden are likely to smuggle him out anyway. They’d be pretty stupid to judging from the way this case is being scrutinised in the press but also they would need to go via the UK, and would have to extradite someone on completely different charges to a country that has the death penalty, which they are not likely to do.
People have rushed to idolize “Assange” and “Wikileaks” before they even knew what it was all about. Probably because it has the word “Wiki” on it, and that meant it must have been good. And yet not much has happened, for all the importance that the “leaks” were supposed to have. We have learned that Berlusconi is a pig, which came as a shock to everyone, I’m sure.
Noam Chomsky has said this:
“the cables are so supportive of U.S. policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself”
And that gives me pause.
Not everything is clear good or bad, Left or Right. I only know this: that Assange is considered a Hero or a demi-God by the Left, that he’s revered by the mainstream media, that those two facts don’t go well together.
I also know that rape and sexual assault is endemic, especially amongst the men at the top. And that the indifference and complacency towards rape and sexual assault has probably never been greater in History of Humanity.
(sorry Cath, the actual quote ended with “himself”, I forgot to close the tag)
Sorted it for you MT
no, Riddle has misunderstood the nature of the accusations, as have you
1) the holding down and forcing legs apart occurred in the context of continuing consensual sex. Assange isn’t being accused of forcing sex on complainant one (which is why the accusation is the failure minor one of ‘sexual coercion’ beneath the rape threshold), he’s being accused of using force to prevent the application of a condom and later (accusation 2)of destroying a condom during (otherwise) consensual sex. Thats why accusation 2 is being made as ‘ofredande’, a misdemeanour (as is accusation 3)
Accusation 4 highlights the contradiction in UK law around sex while sleeping, because while the sexual offences act establishes sex while sleeping as rape, it also recognises consent as carrying over within one sexual encounter or session – otherwise most couples would be guilty of rape at some point.
The contradiction is yet to be tested in UK courts because the only prosecutions on sex while incapacitated have involved no prior consent.
Worth looking at the full police report: http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml – rather than reports by Nick Davies, or anyone else with a spurned crush on Assange
Excellent post. Really, this has become like criminal justice 101
Topics:
Why people who do some good do not have ‘get out of jail’ credit.
Why rape complainants can expect to get a fair hearing even if ‘Gaddafi is still free.’
Maybe now we can get some of that due process.
Excellent post.
And I see an idiot has already turned up to prove your latter point about the cult of personality surrounding Assange.
Thanks for this post. I cannot how so left-wing heroes are seen as unique to any other group of men – that they must incapable of sexual abuse to women and girls, and must not use the sex trade, or consume porn.
If these heroes are caught out in any form of women-hating behaviour, it must be covered up or preferably made out to be a feminist conspiracy.
Look at the Tommy Sheridan affair, see the supporters of Roman Polanski – now Julian Assange has the following of stardom, so to many in the Left it is of no relevance whether he abuse the women or not, more important is that he remains an untarnished hero.
If he really was brave, he would be prepare to stand up in court to prove whether he is innocent or not – not hiding behind this hero-worshipping.
Fantastic post Cath, thanks.
We’re talking about the trial of a person who has yet to be charged with a crime – a political person whose actions have drawn the ire of governments worldwide, including Sweden, and whose trial will be held in secret. How is this compatible with democratic rights?
I find it somewhat depressing that the discussion constantly falls to the level of “everyone thinks Assange is a god” or “anyone who thinks this is suspicious is a conspiracy theorist and a rape apologist.” The problems with the charges against Assange haven’t been casually dismissed, they’ve been talked about in great detail – legal issues, lack of evidence, lack of proper procedure, strange behaviour of the Swedish prosecutor, and political context. These aspects cannot be ignored.
Brilliant post Cath
Ridiculous accusations from people, mainly men, who have become so caught up in the cult of personality surrounding Assange that they appear to believe that some people are indeed above the law, and who are prepared to sell out women at the drop of a hat in order to protect one of their own.
Sums up the problem nicely.
Am I allowed to say that I was >>allegedly<< happy at the extradition ruling this morning?
“a political person whose actions have drawn the ire of governments worldwide”
Really? I didn’t notice. What with him living in luxury and giving interviews and looking “charming” with his blond hair.
When somebody’s actions draw the ire of “governments”, those people do not live long to tell the tale.
On reading malestream media they ‘allege’ that Assange will appeal this ruling and if that fails his legal team will then appeal to the UK supreme court and if that fails legal team will then take case to European Human Rights council. All of which will take a year at least and enable malestream media and supporters of male violence against women to create yet more lies and myths surrounding this case.
But at least Howard Riddle, the chief magistrate, has cut a swathe through lies and deliberate attempts at discrediting certain female Swedish prosecutors and ruled on the facts. Howard Riddle said this “As a matter of fact, looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person and is wanted for prosecution.”
But like Polanski, Sheridan because Assange is a ‘celebrity’ this supposedly makes him above the law. Such a privileged position is denied to all women but we aren’t demanding that – what we are demanding is the right of sexual autonomy and ownership of our bodies. Not as at present wherein any man can rape us and claim ‘but she didn’t say no’ or I reasonably believed she consented because she was asleep when I penetrated her!’
But real issue is, irrespective of whether Assange is guilty or not is men’s continued belief they are entitled to have sexual access to women and girls 24/7 and that is why so many men are falling over themselves promoting lies and attempting to derail the central issue, because curbing men’s pseudo sex right to women must never be challenged or even subject to prosecution and perhaps, just perhaps conviction.
Forgot to add that this was an excellent post and thank you Cath.
Jonas. Assange isn’t on trial. This was an extradition hearing for him to face charges in Sweden.
Accusation 4 highlights the contradiction in UK law around sex while sleeping, because while the sexual offences act establishes sex while sleeping as rape, it also recognises consent as carrying over within one sexual encounter or session – otherwise most couples would be guilty of rape at some point.
Bobbins. Absolute fucking bobbins.
Consent (or more properly) a REASONABLE belief in consent is a matter, as we discussed in the previous post, FOR THE JURY to decide. I am not going to repeat myself because I reckon I am more than halfway through my life – if you’re bothered go back and read the previous post. HOWEVER (opens another window) Cath discusses in this previous post
https://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/01/07/theres-a-name-for-that/
the ‘evidential presumption of consent’.
Now consent can INDEED be given prior to an act. However in EACH individual case, it is up to the defendant to prove a reasonable belief in consent. There is NO law of “previous consent”.
As for ‘most couples would be guilty of rape’, something of a freudian slip surely -or are you talking about threesomes? But you know what a lot of rape does take place within ‘normal’ relationships.
However – ignorance of the law is NOT a defence.
I think you’ll find there’s a reason why Howard Riddle is a chief magistrate and you aren’t Andy. Unless you’re a swedish lawyer?
PS misleading the court is VERY VERY naughty.
So farewell then Julian Assange. “I’m free” – that wasn’t your catchphrase.
Mary Tracy I was DEVASTATED to learn the Prince Andrew is rude and boorish. Who could have guessed?
The pretence that the identities of the plaintiffs in this case are a secret is becoming increasingly Gilbertian. Their identities have been on the web for months.
Well yes Gulfstream5, but the identity of Baby P’s mother was also on the web. Doesn’t mean it was legal for the press to publish it whilst restrictions were in force. The point is it’s pretty hard to police the internet. I don’t know the names of the women in question. I don’t want to know.
We’re talking about the trial of a person who has yet to be charged with a crime – a political person whose actions have drawn the ire of governments worldwide, including Sweden, and whose trial will be held in secret. How is this compatible with democratic rights?
Dear me, is this idiot day or what? This hearing that has just taken place is NOT a trial. It’s a hearing to decide whether or not Assange should be extradited to Sweden. NOT a fucking trial. How many more times! Are you related to QRG Jonas?
And how it’s compatible with democratic rights is that in a democracy like the UK, if you don’t wish to be be extradited, you can go to court and argue your case. It helps if you’ve got loads of super rich and influential pals of course, who will pay for it all. If his appeal hearing (more democratic rights!) is not successful, Assange can then expect to be taken to the DEMOCRACY Sweden, where he will face trial. All very DEMOCRATIC.
Give me strength.
The problems with the charges against Assange haven’t been casually dismissed, they’ve been talked about in great detail – legal issues, lack of evidence, lack of proper procedure, strange behaviour of the Swedish prosecutor, and political context. These aspects cannot be ignored.
Ditto.
You know what I would like to ask all those people getting their undies in a knot about a high profile white western man, with rich influential friends, being extradited from one western democracy to another?
Do you EVER worry about the number of people being deported from this country every day, back to places like Uganda? People like THIS woman?
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ugandan-lesbian-brenda-namigadde-freed-uk-court-bans-media-from-saying-her-name/legal-issues/2011/02/08/17304
Oh ffs!
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/julian-assange-extradition-a-david-and-goliath-situation-20110225-1b7e7.html
Would Ms Assange (I doubt she’s reading, but still) care to explain her assertions that
a)This is a misuse of the European arrest warrant and
b) This is the ‘first time it’s ever been used this way’?
I won’t even comment on the ‘gang rape’ bit.
Meanwhile of course we are not allowed to say BN’s name (though I think that link above might be a bit of a giveaway). Whether you believe BN is a lesbian or not, (UK courts didn’t) her life – ironically – is likely to be in danger if she is deported now she has said she’s a lesbian in her asylum hearing.
Course she’s only a poor black woman so the media largely don’t give a shit.
Can I suggest that all the people who are suddenly legal experts on European arrest warrants (which certainly doesn’t include me) go to the Guardian website and read the full judgement?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/interactive/2011/feb/24/julian-assange-extradition-judgment
Can I also point out that you don’t get ANY marks in a law exam unless you CITE YOUR AUTHORITY.
@polly: its 28 pages long!
NB – wikipedia is NOT A LAW TEXTBOOK, and cannot be cited.
(you only have to read it if you’re holding forth on the subject of the legality of European arrest warrants Mr D).
Shorter explanation here by A Barrister.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/23/julian-assange-extradition-law
It’s been a marvelous wedge issue, don’t you think? PsyOps has done well. But there are always loud attention-seeking extremists on the internet who are out of touch with social reality, and old men who are also out of touch with sexual politics of unattached movers and shakers. They’re a pain in the arse. Just don’t take them too seriously.
Still IMHO the dodgy out-of-character legal shenanigans do reflect poorly on the credibility of the charges and the motivations of “Teh Authoretaes”.
If JA were famous for something else, perhaps as a rock star, I’d say this whole business was about imposing the state’s beliefs about morality and voluntary homelessness because that seems to also be an issue, calling him a “flight risk” simply because he flies a lot. It’s not as if travel is still so expensive that only the very rich can afford to leave the country at a moment’s notice any more. It really seems to me to be more about chaining him down to one spot so that the state, or in this case various states (Sweden, the US and the UK) can keep tabs on him, and force him to conform to the way they think a man should be.
The way some feminists, especially the young and angry ones, assume that he is guilty has been equally disturbing to me as the men who assume that all rape victims are asking for it. Maybe I’ve not been paying attention but I have never seen such naked unthinking viciousness from feminists on such a scale before.
I am shocked and the whole episode makes me sick. It makes me feel even worse than contemplating the possibility that the man I see in Julian Assange could also be guilty of the charges.
I would also say that the waters have become so muddied and so full of predators that it’s not even possible to know WTF is going on any more without feeling like I’m jumping into a swamp full of crocodiles just by commenting on a blog post.
So feminists are a swamp full of crocodiles now?
Yeah, well I suppose it would seem that way when not in the MRA rape-apologist echo chamber that is most of the rest of the internet.
And no, such a stance won’t make us fall over all over you (and dudes above just like you) to make you feel better about such male entitlement and bro-code issues.
This is my favourite comment from the link to Joshua Rozenburg’s article you linked to Polly
“So gentlemen, the message is clear. Do not visit Sweden for a holiday and avoid any social contact with a Swedish woman outside of Sweden — at least until national and pan-European laws become less prosecution focused.
Or until the tyranny of feminism is ditched from political agendas.”
Ah yes, once again, it’s all the womenz fault. The rest of the comments, with a few exceptions including Mr Rozenburg’s replies, follow suit in a blaze of conspiracy and muddied waters. Like it was an intricate and difficult case, which Cath has rightly demonstrated is instead straightforward.
Well, if you believe that heterosexual sex and rape are the exact same thing (which I think Ms. Elliot and her fans on this blog do), then of course Assange is guilty of rape. He had sex with two women, therefore he raped them them both. Therefore his guilt is unquestioned, according to your ideology.
However, this ideology effectively turns any man on the planet who has had sex with a woman into a rapist, so why should Julian Assange be singled out? He is no different than the more than 95% of males on the planet who’ve had sex with/raped a woman. So are you making Assange into scapegoat for the other 95%?
But here’s your problem: what if the judge in Sweden ends up being a male who has had sex with/raped a woman? What if some of the jury members are males who’ve had sex with/raped a woman? That’s kinda like thieves judging other thieves for thievery, isn’t it?
You see, Ms. Elliot and Co., you inhabit a universe where, unless a male is either a confirmed homosexual or strict masturbator, he is essentially a rapist. Since Julian Assange is in neither of the former categories, then of course he’s a rapist.
Of course, there’s always a chance I’m getting your ideology all wrong. Because after all, Andrea Dworkin had her John Stoltenberg. And there’s no way that Mr. Stoltenberg could have possibly raped Andrea Dworkin, sexual relations or no. So maybe you really don’t believe that heterosexual sex and rape are the same thing after all.
Let me break it down for you: the State is pimping feminism in order to serve as a warning for any other would-be hacker who would dare to reveals it’s secrets to the general public. I would think that Ms. Elliot is intelligent enough to know this is the case. And I would warn her that allowing herself and her cause to be pimped by the State may not good for her health, or her career, in the long run. Just a thought.
The way some feminists, especially the young and angry ones, assume that he is guilty has been equally disturbing to me as the men who assume that all rape victims are asking for it. Maybe I’ve not been paying attention but I have never seen such naked unthinking viciousness from feminists on such a scale before.
I am shocked and the whole episode makes me sick. It makes me feel even worse than contemplating the possibility that the man I see in Julian Assange could also be guilty of the charges.
Personal friend of Mr Assange are you? If not ‘the man you see in Julian Assange’ is seen through the prism of the media. You don’t KNOW him anymore than anyone else commenting here. But as someone who has experienced sexual assault (as a child) I can tell you that men who commit sexual assault usually look and seem like nice ordinary, normal, harmless guys. They don’t come with a set of horns and ‘RAPIST’ handily tattooed on their forehead. Even their close friends and family can be fooled. Since most rapes are committed by a partner or ex partner, most rapists someone once trusted enough to have a relationship with.
If you (and Maggie) and everyone else bother to actually read what ‘feminists’ are writing, on the previous post, I pointed out that Assange has not been convicted of anything and therefore we should – and must – assume that he is innocent until proven otherwise. But it’s easier to just make a ridiculous generalisation about ‘vicious’ feminists saying he is guilty.
When in fact what I at least am saying is that being Julian Assange shouldn’t guarantee you preferential treatment. Some people seem to think it should.
Maggie I apologise, I was referring to SUSAN, not you.
Susan
Well, if you believe that heterosexual sex and rape are the exact same thing (which I think Ms. Elliot and her fans on this blog do), then of course Assange is guilty of rape. He had sex with two women, therefore he raped them them both. Therefore his guilt is unquestioned, according to your ideology.
I refer you to my previous answer. Actually READING what has been said before you comment on it would be a start.
PS Susan are you a lady?
Since most rapes are committed by a partner or ex partner, most rapists someone once trusted enough to have a relationship with.
Should read
Since most rapes are committed by a partner or ex partner, most rapists are someone their victim once trusted enough to have a relationship with.
It really seems to me to be more about chaining him down to one spot so that the state, or in this case various states (Sweden, the US and the UK) can keep tabs on him, and force him to conform to the way they think a man should be.
FFS. Or maybe it’s about him being subject to exactly the same legal processes as anyone else in his position would be?
Of course, there’s always a chance I’m getting your ideology all wrong. Because after all, Andrea Dworkin had her John Stoltenberg. And there’s no way that Mr. Stoltenberg could have possibly raped Andrea Dworkin, sexual relations or no. So maybe you really don’t believe that heterosexual sex and rape are the same thing after all.
There’s always a chance you just lack elementary reading skills.
Susan
That is one of the nastiest things i have ever read.
No one here has said that heterosexual sex is not rape.
Having sex with someone without their consent is rape. If he did what he is accused of, ie having sex with someone who is ASLEEP and then CANNOT consent, then that is rape.
It seems you, not me or Cath, have confused heterosexual sex with rape.
‘FFS. Or maybe it’s about him being subject to exactly the same legal processes as anyone else in his position would be?’
EXACTLY!
Susan
A couple of things.
I do not believe that all heterosexual sex is rape, so your long comment was pretty much a waste of time and energy, not to mention words.
And wtf is that supposed to mean?
‘susan’ good example of hit-and-run trolling, and using a lot of anti-feminist propaganda.
It is actually pretty clear that it is the non-feminists that routinely confuse sex and rape, not the other way around.
Sticking your dick into a sleeping person, is rape, not sex. That is one of the things Assange is accused of, and he should stand trial for it, just like anyone else who does that sort of thing. He is not a special snowflake that is above the law, which is what his supporters are trying to make out.
cath – clearly it means that we are all part of the big conspiracy theory and being funded by the CIA and chums to discredit Assange by pointing out the difference between sex and rape, and trials and extradition hearings! 😉
Assange said: “I call on you to make this bigger than me.”
LOL, at least Assange did not say “make this bigger than my ego”, because that would be impossible.
Andy Ardent: “the holding down and forcing legs apart occurred in the context of continuing consensual sex.”
Andy, do you really not see what’s nonsensical about that there sentence of yours? In case you really don’t, it’s that the description of Assange’s actions as “holding down” and “forcing legs apart” negates the consensuality of the situation. If your sexual partner is freely consenting to and participating in sexual activity with you, you don’t need to physically restrain them in order to sexually do something to them. His alleged restraining actions involve stopping the complainant from taking action (reaching for a condom) and trying to make her submit to something she was actively avoiding (being penetrated by him, which she was actively trying to prevent happening by keeping her legs together and turning away from him – all according to her statement, among the leaked and unredacted statements that you linked to. Hell, I’ve read everything so far about the case. I’m still not going to start naming the complainants though (@ Gulfstream5) ).
Where in UK law is it recognised that “consent as carrying over within one sexual encounter or session”? How is that assertion compatible with the idea that a person can withdraw consent at any time?
Polly: “So farewell then Julian Assange. “I’m free” – that wasn’t your catchphrase.”
hehe! that’s very very brilliant.
The viewpoint that Ardent has is one of “once consent for sex is given, or assumed to be given, then anything goes”. Which no doubt includes injury and death by that reasoning. Plenty of rapist/murderers have used the exact same defence, including Graham Coutts. I gather Coutts, who claimed to be under the impression that it was ‘consensual sex’, figured that the assumed consent carried on post-mortem too.
So, in turning it around a bit. What if ‘dude’ agreed to have sex with some woman he met in a bar. They went back to her/his place. His idea of sex was vanilla PIV. Her idea of sex included ramming a very large cucumber up his butt. By the Ardent-style logic, ‘dude’ has consented to having a cucumber up his butt. So, is it really a case of ‘anything goes’ past the point of assumed consent? Or is consent really about both parties agreeing what sexual acts and when, with the option to withdraw consent at any time, up to and including, mid-coitus?
The point is this Andy – obviously if someone consents to e.g. penetrative sex, it is not incumbent upon the other person to then keep asking if they still consent WHILE THEY ARE AWAKE. Because they can say no while they’re awake and if consent is withdrawn then the act should stop immediately.
However if you meet someone in a bar, go home with them, have sex once, and then fall asleep, unless they HAVE EXPLICITLY GIVEN THEIR PRIOR CONSENT, if you then start having sex with them while they’re still asleep, you are laying yourself open to a rape charge.
You are also a bit of a creepy weirdo with a fetish for unresponsive sexual partners in my opinion, but that’s just my opinion.
If I’d known having a blog was a ‘career’ Cath, I’d have made more of it.
Question, why is it that some 40 years after Robin Morgan wrote “Goodbye to All That” that we still trust leftist men as comrades? If a man is accused of rape or sexual assault, then it is the job of due process and the police and courts to investigate this, to hear the testimony, and to take seriously the charge. It is absolutely no surprise that leftist men who idolize him, would avoid the who issue entirely. So he is innocent until proven guilty, but you do have to answer to the charges to begin with. Leftist men, of course are loyal to men first, and media darling men… they have never been vigorous anti-rape and sexual assault advocates, because well they do this stuff to women all the time. Famous leftist men have private lives that we don’t know about, but I suspect it’s all about protecting themselves against charges of rape. Or it their desire to not have justice for women, only men. And I don’t see any change in their attitude over the past 40 years. What has changed is feminist and women’s liberationist blogs, who can fight back, Twitter Michael Moore, and make it harder for them to silence women in worldwide male opinion structures.
I’m sorry but I don’t get this at all. I go to bed with someone, a stranger I’ve met a few hours ago, and we engage in consensual sex – not that the words ‘I consent to this act’ has been said by EITHER the man or the woman (het sex in this case obvs). Sex in this instance being an act that will end with penis in vagina and ultimate orgasm for the male, which will result in loss of erection and variably the end of the sex act – especially if it’s a vanilla sex act. We fall asleep. End of consent as far as I’m concerned.
Any other action after this needs a reciprocal response and so on. We are all grown ups and can deduce what is and isn’t a reciprocal response.
also if anyone here is being funded by the CIA – does it pay well?
The CIA told me that “the cheque’s in the mail”, so I will let you know when it arrives. Of course, it had to be sent to my PO box in Saudi Arabia (you know, the Saudi Arabia of Feminism). Yes, the whole thing was an elaborate plan. I was also the two women who brought the rape charges in Sweden. I am also all the feminists in the known universe. Lefty menz should rightly fear me.
Hey, I just checked my mailbox and NO check from Saudi Arabia (I mean Sweden) damn… so much for a wild time at my favorite Dyke bar tonight 😦
And Polly had the best question I’ve read all week: “Does the CIA pay well?” 🙂 Have a great weekend oh warrior women!
Polly
I’m afraid I’m not at liberty to divulge that information. 😉
Assange is planning to trademark his name:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/why-julian-assange-trademarking-name
He should really think about trademarking “Julian Assange” as “part of the What a Wanker Corporation”.
Assange’s lawyers have sought to register his name under just one class, the same “entertainment services” bracket as Zeta-Jones. Within this classification, Assange is seeking to protect his name in public speaking services, news reporter services, journalism, the publication of texts other than publicity texts, education services and entertainment services.
Better late than never. The charges and the extradition decision for the most part make a case for probable cause, as already discussed above.
However, Charge #3 amounts to the criminalization of cuddling.
You lay down in bed next to a naked man, you enjoy some body warmth while the two of you sleep, expect him to get an erection at some point. You might as well charge him for breathing or having a heartbeat.
Good to know that cuddling by a man with normal physiology is sexual assault in the UK as well as Sweden and, doubtless, other “civilized” countries.
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.
Where does it say he was asleep? It would be difficult to do something ‘deliberately’ while asleep….
Where does it say they were already lying next to each other when it happened?
FWIW, in England and Wales, sexual assault requires intent. So doing something accidentally or unconsciously is NOT a crime. And there is case law to that effect.
“Where does it say they were already lying next to each other when it happened?”
Answer: in the charge itself, re-quoted above. “…i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.”
The placement of the word “deliberately” indicates it is simply reciting a statutory predicate to satisfy the intent element, but is not recited in the factual allegation (the specification following the “i.e.”).
To the extent intent can be read in the factual specification it would appear to hinge on the word “pressing.” Of course, people make all kinds of movements and contact in sleep and dream states (which itself has a variety of levels of consciousness and ability to control actions).
But in any event, the bewigged one in this case didn’t bother much with any intent element of Charge #3 in the portions of his decision quoted in the post. The judge appears to have inferred intent merely from contact. Note the allegation did not need to indicate any indication of objection to contact to suffice for extradition. So, despite the letter of law in England and Wales regarding intent, cited in the comment above, the value of “FWIW” in this particular courtroom would appear to have been <=0.
Do you think there is time for me to beat the rush and start up an internet business selling bedtime burqas for boys in the UK and Sweden to prevent any "morning wood" contact with thigh or posterior of their beloved that might, upon several weeks of significant reflection by the beloved, be later determined by the beloved to have been offensive? Perhaps we could design them complete with hood, so that only his lips and eyes show through, thus having the added benefit of preventing unwelcome contact with facial hair stubble?
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.
“lying next to her and pressing his naked,erect penis to her body” could well be a momentary act to me. You lie down next to someone and press your naked erect penis into their body. You don’t have to be already lying down to do that. You’re just making an assumption that ‘lying next to her’ implies he had been there for a length of time.
Anyway, it certainly doesn’t say he was asleep. So unless he was otherwise incpacitated he is legally responsible for his actions.
So whether he was already lying down or not is irrelevant. The question is ‘did she consent to this act’. If the answer is ‘no’, it’s sexual assault. If somebody came up to you and pressed their naked erect penis against your body when you didn’t want them to, how would you feel? Say, in a supermarket, or on a beach?
You’re making the assumption that because she was in bed, or they were already in bed together, whatevs, that means he had her consent to this act. It isn’t necessarily the case.
In other words, you’ve made a lot of assumptions that aren’t necessarily warranted about that paragraph. You’ve interpreted it to fit what you think were the facts.
And for the 9 billionth time, she exaggerated wildly, this was an extradition hearing. It was NOT a trial of Assange’s guilt or innocence. So the judge did not infer consent at all.
Read the other interminable thread please before you come a trolling. (are you related to QRG?). The judge merely decided that this was POSSIBLY an offence under English Law IF the woman in question didn’t consent.
But the judge made no decision as to whether she consented or not. That is a matter for a POTENTIAL future trial. Because the judge was only deciding if there was potentially a case to answer and extradition was justified. Not on Assange’s guilt or innocence.
But next time you’re in a bus queue, I take it you won’t mind if the chap behind starts rhythimically thrusting his erect dick into your backside in a bumpy grindy frottage sort of way. He’ll be wearing pants anyway (I’d hope).
No idea who QRG is, sorry luv.
My oh my, 3 posts on yourself in a row. Take a deep breath.
The guilt or innocence of Mr. Assange is really quite beside the point, in any case. I am trying to determine whether cuddling by a man with a woman, starting with consent, continuing into mutual sleep, ending up with an erect penis on the part of the man touching a part of the woman’s body in the usual way (since men’s testosterone levels peak, quite without a man’s permission, in the pre-dawn hours) is sexual assault in your book, polly. Especially if the woman says nothing at the time.
Nice try with the bus queue dodge, though.
Whether it’s sexual assualt in MY book is irrelevant, I didn’t determine the law.
And the law is clear.
ACCCIDENTAL contact isn’t assault. Because sexual assault requires intent.
So:
am trying to determine whether cuddling by a man with a woman, starting with consent, continuing into mutual sleep, ending up with an erect penis on the part of the man touching a part of the woman’s body in the usual way (since men’s testosterone levels peak, quite without a man’s permission, in the pre-dawn hours) is sexual assault in your book, polly. Especially if the woman says nothing at the time.
No it isn’t. But you have no evidence that that is what is being described here.
So why not admit it.
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.
Is not the scenario you just described.
The sexual offences act 2003 requires basic intent:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_act/#Intent
The key word there is ‘deliberately’. IE he intended to do the act in question. It does not say ‘accidentally’. So please take your questions about imaginary unrelated scenarios back under the bridge, before the Billy Goats gruff arrive.
Thank you for the link to the Crown Prosecution Service outline.
Intentionality in the law is usually determined by whether a person did a thing or not. If you reach out to touch me on the bottom, you intended to do it. If you don’t connect, you intended to attempt to touch.
Thus, as I would expect, the CPS outline makes it clear that the initiation of a hug can be charged as sexual assault depending on the subjective response of the huggee.
So, I thank you for answering my hypo, but the CPS and others are free to disagree with you. In other words, cuddling could be chargeable as a criminal offense under the Sexual Offenses Act. The problem remains one of evidence, who bears the burden of proof, and the standard of proof, given the inherently subjective nature of consent and reasonableness of belief of consent.
With all due respect, the fact that you and I can both imagine quite different and equally plausible factual scenarios given the charging statement from the Swedish prosecutor just goes to show how little factual information is actually set forth in the charge. And I, for one, do not have massive amounts of sympathy for Mr. Assange. I have met his entitled type before. So let us do put Mr. Assange on the slow boat to Stockholm, you and I.
But expansive definitions of sexual assault, when they are combined with lowered standards of proof and shifted burdens of proof to the one charged, can pretty easily turn into open season for prosecutors and a witch hunt. And since men are still expected to initiate sexual activity, that means men will be the witches being hunted most of the time.
Let me give you a real world example. Using a sexual assault definition similar to the broadened one adopted by the Sexual Offenses Act, the US Department of Education in April, 2011, mandated that every college and university in the US now use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard for determining guilt in sexual assault (as well as sexual harassment, even broader definition) cases. That is a 50.0000000001% standard. The US Department of Education guideline as much as said that women should be presumed to be telling the truth. Thus, an allegation, plus presumption that allegation is true = preponderance of the evidence (again, 50.0000000001% is the hurdle). Thus the burden of proof and the requirement to present evidence shifts to the person accused (which the US Department of Education expects will usually be a man in its written materials). In the context of intimate settings such proof is, of course, virtually impossible to obtain. In other words, allegation amounts to conviction with the punishment being expulsion and, in the American way, eventually being put on a lifetime list of bad people. For this reason, respected feminist civil libertarians such as Wendy Kaminer in last month’s Atlantic Monthly, have roundly condemned the new rules, as has the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
Thus has cuddling become an expellable offense in US higher education.
When we have reached the point where the rights of human beings are dependent solely on the good faith of other human beings, we have reached the end of the rule of law. That, I fear, is where we are.
The burden of initiating romantic attachment is going to shift rather quickly toward women in this kind of setting, I predict. As will efforts by men to elicit repeated statements, on smart phone videos, of a woman’s continuing interest in proceeding (not just consent). I don’t expect women to like this new world much, and I certainly sympathize. But be careful what you pray for, because you usually receive it. “Gal up.”