WikiLeaks

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by nomadking

In the situation where there has been a murder, and there has not yet been a trial, doesn't mean that there isn't a murderer out there. A crime has still taken place.

Just because somebody has been found not guilty, doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it, you may just not be able to prove it.

He may claim that she wasn't asleep, but was she fully awake and aware? Even if she was awake, did he say or do anything, in order for her to consent, or did he simply surprise her, which would be rape. The 2 women feel that there is something to complain about.

There are documented instances of women making far more severe accusations of rape, the accused has (in some instances) had to move away, change his name, or in rare instances committed suicide.
Yet often there is little if any justice for the accused.
That is a very unfair system, and people assuming the accused is guilty when they haven't even heard his testimony is just plain ridiculous.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

That is a very unfair system, and people assuming the accused is guilty when they haven't even heard his testimony is just plain ridiculous.

Outside of 'innocent until proven guilty', do you think he's guilty of rape?

Originally Posted by Sparkle

There are documented instances of women making far more severe accusations of rape, the accused has (in some instances) had to move away, change his name, or in rare instances committed suicide.
Yet often there is little if any justice for the accused.
That is a very unfair system, and people assuming the accused is guilty when they haven't even heard his testimony is just plain ridiculous.

Which also is interesting, yet besides the point. Assange's case has fulfilled the necessary conditions for extradition to Sweden. So to Sweden he must go.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

There are documented instances of women making far more severe accusations of rape, the accused has (in some instances) had to move away, change his name, or in rare instances committed suicide.
Yet often there is little if any justice for the accused.
That is a very unfair system, and people assuming the accused is guilty when they haven't even heard his testimony is just plain ridiculous.

I don't know if he's guilty or not of sexual assault and/or rape, as the case has not been heard - what he is most certainly is doing is trying to avoid the case being heard.

[nomadking]

They have heard his initial testimony. Anyone can deny something, if that denial cannot be properly tested and scrutinised and especially not be able to be acted upon(ie arrest). You can't expect the whole case of questioning and answers to be played out via the media.

He says that the allegations are politically motivated, but they were made by 2 of his supporters. Also if that was the case, they would have been made straight away after the first incident and not days later after the 2nd one. There may be disagreements about details of any events, but events took place and he took part. It is not a completely fictitious set of events being claimed.

He also said he was not challenging the fact they found his sexual behaviour "disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with".

If what he did was so above board and innocent, why make that statement?

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I don't know if he's guilty or not of sexual assault and/or rape, as the case has not been heard - what he is most certainly is doing is trying to avoid the case being heard.

I accept there is merit to that theory. I can't see how Assange will be on any safer ground in Ecuador than in Sweden if he's running from the US. The US can get him in Ecuador probably as easily as in Sweden.

I suspect he's using the Ecuadorian embassy as an intermediate broadcasting platform prior to giving himself up for extradition, and has every intention of doing just that when he feels the time is right.
If there is political coercion going on behind the scenes, then I think Assange's asylum claim was a smart move. If he's confident that the allegations will be thrown out after he returns to Sweden, then it's an even smarter move. Consider that, if after all this drama the "justice" he returns to face turns into a nothing more than a damp squib, he will have made a complete fool out of the media, the UK and the US government, and certainly a PR victory on his part. Not to mention bringing attention to the lop-sided rape laws both in Sweden and the UK. £50,000 per day in security outside the embassy according to the dailymail.
Even woman's rights activists will be furious that the gov has hijacked their plight for a political cause, like it's something to be used then thrown away when it no longer suits the political agenda.
On the other hand, if the allegations are true, and there never was any political agenda, not only will I will I have to eat my words, but it will be the end of Assange's career.

I can see this one turning fairly heated if those allegations aren't substantiated, history will be the judge.

Theory?

I am pretty sure his actions back up my assertion.....

btw, I think you will find the Judge, assisted by a jury, will be the judge (if Mr Assange ever decides to turn up)...

[Russ]

Political Coercion or not, if there is a case to answer then there is a case to answer. It dies not have to be any more complicated than that.

[nomadking]

lop-sided rape laws both in Sweden and the UK

And how is what has been alleged not a crime in his home country of Australia or most other places.
Link to Australian article
Even that raises the issues of consent where:-

Intoxication, unconsciousness, sleep
...
Fraud, deception and mistaken belief

If she consented later, what happened before that would still have been a crime as she hadn't consented before he started that time.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Theory?

If this were an ordinary extradition case, then I'd certainly agree.
But given the circumstances, the lengths Assange seems prepared to go to avoid extradition just doesn't seem to add up.
Would seem far easier just to face the charges, and whatever sentence if found guilty, rather than a lifetime of being on the run from the Swedish authorities.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

But given the circumstances, the lengths Assange seems prepared to go to avoid extradition just doesn't seem to add up.

Someone accused of a serious crime going to extreme lengths to avoid court?

You're saying you find that unusual?

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And how is what has been alleged not a crime in his home country of Australia or most other places.

What is there to be confused about? Rape law is in general very unfair for the accused.
Look at this case, don't you think Assange should have been entitled to anonymity until a crime has been proved? There are countless cases of men's lives being ruined by false accusations, whilst the accusers (some of them serial accusers) enjoy full anonymity. They do it because they know they can get away with it.

If you read up on the history you will know that in the UK those accused of rape get publicly named so that other victims can come forward, as happened with a few notable cases back in the 80's.
However, the flaw with that logic, is that in a country of 60 million people, if you were to turn the tables, and only name the accuser and allow the accused to enjoy anonymity, then in any given decade there would be other falsely accused men ALSO coming forward claiming that they'd been falsely accused.
But that hardly justifies naming the accusers, if the law were fair both parties would remain anonymous until a crime had been proven. Even most women I've spoken with seem to agree with this.

Another reason why that logic is flawed is because there is no way to be certain how many false accusers have come forward to accuse men of rape and then their testimony causing an innocent man to be found guilty by a jury.
And also considering, it is well documented that even after being acquitted, men falsely accused of rape have considered their lives so utterly trashed that they've committed suicide.
Many will say, mud sticks.
Its lop-sided and unfair.

Also, the 6% rape conviction statistic is unproven. The reason 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction, is because in 6% of reported rapes there is evidence that rape has occurred. Unproven, whereas feminists will parrot that statistic like it's gospel.
I recall back in the 80's learning that 1 in 4 fathers will rape their daughters. This originated back in the 70's.
Militant feminist garbage, without even a grain of truth to it, and we shouldn't stand for it.

Back in the 90's during the spate of college date rape cases in the US, law makers attempted to make it law that the male had to prove consent in rape cases. That is absolutely criminal, and militant feminists would just love to see it happen. The way things are going, and the disturbing ease at which some men in our society would like to see other men labeled as a rapist, is worrying.

Militant feminists will say, that if a couple have sex, and the woman is drunk then SHE couldn't have consented and it was rape.

They will conveniently ignore the example when its the man that's drunk and has sex with a sober woman. In their twisted little world, in that example they no doubt reckon it was just his lucky day.

There is no sense of fairness in militant feminism, they see the whole world though the prism of gender bias, it's just a shame our governments actually listen to them when they only represent a fringe minority of men and women.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Sexual intercourse requires consent, but consent does not require a "written invitation". At no time did I say or imply that it required a "written invitation", and it is nonsense to say so

If someone wishes to have sexual intercourse with their partner, they require their partner's consent. It can be verbal, it can be non-verbal, but there must be consent.

Prior consent to one instance of sexual intercourse does not give carte blanche consent for any and all future sexual intercourse, whether the partner is awake or asleep, conscious or unconscious. Consent is given before the act, it is not taken away after the act.




The Law:

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

The guidance of the CPS:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 - CPS

Evidential presumptions (section 75)
If the defendant did the relevant act, as defined in section 77 (the sexual activity within sections 1-4), and the circumstances specified in subsection (2) exist and the defendant knew they existed, then the complainant is to be taken not to have consented. These circumstances are:

(a) Any person used/threatened violence against the complainant at the time of the act or immediately before the first sexual activity began;

(b) Any person caused the complainant to fear at the time of the act or immediately before the first sexual act, that violence was being used/would be used immediately against another person;

(c) The complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time;

(d) The complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time;

(e) The complainant was unable to communicate consent to the defendant because of their physical disability e.g. where a complainant is unable to communicate verbally or to nod or shake their head.

(f) Any person administers or causes the complainant to take a substance, without the complainant's consent, which was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.

The following has been posted more than once in this thread...



The actual rape allegation by complainant "SW", as listed in the EAW:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2011/2849.html

[Alleged Offence Number] 4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] 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."

From the ruling of the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in the case of the judicial authority of Sweden versus Julian Assange:

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.

From the ruling of the High Court of Justice in the case of the judicial authority of Sweden versus Julian Assange:

It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.

[nomadking]

What has the issue of anonymity got to do with this? The laws in Britain and Sweden are NOT that lop-sided compared to the rest of the world. If the allegations are that flimsy then the Swedish courts would have already dismissed them.

[Tezcatlipoca]

If the allegations are that flimsy, why doesn't he return to Sweden and let the Swedish authorities attempt to prove his alleged guilt while he defends his innocence.