
Swedish woman's texts could clear Assange - tuukkah
http://www.thelocal.se/20140625/swedish-womans-texts-could-clear-julian-assange
======
marvin
Let's not kid ourselves. It is terribly naïve to believe that this whole
situation has been about rape allegations. The only reason Assange was charged
in the first place was political pressure from the United States, which would
provide the opportunity for an extradition (on some suitable pretext) even in
the absence of a conviction.

This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process. The
political situation will not change even if this case falls apart - so Assange
would still be a refugee or a fugitive, depending on who you ask. British
authorities would certainly find some pretext to arrest him and extradite him
even if the Swedish government publicly verifies his safety and innocence.

I would love to be proved wrong if someone is better informed about this than
I, but this just seems completely obvious.

~~~
mpyne
> This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process.

Rather, it is instead a textbook example of how public figures that are
supported by a group suddenly become incapable of fault.

Instead of letting the legal system of Sweden play out (you know, like Snowden
had been trying to fight for with his leaks against the FISA Court), Assange's
supporters simply declare that this is some vast world conspiracy against
Assange, or that it wasn't _really_ "rape" anyways, and even much more
misogynistic things.

In addition all the contradictory evidence against that hypothesis simply gets
glossed over. E.g. the extradition thing makes no sense, and never made any
sense. Assange was being processed through courts in the _U.K._ while avoiding
Swedish justice, and the U.K. is hardly knowing for making it difficult to
extradite suspects to the U.S.!

If Assange was worried about extradition to the U.S. he should have fled from
the U.K. ASAP. Given that wasn't what he did, he must have been more worried
about something different (perhaps the veracity of the charges of which he was
accused?). And either way, as mentioned in a sibling comment, the U.S. would
actually have to charge him with something for extradition to apply, and those
charges would have to come within the statute of limitations (and perhaps even
within a shorter timeframe for whatever country Assange flees to).

~~~
easytiger
Given the crime he is accused of is, unless i am mistaken, having consensual
sex but during the act the condom broke, there's not a lot of rationality in
this entire thing.

~~~
mpyne
IIRC, _one_ of the accusations was having sex with no condom at all even
though consent had been conditional on using a condom, but had nothing to do
with a broken condom.

~~~
swombat
How is that rape?

I agree it's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a
conditional thing.

"I agree to have sex with you so long as you send that email tomorrow."

Next day: "You didn't send the email! That means you raped me yesterday!"

Er, no.

Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't. If you
don't, that should always be respected entirely. If you withdraw your consent
halfway through sex, that should also be respected entirely. However, you
can't withdraw consent later when you find out that the other person wasn't
using protection. Or rather, you can accuse them of being an asshole, but you
can't accuse them of raping you.

~~~
mootothemax
_I agree it 's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a
conditional thing._

A few questions for you:

If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex
with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the
STD carrier?

Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a
condom without prior agreement also fine?

 _Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don 't_

I hope my questions above illustrate that it's more complicated than the
black-and-white views you're putting across here.

Edit: removed crappy BDSM question.

Edit II: I guess I'm just really confused that you agree with the principles
of consent _unless that consent involves a condom_.

Personally, I find that strange, _least of all_ over the increased STD and
pregnancy risks involved.

~~~
swombat
_If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex
with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the
STD carrier?_

Then that person is an evil asshole who should go to jail for purposefully
infecting others with a disease, just the same as if he were to purposefully
put anthrax spores on your pillow. However, he's not a rapist. That's
something completely different.

 _Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off
a condom without prior agreement also fine?_

Sure, that's a fair point. But there some might argue that that's a different
kind of sex. Don't oversimplify my point: obviously agreeing to a blow job is
not the same as agreeing to penetrative sex or agreeing to anal sex or
agreeing to be tied up in a harness and whipped. But once it is clear that
there is agreement for that kind of sex, you can't go after the fact and say
"oh actually that was conditional on X and therefore you raped me".

As I said, the person who betrayed the other person's trust may still be an
asshole - but a rapist, they're not. Let's reserve "rape" for what it actually
is: a violent and despicable act of "taking" a form of sex that was refused.

~~~
mootothemax
_Let 's reserve "rape" for what it actually is..._

...your definition, and nobody else's?

This is a marginally unfair comparison: you realise saying this puts you in
the same camp as those who talk about "legitimate" rape?

I honestly don't understand why we can't keep a simpler definition for rape:
sex without consent.

You're saying that sex without consent is fine if that consent involves a
condom.

~~~
swombat
_I honestly don 't understand why we can't keep a simpler definition for rape:
sex without consent._

Because that's not the definition of rape?? That seems like a good reason not
to oversimplify.

Here's our good old friend the dictionary to the rescue:
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t)

1\. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to
have sexual intercourse.

2\. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

3\. statutory rape.

4\. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the
rape of the countryside.

5\. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

Now, it could be that it ends up being called rape under definition #3 -
because the statutes say it is. To me, that is a perversion of the english
language, though. Rape is clearly intended to imply some kind of forcing. It's
not just "I didn't consent to have sex in this specific way", it's "I either
gave no consent or I asked them to stop and they still did it".

~~~
mootothemax
I didn't have my library card with me at the time, and whilst I have no
interest in dragging up a days-old argument (I was researching the word
"Easter," of all things), I thought you might find this excerpt from the
Oxford English Dictionary interesting:

 _(first usage c. 1350) 1\. The act of taking something by force; esp. the
seizure of property by violent means; robbery, plundering. Also as a count
noun: an instance of this, a robbery, a raid. Now rare (chiefly arch. and
literary).

...

(first usage c. 1425) 2\. Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed
by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her
will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the
act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another
person; sexual violation or assault.

Subnote:

The precise legal definition of rape has varied over time and between legal
systems. Historically, rape was considered to be the act of a man forcing a
woman other than his wife to have intercourse against her will, but recently
the definition has broadened. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in the
United Kingdom the crime of rape includes the penile penetration of the
vagina, anus, or mouth of another person of either sex, where consent to the
act has not been given. This includes marital rape: in 1992 the House of
Lords, in its judicial capacity, decided that the previous understanding (i.e.
that a wife had given an irrevocable consent to intercourse) was no longer
part of the law. Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13 also
constitutes rape irrespective of whether consent is obtained. In the United
States the precise criminal definition of rape varies from state to state._

As time moves on, so do definitions and the laws that go with them.

One bit of the subnote that really sounds out for the sheer number of horrible
bits in it: "an act of a _man_ forcing a _woman_ other than _his wife_..."

Thankfully we've progressed quite a bit from those dark days.

------
preinheimer
This is a really good read about his actual legal state:
[http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2012/08/legal-...](http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition)

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
It's a very good piece and it's worth noting that David Allen Green (who wrote
this and blogs about the law as Jack of Kent - he's a practicing solicitor in
the UK) is pretty liberal, not just in his writing but also his actions (he
was part of the defence team who got the twitter airport bomb hoax defendant
cleared, was involved in the Simon Singh chiropractic libel case on Singh's
side) and the New Statesman is a left leaning publication which has frequently
published articles in support of Assange.

DAG isn't a man you can easily accuse of being the sort who would be rabidly
anti-Assange - almost the opposite.

~~~
id
I don't think his past clients have necessarily something to do with his view
on Assange. Lawyers often plead somebody's cause without endorsing their
actions.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
My point is that cries which are often heard around these matters of "he would
say that" don't really ring true here - this is a qualified solicitor with
solid liberal credentials. People may not like what he says but there is
little reason to believe he's not telling the truth.

------
nemetroid
It's worth mentioning that in Sweden, the only crimes where the plaintiff can
choose not to prosecute are libel, slander, trespassing, and maybe a few more
(and even then with special cases)[0].

0: [http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-
prosecutor...](http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-
prosecutor/Decision-to-prosecute/Duty-to-prosecute/)

~~~
CurtHagenlocher
Is this true? It seems odd to me that it was downvoted rather than refuted
with evidence to the contrary.

~~~
nemetroid
Maybe it's because I didn't link to a source. Edited in one now.

------
streptomycin
I don't see what this will change. If this lady didn't really want to press
charges, she's had a few years to publicly tell people that.

Even if such a text exists, it doesn't mean she couldn't change her mind. Or
maybe she was lying in the text for some reason.

~~~
Fuxy
That is assuming that the rape actually happened however she being shocked of
the arrest would imply a amicable relationship not a I don't want to press
charges relationship.

Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you
raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without
any proof.

Or she could just get payed off to get him into the country for a different
purpose which judging by the fact that he was granted asylum seems very likely
to me.

~~~
king_jester
> Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you
> raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without
> any proof.

This is such a myth and I'm really tired of hearing it. The fact is the vast
majority of sexual assault and rape prosecutions and charges do not end in any
conviction. Also, rates of false accusations are far, far smaller than rates
sexual assault and rape, so the reality is that it is rare when something like
that happens.

Most women you attempt to press for a sexual assault charge are often unable
to get one on the very basis on which you seem to think they can magically
send you to jail: people don't believe them, proof is often hard to come by
due to the nature of sexual assault, and misogynistic cultural stereotypes are
often held up as reasons why sexual assault couldn't have possibly happened.

~~~
mreiland
we have no good statistics due to issues with self reporting, non-reporting,
etc. It isn't good to state things with authority that cannot actually be
known.

It's very possible, for example, that the reason the 'vast majority of sexual
assault and rape prosecutions and charges do not end in any conviction' is
because they were either false accusations, or not clearly rape of the sort
where the woman was forced into the act.

It's a amusing to watch someone both say that the majority of cases don't end
in a conviction, but also that the rate of false accusations are tiny.

How does one make that conclusion based upon the evidence as presented?

The answer is simple: One simply has that opinion, and the facts are
irrelevant.

------
benzoate
I wonder even if he is cleared in Sweden he would still be self imprisoned in
the embassy, since he broke UK law by breaching his bail conditions?

~~~
aylons
He is not in the embassy because of the Brits, he is in the embassy because he
fears being deported to the US by the Swedens.

~~~
jamespo
Which doesn't make sense, who is more friendly with the US, Britain or Sweden?

EDIT: what I'm clarifying is that he's not avoiding Sweden because he thinks
they'll deport him to the US, that would have been more likely staying in the
UK.

~~~
nailer
I believe there was something about Sweden having a covert relationship with
NATO, which might mean they might extradite him, vs Ecuador which isn't.
Britain doesn't enter the equation because he's not on British soil.

That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's
happy to do remotely via video conference.

If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the
do, they could do it today.

Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was
allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known
feminist.

~~~
mpyne
> Britain doesn't enter the equation because he's not on British soil.

He was on British soil for _months_ while his extradition case dragged on. And
whatever "covert" ties Sweden has with NATO (which is _not_ the USA), the U.K.
has substantially many more with the U.S. directly. The "special relationship"
is a real thing, so if some sort of covert rendition were a real worry for
Assange, it would have already happened without needing to involve a
Scandinavian nation.

> That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's
> happy to do remotely via video conference.

He's wanted for questioning as part of his arrest and formal charge
proferring. You can't book people by VTC last I checked; either way, Assange
is in no position to unilaterally demand the conditions of _his_ treatment as
compared to any other defendant under Swedish law. Does he think he's royalty
or something, and above the law as applied to the rest of Sweden?

> If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say
> the do, they could do it today.

See above.

> Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was
> allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known
> feminist.

Perhaps. If only there was some deliberative process by which a group of
persons might decide where that nugget of evidence stacks up in determining
whether Assange is actually guilty or not guilty, we could help clear all this
up.

~~~
nailer
> The "special relationship" is a real thing, so if some sort of covert
> rendition were a real worry for Assange, it would have already happened
> without needing to involve a Scandinavian nation.

It could have been that this was the most convenient excuse.

> He's wanted for questioning as part of his arrest

Yes, they've asked to arrest - ie, detain - him to question him. They haven't
charged him with any crime.

I think there's a very real danger that someone wants to punish him for
exposing government war crimes. But maybe you're right and it's just because
he's a primadonna and the US government is pretty chilled out about the whole
thing.

~~~
mpyne
> Yes, they've asked to arrest - ie, detain - him to question him. They
> haven't charged him with any crime.

He's been properly charged. The fact that this meme refuses to die is my whole
point about tribalism, the meme's not merely misleading, it's _false_ , and
yet it continues to persist, and for no reason. After all, he might very well
be found not guilty, especially if the evidence against him is so flimsy as
his supporters claim, but Assange has prevented the trial from even reaching
that point, and his supporters believe that this is proper because the
situation pertains to His Wikiness and for no other reason.

The "questioning" they will be doing of Assange is to ensure that there are no
mitigating facts that Assange would be able to bring to cause the prosecutor
to _rescind_ the charges based on the mounds of evidence already accumulated.
Afterwards he will be immediately taken into custody (and somehow I doubt he
will be released on bail given his current ongoing flight from justice).

Nor is this simply a rogue prosecutor in Sweden, Assange's case was heard by
an appeals court in Sweden and in _multiple_ appeals courts in the U.K., all
of which determined that there was sufficient evidence shown to demonstrate
that the trial could proceed.

------
oh_sigh
Why can't Sweden just try him in absentia and get this over with?

~~~
nols
Swedish law prevents this. In order to charge him they need to question him
another time, that's actually been a major part of the fray so far. Check the
New Statesman link that's posted around here for more information about the
legalities surrounding this whole process.

~~~
true_religion
Why can't they question him by video?

~~~
nols
It is part of a criminal proceeding, they don't just want to question him.
They want to question and arrest him, they must question him again before they
can arrest and charge him. They already discussed the case with him once, this
second time is more of a "convince us not to arrest you".

------
kgogolek
he was accused of raping two women, so even if they discard the first charge,
the second still stands.

------
sid6376
I wonder what happens according to this new law, if I send a text message from
someone else's phone. At the point of committing many crimes, access to the
phone may not be very hard for the criminal.

