Assange Facts

Due to ongoing media distortion and the inability of the MSM to report this case adequately, we publish this from Occupy London…

 

Comments (0)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Doug Daniel says:

    I wonder how long it’ll take for someone to accuse Bella of being “rape apologists”…?

    I don’t know if he did commit rape or not, and nor does anyone else who comments on the case. What I DO know is you don’t go entering embassies and expect other countries to take any notice of you when you try to take the moral high ground in international affairs.

    Stuff like this highlights exactly why Scotland needs to be independent of the UK, and not just go down the route of devo max, which would leave us under the disastrous foreign policy of the UK.

    1. Peter A Bell says:

      I found myself so accused simply for questioning the following rather wild assertion:

      “EyeEdinburgh @xxxxxxxxx The most awful thing abt the Assange case is the sheer number of men admitting publicly they don’t see rape as a serious crime.”

      All I did was ask for examples to back up this statement. None were forthcoming. I was blocked.

      Idiots like this would, if they got their way, make it impossible to discuss the issue of sexual crime because they insist then any who do not precisely echo their own shrill and hysterical language are “rape apologists”.

    2. Gary says:

      What we should be asking is how an independent Scotland would handle extradition arrest warrants.

      Mind, plucky little Ecuador is a red-herring:

      http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

    3. KW says:

      Not having access to confidential information Bella is not in a position to say whether Julian Assange is a rapist or not, nor do we know whether the two women were paid by the CIA as part of a standard black op against someone hostile to US foreign policy. Both are possible. Neither are proven. It astounds us that anyone can discount either scenario without the burden of proof being established.

      KW

      1. Gary says:

        I doubt the Tom Clancy stuff. The US could easily charge and extradite him from London — probably easier than from Sweden.

      2. Alex Montrose says:

        Could be right there KW, if they paid a shopkeeper a million $ to testify in the Magrahi case, then its not beyond them to do the same again.

      3. Doug Daniel says:

        Exactly! I’ve been dismayed at seeing normally reasonable people losing the plot over this, ready to judge him guilty before he’s even been charged, never mind tried. I know we have a problem with low rape conviction statistics and that it’s important not to brush these things under the carpet – but similarly, we can’t allow rape to become a taboo subject where anyone accused of it is automatically judged to be guilty, in almost a no-smoke-without-fire way.

        He may indeed have raped those women – but I just cannot ignore the fact that the accusations arose at a very convenient time for the US government.

      4. Christian Wright says:

        What confidential information are you talking about, KW? The information upon which extradition was pursued is contained in the complaint – it is comprehensive and detailed. If you have not read it, I would urge you to do so. There should be more than enough there for a reasonable person to reach an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Assange.

        Again, What secret information are you alluding to?

    4. Christian Wright says:

      Well, you know Doug, based on the evidence, I know for certain that he did not commit rape as the term is commonly defined and understood. It is not the case that we can all have a view on this and all views are valid – they are not. Either Assange raped these women or he did not, and any fair reading of the complaint must judge it risible in the extreme.

      1. Indy says:

        You don’t know what rape is. Go out and look up the law. It will suprise you.

  2. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Amazing, what we never see in inky finger print.

  3. megabreath2 says:

    well done to Bella Caledonia for posting this letter.the allegations against Assange are a smokescreen.Does that make me an apologist for rape?Words fail me…………..

  4. Paul Cochrane says:

    Why was he not arrested during his 5 weeks in Sweden? Why did they wait until he had left? Go Team America!

  5. But why did they not do it from the UK?

    Too political at, whart is, or would be judged as to be “difficult” locally,
    from a Langley telescope?

  6. James Coleman says:

    According to many leading lawyers in England what Assange did in Sweden is not a crime in England so he could not have been arrested and held for that specific crime there. Thus he could not be extradited to the USA from England.

    1. James Coleman says:

      That last post of mine is muddled. For extradition to the USA from England an Arrest Warrant on Assange would first have to be issued in USA. Only then could a request to the English Courts be made for extradition to the USA. So far the USA has not done that.

  7. burdzeyeview says:

    I’m disappointed in you, Mike and Kevin, for presenting the catalogue of innuendo and unsupported contention that is dismissive of these women’s potential case from Occupy London as somehow redressing the balance in terms of the distorted reporting of this case. And the level of detail reported here clearly will have a bearing on whether or not Assange could be fairly tried if charged of any offences. But hey ho, what does that appear to matter.

    1. Gary says:

      Side-note: I was going to mention this yesterday, but didn’t. This factsheet doesn’t actually come from Occupy London. It was first posted by a Wikileaks supporter, who noted ‘this list of 15 facts is mostly based on information originally put together by Christine Assange’, i.e. Julian’s mother. Not sure why the Occupy document omits that info, or whether it changes anyone’s mind about anything.

      http://notesonwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/15251907983/assange-extradition-fact-sheet

  8. bellacaledonia says:

    Which of the points listed do you disagree with Kate?

  9. noheroes says:

    The problem with the stance taken here is simple: in defending the good things Wikileaks has done it calls for supporting someone accused of rape, of ignoring those charges and, by extension, then buys into the arguments of those who dismiss accusations of rape more generally. It is not acceptable to question or doubt accusations of rape. Assange is innocent until proven guilty but the accusations must be upheld and brought to court. It is incredibly dodgy to see purportedly progressive individuals engage in this style of speculative defence of his actions. This is an injustice to the accusors. We have no idea what he has or hasn’t done.

    Several of the points in this fact sheet have covered by Owen Jones in the Independent, including why he hasn’t been charged by Sweden (in Sweden people are generally tried later on) and that what Assange has been accused of doing is indeed a crime in this country. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-there-should-be-no-immunity-for-julian-assange-from-these-allegations-8053869.html.

    Assange is not Wikileaks nor should he represent any movement for social change.

    1. Christian Wright says:

      noheroes wrote: “It is not acceptable to question or doubt accusations of rape. Assange is innocent until proven guilty but the accusations must be upheld and brought to court. ”

      Oh really? What does that mean? OF COURSE it is acceptable to question and doubt the accusations of rape. That is what happens when the facts of a case are scrutinized by the police or a public prosecutor, who will determine if charges are to be brought. It is also what happens when ordinary individuals, on the basis of a complaint, make their own mind up about the veracity of the testimony of witnesses.

      What about the matter of the probable rendition of Assange to the US and the prospect of him never seeing the light of day again? Don’t you think that matter should be taken into account when deciding if extradition is warranted? Or should we just ignore that threat? Where it your life at stake, wouldn’t you be a little more concerned about that?

      And what do you mean the accusations must be “upheld”. Should every dingbat crazy accusation of rape be upheld? Upheld where? Upheld how? Have you actually read the whole complaint? If you have, can you say it is credible? It would be laughed out of any court anywhere else in the world – if it ever reached the point where Assange was actually charged with any crime (which is unlikely).

    2. Christian Wright says:

      noheroes wrote: “[W]hat Assange has been accused of doing is indeed a crime in this country.”

      Simply asserting that does not make it so. Neither does inclusion of a link to the views of an unqualified ex trade union parliamentary researcher with an agenda. Cite the English case law that backs your statement. You cannot can you, for there is none.

  10. Jane Irvine says:

    “Not having access to confidential information Bella is not in a position to say whether Julian Assange is a rapist or not”

    Disappointing and incredible. The only information you need, to know whether Julian Assange ‘is a rapist or not’ is whether he has been convicted of rape. He hasn’t, so he is isn’t.

    “It is not acceptable to question or doubt accusations of rape.”

    Of course it is. The onus is on the accuser to prove their claim.

  11. douglas clark says:

    noheros,

    It seems obvious to me that Assange should answer questions on the alleged rapes. What is not so obvious to me is why he should be placed in jeopardy of death because of political damage to the USA, due to a, so-far speculative, threat of onward extradition. This whole business of extradition needs re-examining, IMHO. I doubt that the signatories to the treaty saw it as an extension of US global power but that appears to be the outcome. Garry McKinnon anyone?

  12. noheroes says:

    “Two: “Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdom”

    This is similarly untrue. Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.”
    From http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

    I call for bellacaledonia to retract its defence of Assange.

    Nobody on the left wants him to be extradited to the USA or indeed for the work of wikileaks to stop. The only pro-feminist position, however, is one that takes complaints of this nature seriously.

    1. Christian Wright says:

      “The only pro-feminist position, however, is one that takes complaints of this nature seriously.”

      What utter mince. That isn’t a pro-feminist position it is position borne of undifferentiated animus and political correctness. What is a feminist position, anyway, I mean other than being defined as the one you espouse. What are your credentials to dictate to anyone what the pro-feminist position on this issue may be?

      That is not a rhetorical question.

  13. W says:

    I wonder how I sat taking notes in a High Court rape trial in Scotland when it was penetration while the girl was asleep, if that’s not a crime in this country? Luckily the Procurator Fiscal’s office know it is, and the crime is rape. The eagerness shown to swallow this list of claims about actions of the complainers and assertions about events, attacks on the Swedish justice system etc is shocking. You really bring yourselves, and actually the cause of Scottish inddependence, into deep disrepute with this ignorant drivel being propagated on this site. Bloody shame on you. Really I wonder why any country bothers having due process of law when Occupy London or whoever else is willing to try and judge cases through the ether – why bother having any justice system?

  14. noheroes says:

    In response to Christian Wright’s previous post: who gets to decide on this issue? Well, organisations like Women’s Aid and rape support charities for one. But then again it’s not like there’s much disagreement on this (i.e. taking complaints of sexual violence very seriously, making those who are complained about face up to their charges, and not attacking or accusing the complainant). It’s incredibly basic feminism. Either you genuinely accept it or you’re supporting and reproducing entirely sexist, misogynist and hierarchical social relations. It isn’t a side issue.

    In response to previous things you’ve said, it’s not down to the general public to scrutinize charges like this.

    Bellacaledonia has to unequivocally retract this or it’s in the same camp as George Galloway and any other partiarchial nutter.

    IUn

    1. Colin Dunn says:

      “. . taking complaints of sexual violence very seriously, making those who are complained about face up to their charges, and not attacking or accusing the complainant”

      But that doesn’t mean not investigating the veracity of the complaint too. Police have a responsibility to investigate ALL aspects of a rape accusation – just like any other crime.

      1. noheroes says:

        Colin, that’s what I’m saying: they have to be investigated, meaning Assange has to go to Sweden to be questioned and charged (he’s not just going there for questioning). But it also means we – that’s anyone that wants to change things for the better – shouldn’t be supporting him but strongly defending the rights of the complainants. If you want to have a guess at the veracity of the complaints, though, just take a look at the accounts his own defence gave (absolutely shocking).

  15. douglas clark says:

    To the extent that he should be required to answer questions, then yes, I agree with noheroes.

    This hardly seems a clear cut case and is unlikely to lead to good case law in the future. There are too many confounding factors.

    Too often legislation is introduced on the back of celebrity cases, the dangerous dogs act comes to mind, there are many others.

    I am somewhat astonished at the degree to which the UK government has reacted in this case. Would they really do that if Assange wasn’t some sort of celebrity, and would they have done it on behalf of Sweden?

    More questions than answers I suppose.

  16. James McLaren says:

    Nice smear W conflating Independence with an attack on woman who have been sexually violated.

    Unless you have inadvertently not being payiong attention, this is an online newpaper which admittedly supports independence for Scotland but also comments on other matters.

    This article has nothing to do with indpendence for Scotland.

    If you have been paying attention and realise independence for Scotland and the Assange affair then you are a smearing Troll.

    As far as I am aware the Scottish Government has not publiclly commented on Assange.

    We are seeing a prolferation of such tactics recently. Yours is one of the most outrageous

    Unless

  17. Indy says:

    There are certainly issues with this case in terms of the extradition – it would be nice if Sweden could guarantee that he would not be extradited but as I understand it they can’t. So it is very messy. But as far as the rape apologist stuff goes – if you don’t want to be associated with rape apologists then don’t associate with them. Take the comments by Christian Wright. They are the comments of a rape apologist. He says “I know for certain that he did not commit rape as the term is commonly defined and understood.” I don’t see many people challenging that. I don’t think you can blame feminists for being unhappy when remarks like that are totally unchallenged.

  18. W says:

    I am pro independence James McLaren and that is why I am so disappointed and angry that BellaCaledonia is propagating a clearly shown LIE sheet misrepresenting rape law, amongst other things ,which is dangerous, for everyone. I’m not smearing the Indy campaign I’m trying to pull it out of the toilet that Bella is busy flushing it down. That fact sheet is DRIVEL and dangerous with it. The allegations most certainly DO constitute an offence in the UK and that offence is RAPE.

    1. Peter A Bell says:

      What the hell does this have to do with the independence campaign?

      1. noheroes says:

        Sorry, what? You think misogyny is alright in the independence movement?

        1. Peter A Bell says:

          You want to sort out the nonsense going on in your own wee head before your presume to represent the views of others.

      2. noheroes says:

        You mean just another loud mouth bloke defending his male privilege. If bellacaledonia’s anything to go by Scottish feminists have their work cut out.

        1. Peter A Bell says:

          The question was, “What the hell does this have to do with the independence campaign?”. Which part of this is confusing you?

    2. James McLaren says:

      What has this article to do with the Indpendence debate and why should reflect badly on Independence?

      Your position is absurd.

      By decrying Bella on this article and conflating that with the Independence debate I could turn your position around and say that you undermine the importance of the due process of law against one of the most vile crimes; that of rape.

      But that would be absurd.

    3. douglas clark says:

      Hard as I try, I cannot see any link between Julian Assange and Independence. That is not to say it’s not an important issue – it is – but why you would conflate commentary on one with commentary on t’other is beyond me.

  19. James McLaren says:

    Noheros

    You are a Troll

    Zap!

  20. noheroes says:

    You’re right, James. Here’s my last post:

    A supposedly progressive and leftwing pro-independence site casually reposts a defence of a suspected rapist and we’re not justified in criticizing it? It reflects well on the gender politics of those who put it up and most people who’ve commented here?

    1. Peter A Bell says:

      You’re trolling efforts to turn this into a stick with which to beat the independence campaign get more pathetically ludicrous as you grow more desperate to cover your embarrassment. You’ve already made a total fool of yourself here, Stop digging!

    2. Peter A Bell says:

      Not the least of your ignorance is supposing that an accused person is not entitled to a defence. and that it is somehow wrong to publish material relevant to a debate.

      Let’s face it! You’re just not very bright.

  21. douglas clark says:

    noheroes,

    There might have been a smidgeon of justification in criticising the original post, for, for every definitive statement about the case there are lots of very intelligent people who can point to evidence that supports a completely different position. There is a fairly lengthy thread over at Liberal Conspiracy if you don’t believe me http://tinyurl.com/cskb35q . There are also two further threads on the same site the last time I looked.

    Tying that topic to the independence credentials of this site? Well, it doesn’t really add up. Sorry about that.

  22. Poor.Old.Tired.Horse. says:

    I’m with noheroes here. It is absolutely NOT trolling to call out a pro-independence website for posting the spurious Assange ‘fact sheet’. Crying ‘troll’ has become the new Godwin’s Law. As for huffing and puffing about people crying ‘rape apologist’: well, if you will apologise for rapists then damn right people are going to use that term. As this whole sorry episode has shown, the left seriously need to examine its attitudes to male privilege. It is a sad day when you have supposedly progressive men trying to redefine rape or question the motives of his victims. The fact that Assange may have done good with wikileaks does not give him a get out of jail card for rape. It is perfectly possible to support wikileaks while thinking Assange should stand trial for rape. He admits he had non-consensual sex with the women – he just doesn’t define it as rape, even though, by any legal definition, it is. No progressive person should be supporting this egotistical scumbag. He is basically using wikileaks to escape a rape charge and has undermined the cause of wikileaks. So yes, it is extremely disappointing to see a left-wing, pro independence site like Bella making such a terrible misjudgement. It doesn’t do the left, or the independence cause any good.

  23. douglas clark says:

    Poor.Tired.Old.Horse,

    I’d rather Assange went through due process on this.

    But you’ve made your mind up that he is guilty as charged. With the internet, we can dispense with judges and juries and all the other trappings of a civilised society.

    Has Assange himself admitted rape? Please cite.

  24. douglas clark says:

    Err. as not yet charged……..

  25. Poor.Old.Tired.Horse. says:

    I’d cite the previously posted New Statesman and Owen Jones articles. As I understand, Assange has admitted he had non-consensual sex, but like his deluded buddy George Galloway, he doesn’t seem to think this constitutes rape. Whether he’d made this admission or not, he clearly has a case to answer and should allow due process to go ahead. The point about Assange not being charged is always brought up, but this shows a misunderstanding of Swedish law, as the NS article points out.

  26. Indy says:

    I don’t think it has anything to do with independence either but I also think it was a mistake to publish this document in an apparently uncritical way. For a variety of reasons but mainly because it is simply wrong in certain important respects.

    What Assange has been accused of IS an offence here in Scotland, in England & Wales and in Sweden.

    It is important that people understand that. We do not, of course, know what happened and an accused person is innocent until proven guilty.

    But it is quite wrong to suggest that the accusation does not constitute rape. That is not a matter of opinion. The law is the law.

    This could even have some personal meaning for someone reading this – that’s pretty unlikely I guess but it is one of the concerns that I have about the likes of Galloway. Supposing someone heard what he said and actually believed it? Supposing someone read that document and believed that what Assange is accused of is not an offence in the UK? It would be their tough luck if they allowed that to influence their behaviour because ignorance is no defence.

    Maybe given all the interest in this article Bella should publish a short factual argument just setting out what the law on rape is so that no-one can be in any doubt.

  27. Graham says:

    The internet is a wonderful source of information, most of it unfiltered by editorial committees and legal departments and long may this continue. I use it for news, discussion and other things. It contains opinions contrary to my own, which is irritating and good both at the same time, even when I strongly disagree. It also contains factually incorrect information but that’s fine because I have Google and my brain. The easily offended are free to choose their viewing wisely, like the telly.

    The law on rape in Scotland: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/contents.

    A recent example of its application: http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk.

    Assange interview transcripts: http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf.

    Article on false rape statistics: http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-common.

  28. bellacaledonia says:

    It would be good if people can conduct discussion in a more civilized way, if not this post and discussion will be abandoned. I totally appreciate the issue is one in which people have very strong opinions but if the ‘debate’ descends further we will have to pull it.

Keep our Journalism Independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address to subscribe for free here and receive Bella direct to your inbox.

 
Bella Caledonia