Contrary to mainstream media fake news, Julian Assange has never been charged with any sexual offence. His status was that he was wanted for questioning. But the questioning by Swedish police and prosecutors took place exactly two months ago in the Ecuadorean Embassy, at length over several days. So he is no longer wanted for questioning, yet is still not charged. The pretence there is any kind of genuine criminal investigation in progress, already transparently thin, is now in shreds.
The Swedish police and prosecutors have had over six years to gather and assess all the evidence. The only missing piece was the further interrogation of Assange, which happened in November. After six years of preparing the jigsaw, they have had two months to slot the last piece into place. Policemen are used to having to prepare a case for charging within days, not months. What is more, the remaining charge (the minor ones having time expired) is a single, extremely simple incident in which there is nothing else left to investigate.
I think we are entitled to conclude that the Swedish prosecutor is behaving in a disgraceful manner.
These are the facts of the incident in question. It is undisputed by anyone that Julian Assange and Sofia Wilen went to bed in Sofia Wilen’s bed and had enjoyable, consensual sex on multiple occasions. What is in dispute is whether, when one of these sex acts commenced, Sofia Wilen was awake, asleep or, as she tweeted to a friend, half-asleep, and therefore whether she was in a position to consent to sex on that occasion.
The statement Julian Assange gave to prosecutors two months ago states:
91. This is false. I was certain “SW” was not asleep. I was also certain she expressly consented to unprotected sex before such intercourse started. This is also evidenced by “SW”’s own text messages. For example, my lawyers refer me to the following text message to her friend:
— 17 August, 08:42 am: JA did not want to use a condom.
92. Then a day later she explicitly texts her friend that she had not, in fact, been asleep.
— 18 August, 06:59 am: I was half asleep.
You can read the full text of Assange’s statement here.
Sofia Wilen did not view what had happened to her as rape and was to text on 20 August 2010 at 14.26 that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange” but that “the police were keen on getting their hands on him” (14:26) and at 22:25 that it was “the police who made up the charges”.
Unsurprisingly on 25 August 2010 the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm Eva Finne announced that “The conduct alleged disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed”.
In Sweden’s extraordinary justice system, a second prosecutor then took up the case, crusading third wave feminist Marianne Ny. For six years, Ny has milked all the political capital possible out of the case while refusing actually to question Assange to move it forward. After the Swedish Supreme Court ordered her to get on with the questioning, she now stands at the Rubicon where she has had more than enough time to try to build credible charges from the situation outlined above, yet plainly no credible prosecution is possible.
The senior international lawyers of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded with good reason that Assange was being illegally detained – and further rejected the appeal by the UK – because there is no real case and no real investigation in progress against Assange. But the mainstream media will never give you any of the flavour or facts outlined above, being interested in nothing but character assassination of Assange who is perceived as a threat to the neo-liberal world order.
Craig,
I’ve followed your postings on this, and read Mr Assange’s statement in full. There is still one issue on which I am unclear, and which I think is quite central to the issue: condoms.
If the several instances of consensual sex the night before took place without the use of condoms then there is no doubt in my mind that Mr Assange has done nothing wrong (however asleep Ms Wilen was), and is indeed being persecuted quite outrageously. If this is the case and it were to be criminal then I dare say that most men in the world are equally guilty of it – I know that I am, on many occasions.
However, if the consensual sex the night before involved the use of condoms on all occasions then it seems to me that he may have a case to answer if he penetrated Ms Wilen the next morning without a condom and without gaining explicit consent to that change. Consent to sex with a condom does not constitute consent to sex without a condom.
Since you are close to Mr Assange, perhaps you could clarify this issue for us?
He states explicitly that she was awake and that she consented including to sex without a condom, and he cites her text about this specific point cited above as evidence to support his version. I don’t think that text is definitive proof – it doesn’t give her response – but it does show they discussed the issue. I quite agree that if he penetrated her without a condom without her consent that would be an offence. But he is adamant that did not happen.
Like you, I don’t see that as proof of consent, and it suggests to me that the discussion, if it did take place, did so after the act of penetration. It is clear that she was sufficiently discomfited by the fact that the sex was unprotected to want both she and he to be tested for STDs. Now it is also clear that she had no wish to press charges, but I’m not clear, under Swedish law, whether that is relevant, or whether consent can actually be given legally after the event. And yes, I see that the initial police investigator concluded that no offence had taken place.
In any case, in my view, if he penetrated her, unprotected, before she gave her consent then his morals are not unquestionable.
So, were condoms used in their previous sexual encounters or not? That Craig is unable to answer such a clearly significant question suggests they were. Does anyone know the truth of this question?
Youy miss the point. 6 yrs after the event and two months after the questioning and NO CHARGES. The whole thing is a crock. The UN is right and he is effectively imprisoned for political purposes. Added to all that is happening in our world we alive in seriously dangerous times.
“If the several instances of consensual sex the night before took place without the use of condoms then there is no doubt in my mind that Mr Assange has done nothing wrong (however asleep Ms Wilen was)”
“however asleep Ms Wilen was”
Shockingly wrong.
Consent is that “yes” means yes, anything else is a no. If you are asleep and didn’t explicitly give prior consent, there is no consent.
Everyone has the right to say no to anything at any time, regardless of what they’ve done in the past.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/teens/relationships/consent-and-rape
You may find it shocking, but I find the concept of having to explicitly ask for consent before every sexual act in an ongoing relationship to be utterly absurd, detached from reality, and completely antithetical to a fulfilling and enjoyable sexual relationship. For example, I am, on occasion, delighted to wake up to find myself being fellated by my partner. In your world this would, apparently, constitute them raping me (assuming you accept that males can also be raped, sexually assaulted otherwise).
This does not negate my right to say no when I find myself in that situation, and to expect no to mean “stop right now”. But I certainly don’t want to have to say to each new sexual partner “here is a list of sexual activities which I permit you to do unless and until I withdraw this consent…” (with the corollary that no other act must be attempted without asking for permission in advance).
Paul has put his finger on the most difficult area of this for Julian Assange. If he did in fact attempt to induce a woman to engage in sex without a condom when this was clearly not something she was comfortable doing, that is seriously bad behaviour. If he penetrated her without a condom without her consent, my understanding is that in fact this is rape under Swedish law. (I regard that law as perfectly reasonable. If I were to have unprotected sex with a woman without her consent, perhaps reckless of the fact that I might have AIDS or syphilis, for example, that should unquestionably be a grave criminal offence.)
One might also ask what the fuck Assange thought he was doing, having unprotected sex with more than one woman within a very few days. Even if he was confident of his own sexual history, he could not be confident of theirs. For my own protection, and for that of my sexual partners, I would have thought it imperative to wear a condom in such circumstances. I hope he has learned something from those few days.
The difficulty, of course, is proving such an offence, which is presumably the major reason why the first prosecutor dismissed the case. If Assange says there was consent to both sex with and sex without a condom, and SW says there was consent only to sex with a condom, it would certainly be extraordinarily difficult to get a guilty verdict in front of a jury in the UK.
I believe that the charge will now be dropped, or allowed to expire, but more probably dropped.
I don’t agree at all with Paul’s contention that the text “JA did not want to use a condom” indicates that the discussion took place after the act of penetration. That seems to me an entirely forced and unnatural interpretation of those words. The natural interpretation is that the discussion was had before sex.
If what she meant was that he had forced himself upon her without a condom, then that text does not in any way support that.
Nor do I think it is in the least unnatural for people in the heat of sexual desire to agree to unprotected sex and then get very worried about HIV afterwards. Indeed I suggest this happens all the time. Again I find Paul’s interpretation by comparison entirely strained and unnatural.
John, I agree with you that the matter is incapable of proof. I also do not find the practice of unprotected casual sex responsible behaviour. But it is not the province of the criminal law.
I don’t want to think about Julian’s penis anymore. It’s so last year.
If a woman agrees to have sex with me while I am wearing a condom, and through subterfuge or force I have sex with her without a condom, that is most definitely the province of the criminal law. Suppose I have AIDS? I would go further, and say that unprotected sex with a woman while knowing that you have a fatal disease capable of being sexually transmitted is murder.
Of course it is John. The problem is the lack of evidence that this is what happened, and Assange’s outright denial of it. Plus the texts both girls sent after the event giving a very different picture.
I was however addressing your comment that
“One might also ask what the fuck Assange thought he was doing, having unprotected sex with more than one woman within a very few days. Even if he was confident of his own sexual history, he could not be confident of theirs. For my own protection, and for that of my sexual partners, I would have thought it imperative to wear a condom in such circumstances. ”
I was commenting that this is outside the province of the criminal law.
Yes, with that I do agree. Stupid and reckless rather than criminal, if there was consent.
With his knowledge of leaks surely he should have double-bagged it 🙂
As far as I know,there is no reason to believe that Assange has a fatal disease capable of being sexually transmitted, still less that he knows that he has it.
I didn’t say he did. I was responding to Craig’s comment that “I also do not find the practice of unprotected casual sex responsible behaviour. But it is not the province of the criminal law.” Oh yes it is, sometimes. It depends on the circumstances.
Craig
“the matter is incapable of proof”
What does that actually mean? For example, in the UK that the only two witnesses contradict each other is not in itself an obstacle to conviction. Juries often find guilt in this situation. Evidence is considered.
Consider three simple hypothetical facts:
-Assange has a history of condomless sex
-The woman has a history of sex using condoms
-They had sex prior to the incident in question always with condoms
These might well be viewed as compelling evidence. Certainly UK courts convict on less.
Well – Where’s the charges? 2 months! 2 months!
Of course the offence can not be proven wasn’t that the point of bringing the charge! The whole thing was either a set up or it was contrived in retrospect in the hope that Assange could be extradited from Sweden to the US. Ad nausea discussions of who did what to who and how in private is pointless.
Am I correct in believing that neither of Assange’s supposed victims wish to see him prosecuted?
I believe Anna Ardin was extremely keen to see him prosecuted. Ardin alleged he surreptitiously tore a condom during the act of intercourse. The torn condom she produced to police contained no DNA of Assange – a physical impossibility had he worn it. Ardin met Wilen, talked her into gong to the police and accompanied her there. Wilen certainly did not initially want Assange prosecuted and refused to sign the police statement. It seems most probable the version of events Paul is positing was a concoction by the Stockholm Police. Wilen herself texted that the police “made it up”.
My own view, for what it is worth, is that Wilen is a victim in all this. But I believe that, after Ardin further persuaded her to join her in selling their story to the tabloids, she may have switched and become committed to prosecuting Assange. Ardin, an aspiring politician who had worked for CIA sponsored groups in Miami and Florida, I believe to be playing an altogether more sinister role.
Thanks for the clarification Craig.
Craig, you need to take into consideration the circumstances under which Ms. Wilen appeared on the scene and how she conducted herself. Out of absolutely nowhere she enters the stage, with no previous connection to either the subject matter at hand or any person at the event.
She dressed and behaved in a way that shows a lady on a mission. Sexy clothes. Front row. Serving, as soon as an opportunity arouse. It looked very overdone to me but it got her what she seems to have been there for. Shorty after she disappeared. Poof, gone.
It’s hard to say who is playing who, I think both ladies got played, to me it looks like a joint intelligence op between Sweden, Israel and perhaps some of the other of the brothers in arms. To what extent the ladies knew what was going on is hard to say. Anna Ardin must also have had direct coaching since she was driving the chain of event in the later part of the first week.
Many formal Swedish judicial rules and protocols have been broken during the course of this case.
Why?
If I recall correctly, Anna Ardin was actually deported by the Cuban authorities from Havana for suspected CIA links. Tbis is prior to the Assange affair.
A disgraceful story. And none are more disgraced than the myriad of commentators who have, throughout this sordid story of a state abusing its sovereign powers, in the hope of currying favour from another state run by people using their powers to punish their critics, piled on to question Assange’s frank and honest accounting of his actions.
We have seen these worms and read their slippery pretences at concern- did the woman consent to his not using a condom? etc- over the past six years. I have read well rewarded hatchet jobs in journals which should know better, and seen liberals, Blairtonites in particular whoring sacred principles to titivate the CIA (see condom consent above) and listened to the wittering of not quite charges and hesitated reservations over years in which, on the one hand, Assange has been in fear of his life, not just dependent on the decency of a minor power in south America but increasingly aware that society is full of worms unconcerned about his ill treatment and ready to write him off, as they have done young Manning and did Jose Padilla and the poor people of Libya, Syria and Iraq, regardless of the enormous service he and his friends have performed in detailing the real crimes (not condom consent protocols but mowing down children from helicopters, rigging elections, organising terrorist attacks and plotting wars of aggression) so that our wormeaten world can turn its eyes away and ensure that no criminal in elective office goes unrewarded. And add to those rewards the adulation of those whose lives are spent seeking the approval of evil and its assistance in making the future a little less fearful.
“a little less fearful. For themselves.”
Sorry, Bevin, but I regard the question of whether or not a man had unprotected sex with a woman without her consent as a perfectly legitimate question and also one of no less importance than the matters you have raised.
Nobody is saying it ought not to have been investigated. But what is very plain is that the chief prosecutor of Stockholm was correct six years ago and there is no evidential basis for a prosecution.
Quite true.
Finally thank God you got out of your paralysis!
Exactly. Like in the case of the Russian “hack” of the DNC and Podesta, where is the evidence? Or does the Swedish justice system live in the “post-evidence” world?
Let us hope that Trump, once he is president, orders his Justice Department to drop all charges against Assange. He has the power.
And let him order charges to be dropped against Snowden also, and commute Manning’s sentence.
Getting Hanity on his side has been a big step forward for Assange. Remains to be seen if it represents a breakthrough. The problem is Trump has so much on his plate; a lot depends on how things get played out in the next 6-12 months.
Free all the whistleblowers now!
There is talk that Obama could pardon Manning.
Once the EAW is dropped and JA is free to go, what is his recourse at law to what the UN has found to be unjust detention?
I think if the case is dropped against Julian Assange he’d prefer to keep a low profile instead of pushing his luck in the courts. He’s upset several political mafias including the Clintons so his life will always be in danger…they’re as deadly as any Godfather…and even if he’s acquitted and Trump declares him innocent they’ll have him followed to the ends of the earth to exact their revenge.
I think he would be safest from kidnap in Russia but even there he’s not safe from murder.
With Trump president, any participants in conspiracies against people against whom Trump has dropped charges would be very vulnerable to criminal investigation and prosecution themselves.
Fair enough, the highest legal authority in the US then. Whether President Obama, the Supreme Court or Jesus himself cleared Julian Assange the Clintons will try their damnedest to assassinate him. He is after all the man most instrumental in denying Hillary the Presidency, in which office she and Bill would have each become a billionaire.
Without those billions, the Clintons will be much less able to hire an assassin.
Obama could also pardon Marcus Garvey, wholly innocent of charges brought against him, but he won’t.
He, as a lawyer should be able to see what happened to this black entrepreneur who promoted the life’s of black people wherever he walked.
there is a petition at the bottom of this article and his family has asked president Obama for a long overdue pardon.
http://geoffreyphilp.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/marcus-garveys-crime-part-one.html
Is there any precedent for a U.S. president pardoning a dead man?
Given the lack of any evidence to support the contention that Assange had non-consensual unprotected sex with AW, on the contrary, it would appear according to AW’s words close to the events that the sex was consensual, I can’t see how anyone can prove exactly what happened either way, unless Assange were to admit to having non-consensual sex without a condom and how likely is that? The first prosecutor in Stockholm was correct, there is no case, no evidence, no incrimiating admissions and even if the alleged actions did happen as described by the two women, how on earth could one prove any of it, unless one decided that the womens’ version was ‘true’ and Assange is lying, without bothering with any proof to back up their story. To find Assange guilty on those grounds would be a massive miscarriage of justice.
What I found and still find odd, is that once the womens’ lawyer gest involved, things get very odd. He’s an old and sly ex-politician who has a political agenda. He decides he doesn’t agree with the opinion of the prosecutor in Stockholm who dropped the case because there was no evidence of a crime and no way to prove it if there had been. He contancts another prosecutor on the other side of Sweden in Gothenburg because he knows the Ny specializes in these kind of sex cases and she has her own ‘feminist’ agenda. Ny then decides to re-open the case which kind of means she’s dissatisfied with the opinion of the Stockholm prosecutor. This is extremely odd behaviour in a country like Sweden where professionals are incredibly sensitive in relation to their professional credibility and anyone treading on their area of competence and expertease. Ny is saying that the Stockholm prosecutor wasn’t doing her job properly.
It’s so unusual that it’s hard to find any precendent for it ever, if at all, having happened before in Sweden. That a second prosecutor, against all normal protocol, undermines the credibility of the prosecutor in the city where the alleged offence happened and begins her own investigation. In fact I couldn’t find a single example of this ever happening in Sweden before or since.
I talked to a friend of mine who is a prosecutor in another Scandinavian country and she told me that she had never heard of it happening either and it’s really strange. It’s not the way things are normally done and doesn’t follow normal procedure at all. In fact she didn’t think it was even legal, but it’s difficult becuase it’s never happened before and there is no case work or ruling to study for comparison. Is this thing, anyone, normal practice in England?
‘
Ny thought, I imagine, that Assange had acted awfully in relation to these two women. It was almost like he was a visting rockstar and they were young groupies, the way he treated them. A man, a famous man, using his fame and status to get sex. The women were victims of typical partriarchy and this is unacceptable and needs to be challenged and stamped out. Assange was the crime and the method he used was… incidental. The idea that two respectable middle class Swedish women could act like teenage groupies fucking a foreign celebrity really goes against the grain in Sweden. It’s a culturally and sex-poliitical unacceptable scenario and even if true is only possible because of the differences in status and that kind of sex is tantamount to rape, or should be seen as rape, because how can one consent to sex on a equitable basis when ones status is so unequal? In some respects all sex with men is a form of rape, rape sanctioned by a patriarchal society dominated by men and their values their interpretation of the laws. Which traditionally have protected men and victimised women. That’s sort of an accurate sketch of how these things are perceived by zealots in Sweden.
So, even if it’s obvious that one couldn’t prove any of the allegations in court, that doesn’t mean one couldn’t punish Assange for his crimes without the necessity of going to all the trouble of a trial. One could issue a European Arrest Warrant and get him that way, punish him that way. This is what’s happened, isn’t it? And this isn’t a outrageous as it appears. In Sweden this kind of punishment with trial happens all the time. Sweden doesn’t have jury trials and bail is virtually unheard of. Imprisonment whilst one awaits trial often in solitary confinement is normal practice and is used by the authorities de facto as a way to punish people before a conviction. The irony is that if this had been an ordinary case and Assange had been an ordinary person, a Swede, it’s highly unlikely that he would have been charged with any offence, given the way the law works in Sweden. Nobody would have bothered with it. It would have cost too much and the outcome would have been very uncertain, so the case would have been dropped. Lars Assangesen wouldn’t have been prosecuted, not based on that flimsy evidence. This happens all the time in Sweden. Convicting someone is difficult, even if there is evidence, and lots of it, given the nature of these sex crimes. So many brutal sex attackers go free all the time, which kind of makes this affair all the more grotesque.
In some respects all sex with men is a form of rape, rape sanctioned by a patriarchal society dominated by men and their values their interpretation of the laws. Which traditionally have protected men and victimised women. That’s sort of an accurate sketch of how these things are perceived by zealots in Sweden.
Writerman- that is a succinct outline of the cultural context in which these kompromat syle charges were built up against Assange; if he was remiss in his conduct in Sweden it was in his squireing the two women within a couple of days of each other, and in not appreciating how the Swedish cultural context would be particularly unsympathetic to such conduct, even where all the parties, as in this case, were single and with no conjugal ties.
My own opinion is that a lot of the hostility to Assange, both from people with very limited knowledge of the case and from people involved in it, is based on a premise which is on its own merits not unreasonable. “Why should a man be permitted to get away with abusive and criminal behaviour simply because he is a darling of the left?” I think a lot of this case is a clusterfuck around that premise, because I do not believe the premise fits the facts of the case. I also think there is not much question that abuse has occurred on the left and has been gotten away with in such a way (the SWP comes to mind).
With respect, isn’t all that, shouldn’t it be, irrelevant? Isn’t that putting it into a very problematic political context? Of course, it’s obvious that this affair is deeply political and was from the very beginning. Everyone, really, wanted a piece of the action, the sensation that was unfolding, regardless of the consequences. One of the women was being used by the other, the smart and educated one, the one with a clear sex-political agenda and the very useful contacts in the Social Democratic Party; and I find that pretty offensive, using the younger woman as kind of trojan horse.
Yes, it should be irrelevant and the charges, if any, should be based solely on the evidence in this individual case. And there is so little evidence that there should be no charges brought and as I said I believe that the case will be dropped.
I’m simply pointing out that the case comes with a great deal of ideological baggage both from left and right, and without a very close knowledge of the facts of the case (or even with it) it is very difficult for people not to get led away by that particular premise. Which, I believe, is why I have had to spend a great deal of time arguing Assange’s case to friends of mine on the left who are deeply hostile to him.
I think it would be a masterstroke if Trump did drop the persecution of Manning, Snowden and Assange. The confusion it would sow among the left and liberals, the contrast between him and St. Obama, that alone would make it worth his while as a cynical political act regardless of the principles involved. Trump the monsterous fascist doing what St. Obama wouldn’t. It’s just a shame that real people’s lives are involved in this tawdry political game, like pieces on a chessboard. But as there’s a coup taking place against Trump to reverse the result of the election, which could lead to his impeachment and disgrace, I imagine he’s got other things on his mind at the moment.
what of the confusion this could/might cause amongst the MSM fake news purveyors, Writerman, a renaissance for whistleblowers….
Well, that’s probably a good thing, isn’t it? Whistleblowers provide a valuable service both for society and the state. Now, even the hapless Sarah Palin seems to understand this and has publically changed her mind about Wikileaks and Julian Assange and appoligized to him. If one knows that illegal acts and crimes risk being revealed, that has a tendency to focus the mind and even cause one to reflect.
Imagine if the CIA had hacked a series of emails that destroyed Vladimir Putin’s reputation during a Russian election. Emails that were true and accurately showed the real Putin. Our media would he cheering and crowing about the great democratic service the Americans had performed in Russia and the great service they’ed done for democracy. Without truth where is the democracy? Thank God for the CIA!
If I were a young man, and I was once, I would never consider going to Sweden for a holiday. Assange has proved that it is not a safe place to visit. Swedish laws are stacked against men. The poor man has been imprisoned one way or another since 2011 for having consensual sex, his sexual exploits have been plastered all over the press together with false claims of rape. Of course women have rights. But the law does not take into account natural instincts.
“Max, get down,” I say. Max has selective hearing. “He’s only trying to do what comes naturally,” says the woman with the poodle as I struggle to get hold of Max’s collar.
Unfortunately for men they have a sexual urge, the younger the man the more often the urge. It is part of nature. In natural sexual relations only a man can rape a woman because only a man has the equipment. When I was young I tried, and I guess most young men were the same, to satisfy my sexual desires. Mostly it ended in failure but not for want of trying. Very often after necking and petting in the dark left two people unsatisfied. Obviously the young woman was encouraging or she would just have said: “Thank you for walking me home” and gone in. Instead it was usually a matter of both of us spending hours indulging in foreplay with the young woman determining just how far the foreplay was allowed to go. Then after an hour or whatever I would walk home with my bollocks aching as though they had been hit by a sledge hammer. I think it was the male equivalent of being raped. Anyway if you come back in a future life don’t come back as a male.
I share the above almost useless piece of information partly to find out if others went through similar experiences and partly to show how much the law seems to have moved against men due to the politicised and extreme feminism. I suspect these days young man I suspect does not know what he should do with his arousals any more because should he be fortunate enough to have reached that state where the young woman accepts his advances they may have beautiful and fulfilling sex, but the man can never be sure that he is not going to end up in front of a judge. Perhaps the young woman did not afterwards think she should have allowed the union. It is complex in humans because of our means of communication. A woman could say to a confidante “I let him last night. And I don’t think I should have done.”
“No, you shouldn’t,” might say the confidante, “Did he wear a condom?” “He did on one occasion, but not all six.” “OK. Let’s get him on that. Tell him to get an STD check up. Then come with me I have a police friend. She will know exactly what the law is on this. In fact, if he did not ask you first, he’s probably raped you.”
Hypothetical but probably close. In the animal kingdom, as far as we know, the females don’t discuss what might be right or wrong when they come to an agreement after the courtship. I watched David Attenburgh’s Planet Earth second series. There was a bird in the Amazonian rainforests went to immense trouble building a display area for its female (the foreplay) she could come and watch him show off some very bright hidden plumage and if that did not do the trick she could leave him to it. The praying mantis (and some spiders) may eat the male after mating. The reason for this I am not sure. Perhaps he did not get it right. Perhaps she was hungry. But all of this is following a genetic code which gives the male strong urges to pursue the female. To which the female with her own urges responds but no longer necessarily based on the need to procreate, which is the driving force in most animal kingdom relationships. Contraception has in some ways liberated society, but in other ways caused its own problems through licentiousness, and unclear procreation signals. I don’t want to digress down that road.
Sweden has laws which make men extremely vulnerable. I strongly advise any young male with sexual desires not to go there. It is a country of Sirens, Amazons, Lesbians. (Joke!) But I do see sexual identity as part of the problem. When I was young relationships were difficult, sexual relations almost impossible. My mother taught us to treat girls with respect. Girls’ mothers instructed them with sensible advice not to engage in sex before marriage because if a boy gets you pregnant you will be left carrying the baby. It was a case of the boy tried it on and the girl let him know when he had gone far enough.
Yes, some men rape women, real rape, and they did it in the past too. Many soldiers seem to see it as a bonus of victory, and their commanding officers if not indulging themselves, turn a blind eye. This is real rape. I do not agree that unprotected sex is rape if there has been consensual sex before. I do not believe Sofia Wilen’s story. I have never known a woman who is not aware when a man is down there, and don’t believe it is possible. If she does not want it she can tell him she wants to sleep. “Leave me alone.” The problem is the law has gone full circle and left men very vulnerable, especially in countries like Sweden. The way Sweden has treated Julian Assange is despicable and I see the main problem being an overprotectiveness of women and a movement away from the natural laws of procreation. Sorry. I know many will not agree. But that does not make my view wrong.
Take your holidays somewhere warm, is my advice. 😀
I meant to add that women in Sweden are like the praying mantis or the black widow. They have had their will of their man and thrown his wasted and discarded carcass into prison without any apparent remorse. Any woman with an ounce of concern or love for their fellow creatures would realise just how much they have made a good man suffer and do the decent thing. There never was a case to answer. On this issue Kipling was right: “The female of the species is more deadly than the male.”
Yeah your comments above are too full of offensive sexist tripe for me to fully argue against. Really I don’t have the time. Just one point.
John Goss:
You think a woman saying no is rape of the male. That is super fucked up.
“Yes, some men rape women, real rape, and they did it in the past too.”
“This is real rape.”
“I do not agree that unprotected sex is rape if there has been consensual sex before”.
Thoroughly unpleasant and dangerous views and I am fairly shocked that you can blithely write such things down without any apparent understanding of how they might be seen in the present day, and at the same time enunciate a litany of complaints about the vulnerability of men to the law. “Real” rape as opposed to what? False rape? Presumably rape is only rape if it is performed by enemy soldiers.
Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. it does not have to be accompanied by a physical beating up, like mass rape performed by enemy soldiers. The idea that there is no rape if there has been prior consensual sex is absolutely stunning. That was the thinking behind the mediaeval idea that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife.
Shame on you.
“Shame on you” – I agree.
A certain poster’s antediluvian views on women and sex should not surprise however. After all, they are consonant with his antediluvian views about the former Soviet Union and a host of other phenomena in the world of politics and economics.
I can see what you mean, though I think you are guilty of massively over-simplifying a very complexs set of legal problems. Saying ‘rape is rape’ is, in my opinion highly problematic. Why is ‘rape is rape’ more true than saying or arguing that ‘murder is murder’? Clearly we don’t think that. There are different degrees of murder aren’t there? Or is rape a worse crime than murder, something that’s so special we have to look at it differently. Defining all sorts of unconsensual sexual activity as ‘rape’ is an extremely slippery road to go down. Are you really arguing that the initiation of any intimate sexual activity without prior consent should be considered a form of rape? Are we to abandon all sense of proportion here?
“Defining all sorts of unconsensual sexual activity as ‘rape’ is an extremely slippery road to go down. Are you really arguing that the initiation of any intimate sexual activity without prior consent should be considered a form of rape?”
No, I am not, and I don’t think I said that or that my comments could be interpreted as saying that. I would say, that unconsensual sexual activity should be defined as criminal, although some discretionary leeway should perhaps be permitted. For example, to move one’s hands to a woman’s breasts when snogging, say, if it is not consensual, is technically sexual assault, but how is one to discover if it is consented to or not without doing it? To persist in doing it if a woman had clearly indicated her lack of consent would be another matter. I think the law certainly needs to be tempered with common sense.
What John Goss appeared to be saying, whether he intended to or not, was that if there was prior consent to sexual intercourse, then unprotected sexual intercourse was not to be regarded as rape. You must be joking.
“Presumably rape is only rape if it is performed by enemy soldiers.” I never said that it was the only kind of rape and if you read the lot you know it. It was given as an example of real rape as opposed to what they have in Sweden. The law in Sweden is overprotective of women, partly because it is written or enforced by women and their allies who have fought hard to get legislation to their eternal advantage. Men who don’t think men should have rights are as bad as men who don’t think women should have rights.
I never expected you to agree. Shame on you.
“Yes, some men rape women, real rape, and they did it in the past too. Many soldiers seem to see it as a bonus of victory, and their commanding officers if not indulging themselves, turn a blind eye. This is real rape. I do not agree that unprotected sex is rape if there has been consensual sex before.”
If you cannot see that that is a disgraceful and shameful paragraph, then there’s no point in discussing the matter with you.
By the way, I did not write just one paragraph. Read the lot. It was a mini-thesis. Argue it as such. If you can’t do that it is not worth debating with you.
Mr Spencer-Davis
There is little point discussing anything with Mr Goss – his mind ossified (I reckon) about 40 years ago and has learnt nothing since. Even his insults – offered in place of ideas – have a moth-eaten flavour to them (” So stick that in your cummerbund” at 17h52 refers).
So what? Your views as expressed in that paragraph were shocking and shameful. I don’t have to answer your thesis in toto in order to point that out.
John Spencer Davis
You can take anything out of context, which you did, to try and score brownie points. You quoted part of a paragraph and called it a paragraph leaving out the qualifying part. I find that unacceptable. If I was marking your paper ti would be a fail. Sorry!
On the contrary, I am genuinely distressed by what you wrote. I’m not criticising it for fun. Perhaps you would like to explain why characterising “I do not agree that unprotected sex is rape if there has been consensual sex before.” as disgraceful and shameful, is taking your views out of context. In fact, I would welcome such a clarification, because I can’t believe you actually meant what you wrote.
“Thoroughly unpleasant and dangerous views. . .”
The thoroughly unpleasant and dangerous views are those who support miscarriages of justice. I hate apologists for injustice. So stick that in your cummerbund.
Don’t be silly. We can all agree that people who support miscarriages of justice have unpleasant and dangerous views. That has no relevance to the unpleasant and dangerous views that you yourself have expressed. Try not to lose your temper, John, it won’t assist you.
No, you totally misrepresented me. But don’t get cross!
I’m not in the least cross.
You deliberately took it out of context. It was shameful. The full paragraph read:
“Yes, some men rape women, real rape, and they did it in the past too. Many soldiers seem to see it as a bonus of victory, and their commanding officers if not indulging themselves, turn a blind eye. This is real rape. I do not agree that unprotected sex is rape if there has been consensual sex before. I do not believe Sofia Wilen’s story. I have never known a woman who is not aware when a man is down there, and don’t believe it is possible. If she does not want it she can tell him she wants to sleep. “Leave me alone.” The problem is the law has gone full circle and left men very vulnerable, especially in countries like Sweden. The way Sweden has treated Julian Assange is despicable and I see the main problem being an overprotectiveness of women and a movement away from the natural laws of procreation. Sorry. I know many will not agree. But that does not make my view wrong.”
If I was to edit it I would change “This is real rape” to “This is one form of real rape.” Otherwise I’m happy with it.
No woman would be unaware if a man was about to make love to her, unless perhaps if she was drunk or drugged. Sex is a two-way thing. If you don’t know it, and I’m sure you do, there are a lot of sensual areas around the vulva and the top of the legs. So do not misrepresent me when you knew what my argument was.
You have not explained why unprotected sex is not rape if there has been consensual sex before. Can you do that, please?
“You have not explained why unprotected sex is not rape if there has been consensual sex before.”
I have explained it and you are not a stupid man. Read Craig’s comment at 18:30.
I don’t care what Craig said. I’m interested in what you say at the moment. Please would you cut and paste your explanation of why unprotected sex is not rape if there has been consensual sex before? Thank you.
“No woman would be unaware if a man was about to make love to her, unless perhaps if she was drunk or drugged. Sex is a two-way thing. If you don’t know it, and I’m sure you do, there are a lot of sensual areas around the vulva and the top of the legs. So do not misrepresent me when you knew what my argument was.”
It should not matter if the sex was protected or unprotected the woman would know whether it was when she helped him in. Or she should have checked. Or asked. Or she should have refused.
Now let that be an end to it. Your trolling on this has been every bit as bad as Habbabkuk’s on other issues. You miss the main message by deliberately trying to divert the subject. Argue the thesis. If you can?
Absolutely ridiculous. You are telling me that a woman could be certain whether or not a man was wearing a condom?
Suppose a woman asks a man if he is wearing a condom, and he says yes. And he’s lying. That happens pretty often. I would think. You are saying that because there has been prior consent, that is not rape?
No, I won’t let there be an end to it, why should I? And I am not trolling at all. The more you say, the worse your views appear. God help relations between the sexes when people with your apparent views still exist.
As I said : antediluvuan views.
BTW, congratulations on having been called a “troll”, JSD. You now know – even if didn’t know it before – the fate which awaits all who dare disagree with Master Goss.
“If I were a young man, and I was once, I would never consider going to Sweden for a holiday”
Says the man who went to Ceaucescu’s Roumania and then eulogized Ceausecu afterwards..
Sweden has morphed into an utterly insane state – and Julian Assange is a simple casualty of state sponsored insanity. The only good news is that Sweden will certainly destroy itself and will cease to exist as any form of recognizable entity.
Consider the persecution of Assange that takes place without any prosecution and compare this treatment to the gang rape of a Swedish woman confined to a wheelchair. No crime was committed in this instance because the wheelchair user was unable to demonstrate to the Prosecutors satisfaction that she resisted her attackers forcefully enough.
No civilized person should have anything to do with Sweden whatsoever. Everything it produces should be boycotted. Its citizens should not be free to travel to other countries and it should be isolated in the same manner that North Korea is isolated.
I largely agee Loony. However I have some good friends in Sweden who have been fighting for Assange, so all of it is not bad. However young men with sexual desires are putting their lives at risk in travelling there.
Everything in Sweden is bad. The country is collectively insane. Should there be any sane people in Sweden then they should leave forthwith.
Julian Assange is merely the most high profile person to become ensnared in Swedish insanity. Because he is high profile he gets attention – there are many, many others whose names are unknown and whose stories are deemed to be of no interest whose lives are also being destroyed by Sweden.
Someone needs to call out Sweden for the deranged criminal state that it is.
To make it even clearer how odd, unusual, or ‘political’ this whole affair with Assange was from the very beginning, let’s imagine a alleged crime a difficult one, (due to their nature) a sex-crime having taken place in London. The police are on it, though it’s tricky because the two women involved don’t actually accuse the man involved of attacking them and raping them. It’s far more complex than that. The policewoman involved in taking the statements, doesn’t bother to tape anything, has the two women in the interview room together, and doesn’t excuse herself even though she knows one of the women socially. The policewoman who is a ‘gay star’ and attends various gay pride events, paid for by the Metropolitan Police, all over the world, is the first person to utter the famous words, ‘But that’s rape!’ All that is odd and full of basic procedural irregularities.
Anyway the best people are employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in London, after all it’s the capital and London. The CPS looks at the transcripts and the evidence, and the interviews and drops the thing. There’s no way this’ll fly in court. We’ve got limited resources and time, which is better spent on something more serious and with a chance of getting a conviction. End of story.
Then a lawyer gets involved because he knows one of the women soically. He then heads off to… Newcastle and presents the case to a friend of his, a prosecutor known for her interest in high-profile sex crime cases and a memeber of the same wing of the Labour Party. She then decides to re-open the case from her base New Castle, even though the alleged offence occured down south in London as is under the juridiction of the Metropolitan Police and the London CPS. Newcastle’s police have limited resources and lots of cases of their own to bother about, yet, the Newcastle prosecutor decides to employ Newcastle’s resources on an alleged crime that took place in London!
Okay wise guys, how nuts does that sound? Is that something thate would pass without comment in the UK? Is it normal or even legal for a prosecutor in Newcastle to barge into a case in London, that’s unconnected with any crime in Newcastle and at Newcastle’s expense? Does this kind of thing happen all the time in the UK?
Good to see that at least one former Jill Stein fan near to the action (so to speak) is warming rapidly to President-elect Trump. Or perhaps it’s only an impression.
How many times must the point be made that no one is detaining or imprisoning Mr Julian Assange is Mr Julian Assange himself.
I wonder if those who, having read his statement as so kindly provided by Craig, are even more convinced of his innocence than before would now urge Mr Assange to leave the involuntary sanctuary of the Ecuadorian Embassy. After all, he would be certain to win any case which might be brought against him, right?
“How many times must the point be made that no one is detaining or imprisoning Mr Julian Assange except for Mr Julian Assange himself.”
I expect it is obvious to many, that J.A. will not voluntarily leave the safety of the embassy until The Donald is installed.
OBOMBA is insane, he might do anything.
My attitude to the whole affair would change if Assange had actually been charged by the Swedes with some concrete offense, instead of all these rumours and vague allegations open to endless interpretation, debate and confusion. After six years there are not charges, still. This is ridiculous. The Swedes believe they have enough of a case to employ the draconian step of issuing an international arrest warrant for Assange for questioning, but not enough of a case to issue charges. There’s an obvious contradiction here. The Swedes have a duty to the two women and Assange to get on with it. What’s taken them so long? What possible extra questions could they have that would change anything that we didn’t know before? It’s a grotesque farce. The reason is because their case is so weak, if they had a strong case Assange would already have been charged in Sweden and never have been allowed to leave the country at all. Nothing has really changed since he was interviewed by the police all those years ago and the case was dropped by the prosecutor in Stockholm and Assange left Sweden.
So would you advise Mr Julian Assange to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy forthwith or not?
I would not suggest J.A. leave the safety of the embassy.
Not untill CLINTON & OBOMBA are under lock and key in a mental institution.
You’re wrong you know. Why do you insist on saying things that are so transparently untrue and non-sensical, just empty slogans with no basis in reality.
How am I wrong – who exactly is “imprisoning” Mr Julian Assange, or “illegally detaining” him? Please talk me through it.
It’s still early days (since the interview).
Btw, and although there may be no prosecution in this instance, Assange has emerged as a singularly distasteful type of person. If he believes half his own pr regarding Wikileaks then he should retire to a backroom once he’s free of his Ecuadorean captivity.
How that might end without his falling into the hands of the Met (for breaking his bail conditions) remains to be seen.
You are cosistently negative about main stream media, and I tend to agree with you. I would be interested for you to take this further by giving us an analysis of why they fail to properly inform – even with an apparent huge range of political stances – Guardian to Daily Mail. What is really going on, and why.
If I post that Timothy Evans was innocent of murder, nobody calls me a murder apologist or suggests that I don’t believe the crime of murder exists, or I consider it to be a good thing. Yet radical feminists have so poisoned free discussion that nobody is allowed to suggest that anybody is innocent of a sex crime, without being labelled a rape apologist and being accused of supporting sexual coercion.
The effect is so pernicious that people commenting feel they have to make plain that they think rape is a terrible thing, as if that wasn’t obvious. If I started a Timothy Evans thread, John Spencer Davis, to choose one valued regular contributor as an example, would not think that he had to spend a whole stream of comments establishing his credentials as someone who does not support murder. This is silly.
I appreciate the kind words. I won’t offer further comment as I never intended to get sucked in to extensive commentary. Thank you.
What a joke but feel free to fool yourself. “Never intended to get sucked in to extensive commentary” but did = serious lack of self-awareness. You NEED my friend Krishnamurti.
It’s called “virtue signalling”
An extremely tiresome syndrome.
I don’t think, no, I know, that UK liberal/leftists, know next to nothing about Sweden and what the think they know is far from accurate. Sweden, like many of the Scandinavian countries, has a strange kind of political system. There is an obssesion with consensus and avoiding conflicts. This is also a cultural trait, which up until the arrival of so many Muslim immigrants wasn’t challenged.
Gender politics is a kind of acceptable area or arena where one can create a political profile for oneself. Different political groups… perform and establish their credentials and identity there. Radical feminism and the ideology linked to it is a kind of set of ‘hot button’ themes and issues that act as a possible ladder up the political scene and has its own norms and values. Radical leftwing men, for example, are placed in a difficult position because to be labelled a ‘misogynist’ is close to being called a paedophile and virtually means ones political death on the left especially. So men are expected to and do bend and make themselves agreeable to the feminist agenda.
Highly ritualised politics performed in a public arena, usually has precious little to do with the actual issues under discussion, but is really about finding a way of accessing power for oneself.
Despite all this, (which can often remind one of a political minefield, difficult for native Swedes to navigate, let alone foreigners, who obviously, don’t understand or appreciate the incredibly complex social and sexual signals and behaviour of Swedes, especially in relation to nudity) Swedes still like to fuck, as do most people, and this can lead to problems and confusion for the unwary foreigner.
For example, Swedish men usually ignore Swedish women, women who are incredibly beautiful and attractive in so many ways. Ignoring them is part of a ritual, also linked to Swedish puritanism. When Swedish women go abroad many of them are shocked to find how attractive foreign men find them and the way they openly express their feelings, compared to Swedish men. Suddenly men think I’m desirable!
It’s difficult enough having sex with someone who shares ones language and cultural norms, especially in the beginning, when signals can easily get mixed up or misunderstood. There are countless examples. Especially I’ve found in relation to oral sex. A lot of this gets magnified when one doesn’t share the same culture or language and the sexual signals and rituals are different. I suppose this means that one needs to be extra careful, and take an exam, but who really does that during sex? And what happens if one thinks one understands what’s going on, but one doesn’t really? What if one innocently misunderstands the complex cultural and sexal signals? How hard is one to be punished for any transgression?
I know my own wife was really taken aback, before we married, when I told her how beautiful I found her and that I couldn’t keep my eyes off her all evening, and when the next morning I told her that I was pretty sure I was in love with her… she burst into tears! Nobody had ever told her she was beautiful or that they loved her and she’d had lots of boyfriends, but I was the first foreigner she’d slept with and the first one to go head over heels. I knew, as she was absolutely stunning and incredibly intelligent, posh and sweet, that I’d regret it for ever if I let her get away, so I’d better get a move on and make my intentions absolutely clear. I suppose it was love at first sight. Funnily, she told me later that she thought she’d taken the initiative in our relationship that night at the party, which wasn’t how I saw it at all. And we didn’t talk about sex at all, or ask for consent before any sex act, or use condoms, cause she was on the pill, and we met before aids. I dunno, perhaps things were simpler and different then, different times with different sexual fashions and rituals?
“So men are expected to and do bend and make themselves agreeable to the feminist agenda.”
Wimps?
writerman
“…an obssesion with consensus and avoiding conflicts”
Yeah. Consensus and agreement is just so girlie. Those radical feminists. I’ll give them some hot button conflict. You know what I mean. Call me sexy, ladies!
The problem, which is increasingly recognised in Sweden itself, is that if the ruling elite come to a broad consensus on almost any issue, debate sort of grinds to a halt, because anyone or group that still wishes to challenge the elite sanctioned consensus is deemed to be beyond the pale, diviant and almost outlaw. This leads to the marginalisation of dissident opions, almost the criminalisation of them. Some people think this is why the ultra-right and neo-nazi groups are relatively popular in Sweden, because they’re radical views have been forced way outside the mainstream and into the underground where they stew.
Then there’s the difficult and complex questions relating to mass immigration to Sweden. For decades the elite have had a very different attitude to immigration, at least in public, than huge swathes of Swedish voters. The elite adopted a policy of labeling critics as racists and nationalists in order to shame them and shut them up. This worked for years, decades, as people were intimidated and didn’t dare question elite opinion. This elite controlled consensus is now breaking down and the whole question of Swedish identity when there are large numbers of immigrants and Muslims present is becoming a central political issue and a very ‘hot’ one. Personally, though I’m an immigrant myself, I’m not sure this policy of ‘ignoring’ and ‘criminalising’ critics of the elite sanctioned ‘consensus’ which was never really agreed opon, but imposed from above, might not have been a sensible strategy over the longer term. Hope that clears things up a bit.
Excellent discussion there on the problems of social engineering.
Abstract and analytical but very little on the whole human relationship.
Brillant recent Nordic film on the themes you so wonderfully described:
“Den brysomme mannen”
“In a strange city where every person seems content beyond reason a new man arrives in town and stirs up trouble by asking too many questions.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808185/
Well worth a watch.
Particularly liked the scene where office workers were throwing themselves onto iron pailings below, to escape the dreary tedium of their monotonous daily life.
Ambulances collected the bodies in the evening, fixed them up and they were back at their desk the next morning.
What a lovely anecdote Writerman about your wife, and a lovely comment in general. I have often said that Sweden was great as a peace-loving nation. It is still one of the sources of statistical amunition against the warmongers through SIPRI. But after the assassinations of good people like Olaf Palme and Bernt Carlsson and the installation of neocon/Zionists like Fredrik Reinsfeldt and Bilderberger Carl Bildt not to mention its supportive allegiance to NATO ambitions it has gone politically downhill. I have met many lovely Swedish people, male and female, mostly vegetarian, with kind hearts but with an aloofness that is sometimes cold. It may well be as you say of Scandinavian males that they find difficulty in expressing their love. But that is the problem as I see it. Barriers have been built and Swedish males just do not know what to say or do. “If I tell her she is beautiful, am I being sexist?” When human feelings go out of relationships the relationships are as dead as Olaf Palme and Bernt Carlsson.
Thank you for a well thought out comment.
Very well distinguished Craig and good example. I don’t know about ‘valued’ contributor (always the diplomat), the twit hijacked the thread; unsurprising but I have observed before that the gentleman comes across as if he missed his vocation of wanting to be a lawyer. But, a miss is as good as a mile and this is not an Open University website. Pity that the whole discussion which should be about justice for Assange has been diverted. I admire your patience. The ‘case’ is actually so elementary.
Craig
“Yet radical feminists have so poisoned free discussion that nobody is allowed to suggest that anybody is innocent of a sex crime, without being labelled a rape apologist”
Yeah but no one here has made the suggestion that you are a rape apologist. This is a classic straw man. It appears you are in fact shutting down questions about this case and criticism of the sexism on display here. For example JSD was the only person to challenge the shocking bile from John Goss.
The stubborn prosecutor in Sweden displays a lack of urgency with the awful crime of rape.
The Swedish authorities also display little of no interest in the death by murder, also an awful crime,
of their citozen in Haute Savoie in 2012.
al-Hilli Massacre.
It might lead us to suspect both events are thought POLITICAL
It’s a good point. It is clearly political. That is why it is taking so long. Sweden, like nearly all countries, is subservient to its US masters, who want Assange for publishing the truth about their collateral murders and lots more.
That is why, untill OBOMBA is properly gone.
J.C. will not be leaving the building.
J.A.
not J.C.
Suhaila al-Allaf
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Annecy_shootings
It is a co-incidence that J.A. was granted permission to live in the Ecuadorean building, just a few days before the Swedish
Suhaila al-Allaf was shot to death in France.
It is not merely that the media are disinclined to report this as fully as they might; I have repeatedly heard feminazis refer to Assange as alleged rapist holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. This makes Assange sound guilty without any trial and little more than on accusation. This is from Hansard:
=================
Q6. [903574] Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Julian Assange is accused of rape and is on the run. Despite that, a United Nations panel that nobody has ever heard of declared last week that he has been “arbitrarily detained” and is somehow deserving of compensation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was a nonsensical decision, that Mr Assange should hand himself over to the Swedish prosecutors and that if anyone is deserving of compensation, it is the British taxpayer, who has had to pay £12 million to police his Ecuadorian hideout?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a ridiculous decision. This is a man with an outstanding allegation of rape against him. He barricaded himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, yet claims that he was arbitrarily detained. The only person who detained him was himself. What he should do is come out of the embassy and face the arrest warrant against him. He is being asked to stand trial in Sweden—a country with a fair reputation for justice. He should bring to an end this whole sorry saga.
=================
Atkins is careful enough to use the word alleged but it is a stinking way to go about it; and plenty of feminazis have been much less circumspect. This is already after one of the women involved has said she maintains not allegation against Assange; and the other has suggested that the cops pressed her the allegation; and after one investigation has cleared Assange.
But there is a problem. I often try to resolve these issues by asking myself: ‘What would I do if I were Prime Minister?” Sadly the answer exactly what has happened. The Arrest Warrant is genuine and we: UK, are party to agreements with European countries to honour such Arrest Warrants. So long as the Arrest Warrant stands and is legally sound the UK government is under an obligation to do whatever they can to secure Assange on behalf of the Swedes.
Bert.
The CIA shrewdly chose a charge to make against Assange that they knew would split the left. And then they went about manufacturing their case.
The CIA has a long history of making use of tame members of the left. That was the job of C IA executive Cord Meyer and the Congress of Cultural Freedom in the 1950s and 1960s. Gloria Steinem started her feminist career working for the CIA.
Assange hasn’t been charged yet, and probably never will be, because then his lawyers get to see all the evidence, including the women talking about how they can sell their stories to the press, and the weakness of the states’ case cannot be hidden any longer and it all falls apart and in public, before the eyes of the world and everyoen then wonder how on earth this thing ever went so far, and the Swedes end up looking increidbly foolish and lose face massively, which for Swedes is incredibly embarrassing in the extreme. Assange isn’t awating trial like May seems to think. He can’t be awaiting trial before he’s been charged with anything. These fucking dumb and ignorant politicians!
The sexism on display here from all you old white of privilege is disgusting. Anyone who objects is associated with “radical feminists”. Pathetic. Do any females comment here these days?
Well done JSD for at least having a go at standing up to the bile here.
TWAT
At least sexism is capable of being discerned in comments here. In Sweden sexism is not so easy to identify for the simple reason that their policies are anti-human. If you treat everyone like vermin then of necessity you eradicate sexism. Is this a useful solution?
It is sometimes hard to know who are the bigger lunatics – the people that run Sweden or the people that are seemingly content to bear any burden just so long as all people are being crushed equally. In Sweden it does not matter who you are – man, woman, young, old, refugee, 10th generation Swede, disabled, able bodied – they despise you.
“Do any females comment here these days?”
There is only one thing worse than rabid feminists and that’s the male sycophants who toady up on their behalf. This question is actually asking: aren’t I good defending you? Aren’t I really the person you would like to be with, the modern man? Many women are displeased with the way certain feminists have got them a bad name. They are unlikely to respond to you because they know what you are after. 🙂
Seeing men argue matters from a feminist perspective doesn’t half press the buttons in some male psyches 😉
Thanks, Phil.
Perhaps I should add that Sweden is a great country in many, many, ways and full of great people too. Also the real sexual behaviour of people, especially the young and sexually active the way the young are, is completely different to the way the elite think they should behave. The sexual behaviour and values of the ‘lower orders’ is on another planet. In a way it’s similar to the difference between the genteel ladies who write for the Guardian and how real women behave. Speaking broadly, lots of people enjoy getting hammered on drink and drugs and getting fucked as much as possible. Of courese the respectable middle class are horrified by this kind of behaviour in the lower orders, but that doesn’t stop it.
I wouldn’t blame Assange if he didn’t want to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy. Theoretically, if he has been interrogated, the European Arrest Warrant will have been fulfilled, and he is no longer at risk. If he were to be charged, that would be different and another EAW. But I wouldn’t count on it.
The UK will arrest him for breaking bail as soon as he steps outside the Embassy; the TPTB here hate him as much as those in the US.
In most of the Scandinavian countries women are a very important sector of the workforce and have been for a very long time. What this means is that children are sent to kindergarten at a very young age and child provision so women can go to work and have careers is massively more developed than in the UK. The staff in the kindergartens are overwhelming women, as are primary school teachers. Women are taking over whole areas of the workforce, like Doctors.
This is recognized as a problem by educationalist and the women in these sectors related to the socialisation of children, where men are increasingly as rare as hen’s teeth. What happens is that boys get ‘confused’ because the norms and behaviour expected of them are becoming ‘feminized.’ Boys are perceived as being a ‘problem’ because they aren’t as easy to control as girls, girls who adapt more readily to what expected of them by the female staff. Boys are too noisy, won’t sit still and get into trouble too easily. It’s complex and difficult because who decides what part of male behaviour is ‘wrong’ and needs to adapt? Does one, for example, want a society where increasingly male behaviour is seen as problematic and men are expected to adapt increasingly to norms acceptable to women?
I hope the Swedish prosecutors are not delaying things unnecessarily – but given the way that Assange has delayed and hindered their investigations one can understand them delaying things a tad themselves is only to discourage others.
That’s wildly untrue, as I’m sure you realise. Assange has done everything imaginable to organize an interview with the Swedish prosecutor, as have his lawyers in the UK and in Sweden. They’ve repeatedly gone to court in Sweden to try to get things moving and get the interview over with. Swedish police and prosecutors regularly travel overseas to interview people, or conduct interviews by phone or skype or by e-mail. This is normal routine. As usually the prosecutors want to get things moving as time is money. All this is obvious and common knowledge. The question is why have the Swedish authorities not interviewed Assange years ago if it was so important and vital, like they do with so many other normal suspects subject to investigation? Why treat Assange so differently? What’s special about him and this particular case that justifies not following normal procedures? It’s because Assange isn’t a normal person and the Swedish case against him is close to non-existant and the chances of getting a conviction for anything is close to zero which is why the first prosecutor in Stockholm dropped it. But after so many years to completely drop the case and not charge Assange would be an enormous loss of face for Sweden. How could they and the UK have spent so many millions and so much time and effort only to drop the thing and not charge him?
I’m sure RD is well aware of the aetiology of events. He knows it is political. He’s not stupid however he signs his comments. He is baiting you. Check to see the bait is not on a hook. 🙂 He’s probably in bed now. Shhh!
given the way that Assange has delayed and hindered their investigations one can understand them delaying things a tad themselves
Res Diss- that is an inversion of the actual sequence of events, which writerman so clearly set out earlier in the thread- and which I trust he doesn’t mind my reproducing here-
‘After six years there are not charges, still. This is ridiculous. The Swedes believe they have enough of a case to employ the draconian step of issuing an international arrest warrant for Assange for questioning, but not enough of a case to issue charges. There’s an obvious contradiction here. The Swedes have a duty to the two women and Assange to get on with it. What’s taken them so long? What possible extra questions could they have that would change anything that we didn’t know before? It’s a grotesque farce. The reason is because their case is so weak, if they had a strong case Assange would already have been charged in Sweden and never have been allowed to leave the country at all.’
So you wish prosecutors to charge people before they have had a chance to collect evidence and question their suspects – a little police state if I might say so. It is also quite normal fro prosecutors to require potential suspects to come for interviews in the same country at a place and time of the prosecutors chosing – in the UK they arrest suspects (with an arrest warrant) and bring them into the station for questioning. It is exactly this judicial process that Assange has sought to disrupt and delay – I just don’t buy the argument that such behaviour is justified in order to avoid extradition to the US, if it were to happen the chances would be just as great in the UK as in Sweden.
Going home with the “bollocks aching” is the way of the world for males. Much the same in the animal world, where it is the females who decide. OK, they have limited periods of fertility, but still they have choice of which male to accept. Humans are different in being permanently sexual. Also they are unusual in the domination of the male. There’s been quite a bit of debate about how humans transferred from being female-dominant to being male-dominant.
A Syrian military source has said Israeli rockets hit an air base near Damascus.
Very dangerous days, till OBOMBA goes.
B-52’s have also been bombing Syria
Part of Syria is occupied by Turkey and part of Syria is occupied by Israel, yet Syria is being torn apart by outside “entities”
I agree. These are very dangerous times. Israel does not want Trump in office. This next week is crucial to survival of humankind on this beautiful planet. Wrong thread but thanks for posting.
No, B52s have not been bombing Syria. We would have heard of it.
That was Laguerre
They did it on January 3rd.
https://www.rt.com/news/373178-us-civilians-bomber-syria/
You see how this Israeli website spins it. It’s a Syrian accusation.
Syrian Army Accuses Israel of Attacking Strategic Military Airport Near Damascus
Syrian army command says Israel fired rockets at air base, warns or repercussions over ‘flagrant’ attack.
Jan 13, 2017 4:12 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/1.764828
‘rockets’. Indeed.
I hope President Assad does not fall into the trap of responding providing Netanyahu with a reason for a full scale attack. Just what he wants.
Sarmada, Idlib Province, is only four miles to the border with Turkey.
Yet, this is the town bombed by the American B-52
Why are the Yanks keeping quiet?
Yes well here is the evidence. You are no going to get it on the Zi…st media. Not unless somebody else gets control of it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-12/israeli-jets-bomb-damascus-military-airport-syria-vows-it-will-respond-flagrant-atta
J Goss
“Zi…st media”
More mystical Jewish global conspiracy claptrap. They run the media! The pentagon! The world!
I thought racism was unacceptable in the comments here.
J Goss
“Zi…st media”
More mystical J***sh global conspiracy claptrap. They run the media! The pentagon! The world!
I thought racism was unacceptable in the comments here.
“I thought racism was unacceptable in the comments here.”
I should hope it is. But Z..n is not a race. It is an ideal of total global control ruled by Zi…ts. And they have done a very good job in getting part-way there.
Holy Smoke !! !
“If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case”
Wikileaks Tweet
I was thinking the Evil Bastard will wait..till the last second…then he is hero..Butcher
As you say Brian.
‘Obama: The War Criminal Butcherer of Women and Children
Paul Craig Roberts
12th January, 2017
http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/01/obama-the-war-criminal-butcherer-of-women-and-children/
‘There is no doubt that US President Barak Obama is a war criminal as are his military and intelligence officials and most of the House and Senate.
Obama is the first president to keep the US at war for the entirety of his eight-year regime. During 2016 alone the US dropped 26,171 bombs on wedding parties, funerals, kid’s soccer games, hospitals, schools, people in their homes and walking their streets, and farmers tilling their fields in seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
What does the administration have to show for eight years of illegal military interventions in seven countries, none of which comprised a danger to the US and against none of which the US has declared war? Terrorism was created by US invasions, no wars have been won, and the Middle East has been consumed in chaos and destruction. Worldwide hatred of the United States has risen to a record high. The US is now the most despised country on earth.’
Vice President’s tears for surprise honour
http://news.sky.com/video/vice-presidents-tears-for-surprise-honour-10726610
‘Surprise honour’. Give me strength.
I do not want to see any more of these war criminals blubbing (or Michelle, Bill or Ma Biden).
Their hypocrisy is gross.
– “If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case” – 11:40 AM – 12 Jan 2017
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713
– “WikiLeaks lawyers to Loretta Lynch: ‘Clinton precedent’ requires closing DoJ case against WikiLeaks” – 12:11 PM – 16 Aug 2016
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/765626997057921025
Jesus Christ so many navel gazers.
Its a set up , Sweden have many more real problems than this