I think you should be careful about just brushing serious rape allegations under the table and ignoring them.

Innocent until proven guilty is bandied about quite a bit, but at the investigative stage, it really should be “keep an open mind.” I’m sure Wikileaks has been trying to discredit the women, but this is something that is done in every rape case and it really is best to keep an open mind rather than just blindly insulting the women.

Assange himself (and his team) have also made several misleading remarks about Swedish rape law (as you see above) and have minimised the importance of sexual consent That ABSOLUTELY does not mean we should assume he’s guilty, but it does mean we should keep an open mind.

He might be unpopular with people opposed to Wikileaks, but there are also plenty of people who support Wikileaks but still find sexual offences to be a bad thing which should be taken seriously.

Nick, how can anyone keep an open mind when the media smear campaign has effectively linked the term ‘rapist’ with Assange without there even having been any charges made, let alone a trial or conviction.

Anyway, they are past worrying about getting a fair trial in Sweden as they know the only intention at this point is to have Assange extradited to the US where he will be imprisoned and probably tortured like Bradley Manning.

President Correar openly offered Assange asylum in Equador when he was interviewed on his show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvUwC5JTAJY

Though I believe he already had been offered Asylum in Equador before then.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me. If he believes that the rape allegations are politically motivated, then he believes that he is being coerced as a result of Wikileaks.

Wikileaks didn’t act immorally, so why would he want to accept punishment for it? Why just accept “the law of the land”? Where are we, Middle Earth?

I think it’s clear that they’re pursuing the rape allegations so vigorously because of who he is. BUT that really doesn’t mean that he definitely didn’t do it. There is some decent evidence to suggest he may have done it. While it’s best to keep an open mind at this stage, rape is quite serious and it should be taken seriously.

I hope all anonymous women fleeing sexual violence receive the same careful consideration as this guy’s claim.

What about the Chinese Dissident, Chen Guangcheng, who fled to the US embassy in Beijing this year seeking asylum in the US because he felt he was being unfairly persecuted for revealing systemic forced abortions in China?

By your sights, he is also a charlatan.

@NickBeard: Yes, that’s the troubling part of it. As much as I support Wikileaks, the allegations may of course be true.

Definitely wouldn’t want to be blindly writing them off as a conspiracy theory.

And that’s the problem for a lot of us, Stephen. I’m politically a Wikileaks supporter, but I feel all accusations of rape should be investigated fully and he should either be cleared or convicted. In this whole discussion, these women’s access to justice (being able to have the allegations seriously considered) is being denied and I can’t support that happening in any rape claim.

No, Paul, I am following the case and if the accusations are true, they’re actually for quite serious stuff. And quite a lot has been thrown around about the women, about how the CIA put them up to it/how they didn’t act the way people think a survivor should. Funny, it’s exactly the same arguments that get thrown around in every rape case how he rejected her/she’s just angry/she didn’t act the way a survivor should. Not to mention that Assange has made several statements which indicate he has little respect for the need for consent in sexual relationships.

We should never assume guilt. What we should do is not automatically buy into the same rape myths we would reject in any other case. We should keep an open mind. When you decide that someone you politically support should not face an investigation for sexual offences, you’re now the Catholic Church.

Nick: Read the detailed testimony of SW and AA. There is no spin and, clearly, there is no rape or sexual abuse.

Julian Assange has made it clear he respects the principle of consent being incorporated into rape law. Thing is, in Sweden, there is no such principle in their rape law.

You are INCREDIBLY misinformed about Swedish rape law. Consent is the whole centrepiece of Swedish rape law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-request-refused-wikileaks

I find it a bit horrifying that you believe that if I specifically ask a man to stop having sex with me without a condom, you don’t believe that’s rape.

From: http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html

Under Swedish law, consensual sex can be classified as ’rape’. What matters is not whether the complainant said ’no’ (or implied it) but whether the perpetrator uses force or the threat of force, or he takes advantage of the victim’s helpless state.
If there is no proof of force or threat of force, the judges will consider the intent of the perpetrator. In practice this leads to many cases of ’word against word’ in which the man will have to prove his innocence. This reverses the burden of proof that is basic to criminal trials in Western legal systems, in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

As someone who did my masters dissertation in European rape laws and works in a rape crisis centre, I’m telling you that is not quite right. While law around sexual offences is a bit paternalistic, this is actually to a defendant’s advantage rather than disadvantage, as the woman has to prove that she resisted in some way.

It is absolutely true that it often comes to “word against word”, as it does in almost all rape cases, everywhere, but clearly enshrined in Swedish law is that the burden is on the state and innocent is presumed rather than guilt. Sweden also has an incredibly low conviction rate of rapes due exactly to this burden. If his argument is that he won’t get a fair trial in Sweden due to Swedish rape law? That’s ridiculous.

Also, I find it interesting that all of the sites that you link to are sponsored by Assange’s defence team and their supporters. I would think (if you are a Wikileaks supporter, as I am), you’d think a bit more critically about sources of information…

And wow, I didn’t know he was twisting the trust about Swedish sexual offence laws like that. I will admit, being honest about the sexual offences he’s facing would certainly gain him a lot more support from those of us who would politically support Wikileaks but care about women’s access to justice in these situations.

If Julian Assange is charged, his trial will take place in secret. Also, he can be indefinitely detained in prison in solitary confinement, whether charged or not. If there is a trial, 3 of the 4 judges will be politically appointed lay judges with no formal legal training.

From http://justice4assange.com/Fair-Trial-for-Julian-Assange.html
__________________
“Of all the signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights, Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial). It also has the highest rate of adverse rulings when it comes to the fair trial.”
____________________

From: http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html

An Amnesty International Report in 2008 “condemned Sweden’s non-transparency in investigating and prosecuting reported ’rape’ cases, identified flaws in the investigation and subjectivity in the decision of whether the case should proceed or not”.

Bear in mind, that Sweden and the USA have a bilateral agreement which will allow Sweden to extradite Assange to the US as soon as he arrives in Sweden.

Oh, yes, let’s continue relying on a site I’ve already debunked!

The country with the highest amount of Article 6 violations is Turkey (over half), according to the Juritas research by academics at the Universities of Sussex and Kent, so I already know a lot of these stats are ridiculous. Find me the citations from say, the Amnesty International report itself and we’ll chat. You really will believe anything that site tells you, won’t you?

I realise there’s an extradition treaty. I would be opposed to his extradition to the US, but what I’m not going to do is ignore these serious allegations because he may be extradited.

From: http://justice4assange.com/Fair-Trial-for-Julian-Assange.html

“Anne Ramberg, the chairperson of the Lawyers’ Association said:

“Both the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and other Inhumane and Degrading Treatment and the UN Committee Against Torture have criticised Sweden for long detention periods and we agree that they can be incredibly long. We have also repeatedly through the years challenged trials behind closed doors. As well as the Lay Judges, but on the grounds that it recruits from a limited pool of people rather than the politicisation of the courts.”"

Good grief!! Thejournal.ie has removed my comment with the links to the testimony of SW and AA who have accused Julian Assange of rape and/or sexual assault. Those testimonies are a matter of public record.

Insert *random Justice4Assange quote with no other evidence* here.

@Nick,

I can understand why you’d be strongly for justice in cases of rape, but given that you’re aware of why the powers that be are persuing the rape allegations so vigorously, even though there aren’t even any charges.

He has been under arrest in the UK for two years without ANY charges. The idea that he is innocent until proven guilty has not played out that way in this case.
Here’s a copy of the Guardian’s Assange timeline, with the bits they didn’t include highlighted in red.
http://pastehtml.com/view/c22z4aof7.html

Assange has tried to get the allegations addressed, but was denied on incorrect grounds. The whole think absolutely stinks to high heaven. Assange may have been involved in sexual assault, but I believe you’re being naive to buy in to this, believing this has anything at all to do with sexual assault.

This isn’t about justice for rape victims. This is about the US capturing and imprisoning a journalist to set an example of what is ‘acceptable’ reporting.

Note to thejournal.ie – Julian Assange has not been charged with anything. There has been nothing to stop the Swedish prosecutor from charging Julian Assange whilst he is out of the country. The Swedish authorities want to extradite him to Sweden in order to complete their “preliminary investigation”, which may or may not lead to charges. It is highly unusual for an extradition request to be made for someone who has not even been charged. Julian Assange was already interviewed by the police in Sweden.

And here’s a question for Nick.

Don’t you find it highly unusual and indeed a clear violation of the normal procedure of justice for the local police at Klara police station in Stockholm to release Julian Assange’s name to the media on the very same day that AA and SW made their initial allegations to the police at Klara police station, on August 20th, 2010?

On this technicality alone,the case against Julian Assange collapses.

If and when they try to extradite him to the US, I would be protesting with you. But I’m sure you’re as disappointed as I am that Paul and other Assange supporters are minimising these allegations as well as giving out misleading information about Swedish rape law, these claims are serious and important. Statements he and his lawyers have made are quite confusing and contradictory as to how much they would have cooperated with an investigation in the UK.

You and I have discussed this, and as someone who has devoted my life to making sure sexual violence allegations are taken seriously, I cannot be opposed to someone being extradited to being investigated for sexual offences. While that may not be the primary motivation of the Swedish authorities, these women still should be able to have it fully investigated.

Well, Paul, the difference between us is you think since the Swedish authorities might have other motivations for pursuing it or are politically motivation, that means it’s irrelevant whether he did it. I absolutely disagree. Think of what you just said. Because they released his name to the press, that means he definitely didn’t do it? You’ve shown a total misunderstanding of the nature of the charges, Swedish sexual offence law as well as any understanding of the fact that if these accusations are true, these women are facing a difficult situation.

And the Journal most likely removed the link due to restrictions on violating women’s anonymity in these cases.

@ Paul

“Don’t you find it highly unusual and indeed a clear violation of the normal procedure of justice for the local police at Klara police station in Stockholm to release Julian Assange’s name to the media on the very same day that AA and SW made their initial allegations to the police at Klara police station, on August 20th, 2010?”

To add to what paul pointed out, it was broadcast across the world’s media within 6 hours of the charge being signed. Assange himself heard the reports from media. Incredibly suspicious and nothing if not a deliberate smear campaign.

Deliberate smear campaign sure, but that doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not he did it. You just seem to assume that because the authorities have handled it horribly, he definitely didn’t do it. I, on the other hand, think it’s best to keep an open mind.

Nick: I am not minimizing the allegations. That’s why I posted links to the detailed testimonies of SW and AA in order to facilitate discussion on the allegations. Thejournal.ie has removed my comment that contained those links. I am however entitled to my opinion, having read those testimonies and after having reviewed other evidence already in the public sphere, that no rape or sexual molestation or unlawful coercion took place against either woman.

Yep, you are. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. What is not ok is to assume that since you think someone is innocent, it means there should not be an investigation and it should be brushed under the table. Otherwise, you’re no different from the Ched Evans supporters or the Catholic Church.

And I agree with the Journal, I’m not comfortable with commenting on something that (a) has not been authenticated or has a clear unspoiled chain and (b) should be discussed within a courtroom. Otherwise, you’re violating something just as sacred as innocent until proven guilty.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty has already been violated by the actions of Governments and the media. On that basis alone there can be no justice for assange.

Good heavens, Nick, it was a violation of the police’s own procedures to release Julian Assange’s name and alleged crimes to the (tabloid) media within hours of the two women making their initial allegations. Julian Assange’s name and alleged crimes shouldn’t have been released at all to the media until such time as he is charged.

Which has nothing to do with whether the claims or true. Not to mention, anytime the case is compromised, these women’s justice is also compromised as much as Assage’s. You seem quite willfully oblivious to that.

Nick: You’re offering the opinion that the accusers’ allegations should be discussed in a courtroom. The Swedish prosecutor hasn’t decided yet.

Nick: You defend the right to anonymity of Julian Assange’s accusers but you do not condemn the violation of Julian Assange’s right to anonymity on August 20th 2010 by the Swedish police.

I did condemn it. I said “deliberate smear campaign sure.” I just fail to bring it to your illogical conclusion, which is therefore the claims should be ignored.

And I do believe I’ve repeatedly stated that I believe these offences should be fully investigated. I mentioned that the place for the evidence to be discussed is within a courtroom, but that is the proper place for evidence to be evaluated. So far, the only person who has offered an opinion on innocent or guilt is you, actually, Paul.

And actually, I’m not sure if there’s a right to anonymity for those with rape allegations in Sweden. I’ll research it. But what I won’t do is lazy research from one website who’s been getting facts wrong on other things.

Nick: I think he’s innocent of the allegations because I’ve read SW’s and AA’s detailed testimony (testimony you dismiss as unverified), Julian Assange’s testimony and much else besides.

There is a right to anonymity for those charged with rape in Sweden. Furthermore, even rape trials there take place in secret.

Apples and Oranges, no comparison between the Chinese case and Assange. If he is innocent, why doesn’t he face down the allegations in the courts. He is behaving like he has something to hide. Also, what about the alleged rape victim, does she not deserve to see her alleged attacker stand trial….meanwhile, I hope Mr Assange enjoys his diet of bananas and cocoa leaves….

Paul, there is a reason that we have an investigation and trial system which requires the highest quality evidence: it is undermined when people on the internet claim that they know someone is guilty or innocent while ignoring the process.

And by the way, can you point me to your sources (please not Justice4Assange again, who are full of it) which states there is (a) a right of anonymity for those accused of rape and (2) what “secret trial” means. Does it mean no press or no one allowed in? Because no press reporting is fairly standard for rape trials in Europe.

I’m sorry, but you really seem to be repeating information fed to you with no form of your own critical thinking.

Nick: I’m offering my opinion that he is innocent of any sexual offenses based on the leaked testimony of SW, AA and Assange as well as other evidence. I don’t see why you should be offended by my opinion. He hasn’t even been charged with anything.

I may be wrong that the accused is afforded anonymity in Sweden after he is charged with rape. Certainly, as a matter of natural justice, anyone should be afforded anonymity up to the point of being charged regardless of the crime. Perhaps then, in this regard, Sweden’s law on rape isn’t so bad.

I think the Swedish police were wrong to leak Julian Assange’s name and alleged crime to the (tabloid) media before he was even arrested, never mind, charged. Because of Julian Assange’s celebrity, this effectively lead to trial by media. I think that is unseemly.

As for secret trials in Sweden, I was following the concerns of Geoffrey Robertson QC. He’s concerned that the media won’t be let in to report on Julian Assange’s rape trial, if there is one. After all, not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done.

I find it ironic that you decry trial by media and then attempt to give your own analysis of what happened, based on the evidence.

And for a lot of reasons, rape trials are rarely reported on, because the right to see justice done has to be balanced with rights to privacy.

I’m guessing you’re not overly familiar with the legal system?

Also, on a point of information, the local police at Klara police station in Stockholm dropped the investigation into rape a matter of days after the same police leaked Julian Assange’s name and his alleged crime of rape to the tabloid media on August 20th. This investigation into rape was then re-activated a few days later by Sweden’s Chief Prosecutor.

You’re still trying by internet.

Nick: Of course, alleged victims of rape are entitled to have their anonymity protected during trial. What Geoffrey Robertson QC is concerned about and what I am concerned about is that, in the event of a secret rape trial in Sweden, the world won’t know how Julian Assange refutes the charges.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3354730.htm

Well, I certainly haven’t forgotten it and while it could be political, it could also be new evidence came to light. I don’t know, so I’m certainly not going to present myself as an authority.

Oh, I’m sorry. The statistics I used were from the Juritas project done by academics at Kent and Sussex and their research is subscription based (as they turned it into an article), so I can’t pass that one on easily. However, annual reports for each year for the ECHR are available here: http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Reports+and+Statistics/Reports/Annual+Reports/

You’ll notice that in 2011, Sweden had no violations to the right to a fair trial while Turkey had 30.

Thank you.

The data you’ve been able to link to doesn’t specify how many of the total reports are specifically about Article 6(1), so it’s not possible to tell from this which EU country has the highest per capita reports regarding article 6(1). The citation from the ‘justice4assange’ site doesn’t provide any details either.

Given the information available I can only say that item is highly debatable.

Ultimately I don’t want to get distracted from the fact that there is a propaganda campaign out in force against Assange. While I question information that comes from the ‘Justice4Assange’ site, I’m equally suspicious of the claims coming from Sweden. For the obvious reasons, I’m twice more suspicious of information (and lack thereof) coming from the corporate media.

It’s absolutely fair to be skeptical. One of my main annoyances with Paul’s comments is that he seems to have absolutely taken Justice4Assange to be gospel truth. I’ve done a lot of academic research in the area, so I can absolutely see why we’d have different opinions if it’s not something you’ve researched a lot before.

I agree that the authorities have handled it badly and tried to discredit Assange. Where you and I disagree is that I believe there is a similar campaign from Justice4Assange and people like Paul to discredit the women involved, as exemplified in the fact that the only person who’s expressed an opinion on guilt or innocence on this page. I think your case would be a lot stronger if you would accept that a lot of people who are uncomfortable with both sides of what’s going on.

Nick: I am not seeking to discredit the women involved and neither is the swedenversusassange/justice4assange website. There is plenty of evidence that it is the Swedish prosecutor who is driving this investigation and possible prosecution and not the two women.

When the two women, AA ad SW, went to the police on the afternoon of August 20th 2010, they merely wanted Assange to undertake a HIV/STD test. They were having difficulty getting in contact with him via cellphone. SW, in particular, was worried that she may had caught a venereal disease from Julian Assange. SW and AA mistakenly thought that that Swedish police could compel Julian Assange to undergo an STD test. In fact, by Swedish law, the Swedish police has no such authority. AA originally went along with SW in order to give her support.

I strongly urge you to shed your scepticism and read SW’s and AA’s detailed testimony. I already gave you the links.

I urge you to gain some skepticism and think critically about the “facts” from Assange4Justice. Really, the one about Sweden having the highest violations of fair trial (as opposed to Russia and Turkey) didn’t make you think you should find a second source?

And his lawyers have spread out and out lies about the legal process in Sweden and what these offences are. There’s been doubt and misinformation strewn on both sides.

I note you don’t ask how these women can face a fair trial when so many allegations have been made about them. I hope you’re concerned for both parties’ access to justice.

Can you show me where they’ve made false claim ? You’ve said they have lied and asserted that you had debunked their claims, but you hadn’t provided links to where I could read that for myself.

Regarding the comment about the women facing a fair trial, aside from the fact that there are still no charges, they can’t have that either. It’s no longer possible to have a fair trial by definition. Unless ‘fair’ equals the prosecution having an advantage of bias against the defence.

I think there are biases on both sides, and I’m disappointed you fail to realise that.

Paul cited:
From: http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html

Under Swedish law, consensual sex can be classified as ’rape’. What matters is not whether the complainant said ’no’ (or implied it) but whether the perpetrator uses force or the threat of force, or he takes advantage of the victim’s helpless state.
If there is no proof of force or threat of force, the judges will consider the intent of the perpetrator. In practice this leads to many cases of ’word against word’ in which the man will have to prove his innocence. This reverses the burden of proof that is basic to criminal trials in Western legal systems, in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Sweden actually does agree with the innocent until proven guilty model and has a low rape conviction rate for that reason.

From http://justice4assange.com/Fair-Trial-for-Julian-Assange.html
__________________
“Of all the signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights, Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial). It also has the highest rate of adverse rulings when it comes to the fair trial.”

That is emphatically wrong. Turkey does, actually.

Justice4Assange has spread a wealth of wrong information.