Laws and celebrities
Let me start out by saying that I am very, very angry right now. OK? I never had much belief in the media, but really, you'd think they'd occasionally check a source or attempt some kind of investigation into facts. The Assange case is, however, ample proof that a surprising number never do.
The facts of the case are, as I can piece them together from various sources, as follows (in some cases, the dates are those when it reached the media):
- 11 August; Assange comes to Sweden to give a talk.
- somewhere towards the end of August: two women report that he has committed sexual molestation and rape against them: specifically, using violence in an attempt to get sex without a condom, continuing after the condom broke despite protests, initiating sex with a sleeping woman, and rubbing himself against a woman while nude from the waist down.
- 25 August: the first-level prosecutor decides there isn't enough evidence to go to trial on
- last week of August: the women's lawyer appeals this decision on their behalf (this is a right everyone reporting a crime has)
- 1 October: the appeal-level prosecutor has reviewed the evidence and decides that it is sufficient for trial
- 14 October: Assange is due to return to Sweden for questioning.
- Charges have not been made at this point, nor has all the material gained by the investigating police officers been released to Assange's lawyers, because that isn't done until the suspect has been questioned and the charges made (if any). He cannot know the details of what the women said until they also have his side of the story, and the other way around, for obvious reasons.
- Assange declares he doesn't plan to come back to Sweden to be questioned, as he doesn't feel he has to.
- End of October and part of November: taken up with formulating a correct request that Assange be arrested and held without bail in England, awaiting extradition. The reason stated for this is concern that he will not return for questioning, and will attempt to leave the UK efore he can be extradited.
All of this, so far, is completely normal procedure in the Swedish justice system. It isn't the same as the Anglosphere system, which is clearly completely impossible to fathom for a number of journalists - for example, we don't have jury trial. Yes, there are other ways to assure fair trial - if you argue that jury trial is the only way, would you kindly concede that any decision made by the US Supreme Court is unfair? Our rape laws, however, are neither particularly modern or particularly weird: rape is defined by using force or threat, or someone's lack of ability to consent (asleep, unconscious, drugged, drunk) in order to violate their sexual integrity. Sexual molestation is the lower level, which includes less serious violations which did not necessarily involve extended force. We note that a) having sex with a sleeping women is explicitly rape and b)the popular term 'sex by surprise' does not appear anywhere in Swedish law, nor does it carry a $700 fine, despite this being said repeatedly by people who should know better, and c)a condom breaking is not illegal, having unprotected sex is not illegal, but continuing or intiiating sex without one, when there is a clear agreement that a condom will be used, is.
It's often stated that no one knows what really happened. Actually, three people clearly do: Assange, Ms A, and Ms W. The rest of us don't. We may find out if there's a trial. In the meantime, the smearing of the women, the disinformation, and the straight-out ignorance has been appalling (Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, Naomi Wolf, I'm looking at you). Perhaps the prosecution of Assange is politically motivated - I have trouble envisioning that, not because I don't think the Swedish government is above doing the US a bit of a favour, but because the Swedish government has very little influence over our (non-elected) prosecutors, and every judge and prosecutor I ever met was much too arrogant to be susceptible to pressure. Myself, I think Assange annoyed them by declaring he wasn't coming back for questioning, and they decided that the judiciary system cannot be ignored that way.
Regardless of if there is a trial, it would be common courtesy to assume not just Assange's innocence unless and until he is found guilty, but the two women's innocence of false accusation. Yes, I know these are two different thoughts, but it is, in fact, possible to hold two throughts in your head simultaneously. Anyone stating what has been reported isn't really rape, that te two women are only doing this for attention/money/vengeance/evil feminism/desire for world dominion, or that it might have been rape but what do blonde Swedish feminists expect when they allow a man into their home is simply ignoring facts and established legal procedure in favour of their own ignorance, stupidity, and dirty agenda. Colour me unimpressed.