Julian Assange Rape Allegations

Not a big surprise considering he made enemies of governments and media, but his allegations, at least, at first, were not the result of government conspiracy.

(Yo dawg, we heard you like links so there are links in your links so you can read while you read)

While in Sweden, Assange had sex with Anna Ardin and another woman, on separate occasions; by coincidence, the women met, and, realising Assange wasn't serious about them, decided to accuse him of rape. (The Daily Mail obtained a police report and testimony, which, in the light of the allegations being false, sounds like whining, and here is a day by day log.)

The spitting in the face of actual rape victims notwithstanding, Interpol jumped on the bandwagon.

Wait, no, the charges fell through and Assange is actually accused of consensual while barebacking, which is apparently illegal in Sweden. Wait, no, Assange's London lawyer says he it's 'sex by surprise'. Pretty sure they're making it up as they're going along.

Psy-4 wrote:

While in Sweden, Assange had sex with Anna Ardin and another woman, on separate occasions; by coincidence, the women met, and, realising Assange wasn't serious about them, decided to accuse him of rape.

That link says nothing of the sort. It just says "Anna Ardin is a public person so here's some information about her." But there IS a link:

Quote :

[UPDATE: Anna Ardin did in fact make the whole story up as part of her 'seven step plan for revenge'. See here.]

Geez, sounds pretty serious. Let's follow that link.

Quote :

STOCKHOLM/MELBOURNE (Rixstep) — The charges against Julian Assange were indeed trumped up. Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén planned it all. They went to the police station asking for advice, knowing the police would turn it into an accusation of rape. They're also the ones who leaked the story to the tabloid Expressen.

Oh snap!

Quote :

This was revealed in a letter written by Assange's Australian barrister to the website Crikey.

"My client is innocent, the victims are making the whole thing up."

Well it's a good thing defense attorneys are unbiased sources of information when it comes to their clients!

Quote :

(The Daily Mail obtained a police report and testimony, which, in the light of the allegations being false, sounds like whining,

Daily Fail. You're doing really well at picking reliable news sources today, Psy-4.

Quote :

and here is a day by day log.)

Useless:

Quote :

Aftonbladet is a tabloid - meaning they arbitrarily mix truth with fiction and hyperbole. Their articles are at best 'hearsay of hearsay' - the testimony of the girls is not corroborated and Aftonbladet's version isn't corroborated either.

Quote :

The spitting in the face of actual rape victims notwithstanding, Interpol jumped on the bandwagon.

Do you know what "Interpol" is short for?

Quote :

Wait, no, the charges fell through and Assange is actually accused of consensual while barebacking, which is apparently illegal in Sweden.

Sort of:

Quote :

Wait, no, Assange's London lawyer says he it's 'sex by surprise'. Pretty sure they're making it up as they're going along.

"Blah blah blah WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SEX BY SURPRISE IS THEREFORE IT IS NOT AN OFFENSE"

Well:

Quote :

According to Swedish law, a woman can denounce a man if he doesn't use a condom after he has been requested to wear it, even if the sex is completely consensual, like apparently was the case here. They call this offense "sex by surprise". It could get him condemned to a maximum fine of 5,000 Swedish kronor ($715), but no jail time.

TL;DR: Yeah, the charges might be trumped up but you're going about stating that in the most idiotic way possible.

Penguin wrote:

That link says nothing of the sort. It just says "Anna Ardin is a public person so here's some information about her."

I'm not going to quote text from there, just read it fully.

Penguin wrote:

Daily Fail. You're doing really well at picking reliable news sources today, Psy-4.

Brackets indicate additional optional info that isn't required reading.

Penguin wrote:

Do you know what "Interpol" is short for?

And how many people that owe a maximum of 715bux does Interpol go after?

oh Psy you poor mouldy fool

here I'm posting in your thread so now you can finally jerk off

Quote :

According to Swedish law, a woman can denounce a man if he doesn't use a condom after he has been requested to wear it, even if the sex is completely consensual, like apparently was the case here.

you know given that a condom is one of the few forms of contraception that can prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases I would wonder why a guy would decide hur hur I'm gonna slip it in bare without this bitch noticing

in any case love the "he's not a rapist you fucking assholes we don't live in the middle ages any more" tone while insisting that the women are lying bitches making it up for money/attention/revenge without any evidence that that's what they're doing

yeah but

julian assange is sexy


i can't be the only one who thinks that

Seule wrote:

yeah but

julian assange is sexy


i can't be the only one who thinks that

he totes is

i hear when his wife left him in his 20s because of his vigilante-ism, his hair turned white from sorrow

like some cyberpunk supervillain



i have no clue whether or not he is a rapist, not even gonna comment on that

Well you gotta admit "LOL I NO HAS CONDOM TO U" is a pretty dick move

^ I think that the issue is not so much whether or not the women are telling the truth - rather it's if there is anything that Assange could actually credibly be charged for, as well as the insinuation that the claims are being hyped up due to his notoriety.

Seule wrote:

rather it's if there is anything that Assange could actually credibly be charged for, as well as the insinuation that the claims are being hyped up due to his notoriety.

Yes, but only if the proposed reforms to Swedish rape laws go through. They "would introduce a test of whether the unequal power relations between the parties might void the sincerely expressed consent of one party". (Link.)

So he would be charged with committing something that wasn't a crime before. Both of his victims were fully consenting, prosecution admitted, they boasted about their "celebrity connections" to Assange and later tried to remove all evidence (and then posted an article on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends). This case has gone through three prosecutors and charges have been diluted and diluted. All the evidence is in the articles, just gotta read.

would be more creditable if it came from the daily mail.

Hey, he looks kind of like John Simm.

That's all I have to contribute.

Now, the problem with this Assange case is there are essentially two issues at hand.
1. Did he rape those women?
2. Julian Assange is the founder of Wikileaks.

Now, these issues have become conflated in two ways. First, the Swedish government: they are going after a suspected rapist in a way that they never normally would because he is the founder of Wikileaks. Note that this has nothing to do with the veracity of the allegations.

The second way this has become conflated is by Assange's defenders. Wikileaks is very important. I don't doubt its importance and relevance in our world. Julian Assange founded it. This does not mean that he is automatically saintly and innocent of everything. It does not mean that any allegations against him are automatically false. One can do good and do terrible things at the same time. Just because you like the guy doesn't mean he's perfect. Something similar happened with the allegations against Al Gore: people were very quick to leap on the woman for making the whole thing up.

I don't know if Assange did it. I don't know if the women are lying. Since when did it become OK to not believe a woman who says she was sexually assaulted just because you like the guy who she alleges did the assault?

Now, ideally, if Assange is innocent, he has nothing to hide and should be tried. They can't do anything about Wikileaks. As far as I'm aware, it's pretty much legal. At any rate, they can't touch him for that.

If he's innocent, he will be found innocent. If he's guilty, he will be found guilty.

Here's the thing: it won't actually change anything for Wikileaks. Wikileaks can run without Assange. Wikileaks will run without Assange. Frankly, his hiding makes him look guilty as shit, and if he's as innocent as his defenders claim, he should make this clear by standing trial.

villainy wrote:

Hey, he looks kind of like John Simm.

That's all I have to contribute.

If he and Christopher Walken had an assbaby.

ZoZo wrote:

Frankly, his hiding makes him look guilty as shit, and if he's as innocent as his defenders claim, he should make this clear by standing trial.

Ha ha, you think he'll actually make it to trial and won't be spirited away by the CIA to never be heard from again. That's funny.

TheHermit wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Frankly, his hiding makes him look guilty as shit, and if he's as innocent as his defenders claim, he should make this clear by standing trial.

Ha ha, you think he'll actually make it to trial and won't be spirited away by the CIA to never be heard from again. That's funny.

If they wanted to do that, they already would have.

Penguin wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Frankly, his hiding makes him look guilty as shit, and if he's as innocent as his defenders claim, he should make this clear by standing trial.

Ha ha, you think he'll actually make it to trial and won't be spirited away by the CIA to never be heard from again. That's funny.

If they wanted to do that, they already would have.

This. It's not like the guy's completely unreachable. He did a webchat with the Guardian, FFS.

ZoZo wrote:

Now, the problem with this Assange case is there are essentially two issues at hand.
1. Did he rape those women?
2. Julian Assange is the founder of Wikileaks.

Now, these issues have become conflated in two ways. First, the Swedish government: they are going after a suspected rapist in a way that they never normally would because he is the founder of Wikileaks. Note that this has nothing to do with the veracity of the allegations.

The second way this has become conflated is by Assange's defenders. Wikileaks is very important. I don't doubt its importance and relevance in our world. Julian Assange founded it. This does not mean that he is automatically saintly and innocent of everything. It does not mean that any allegations against him are automatically false. One can do good and do terrible things at the same time. Just because you like the guy doesn't mean he's perfect. Something similar happened with the allegations against Al Gore: people were very quick to leap on the woman for making the whole thing up.

I don't know if Assange did it. I don't know if the women are lying. Since when did it become OK to not believe a woman who says she was sexually assaulted just because you like the guy who she alleges did the assault?

Now, ideally, if Assange is innocent, he has nothing to hide and should be tried. They can't do anything about Wikileaks. As far as I'm aware, it's pretty much legal. At any rate, they can't touch him for that.

If he's innocent, he will be found innocent. If he's guilty, he will be found guilty.

Here's the thing: it won't actually change anything for Wikileaks. Wikileaks can run without Assange. Wikileaks will run without Assange. Frankly, his hiding makes him look guilty as shit, and if he's as innocent as his defenders claim, he should make this clear by standing trial.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that, although the crime that Assange is wanted for questioning about could technically come under the blanket term of "rape", it was (to quote Whoopi Goldberg) not rape rape. I was under the impression that the crime in question was something along the lines of having unprotected sex while the partner had (arguably) only consented to protected sex, something which I was also under the impression that no one is entirely sure is a crime at all. Furthermore, Assange hasn't actually been charged yet - he is wanted only for questioning.

If I am not mistaken and this is the case, what we have here is a country issuing an international arrest warrant for someone wanted for questioning about something which may not actually be a crime. Whether you're a supporter of WikiLeaks or not, anyone can see how patently ridiculous that is. Add in the claims made by Assange's lawyer that Assange has already volunteered to be questioned at the Swedish embassy but been turned down, and... well, I hate to agree with Psy, but the whole thing does look just a little bit off.

Okay, having gone over it a bit more the facts are very unclear, but according to the Guardian the kind of warrant that has been issued for Assange can only be issued for offences with a maximum penalty of over 12 months in prison. Which doesn't make much sense, as the offence that he was wanted for before had a maximum penalty of a fine, and it is all really confusing and none of it makes any sense and now my head hurts.

Seriously, try it for yourself. None of this adds up at all. An arrest warrant for someone who's not under arrest for questioning although they won't let him be questioned anywhere other than Sweden, for a crime which shouldn't have a warrant for it, but which has suddenly changed from "coercion" to "rape". Either none of this makes sense or there is something big that no one's reporting. Or I'm too tired to work it out. One of those.

I freely said that the Swedish government are acting in a completely disproportionate manner because he is the founder of Wikileaks (not because they give a shit about investigating sex crimes, alas).

My main problem is the way his defenders have automatically assumed that the allegations must be completely fabricated. There is no evidence to suggest that. It is perfectly possible for the allegations to be true and for Sweden to go after him with full strength.

It does look bad that he's run. If it was only questioning for something which he was innocent of, then why run?

As I said before, Wikileaks isn't going anywhere, with or without Assange.

Maybe he fears for his life.

Lady Anne wrote:

Maybe he fears for his life.

If that were the case, he'd go completely dark rather than flitting around giving SUPER SEKRIT media interviews.

Nobody's going to take Assange out. He's been very open about the fact threats on his life are well-documented.

In all honesty, having reread the webchat I linked earlier again, it looks like the guy just relishes in drama.

^
Are you suggesting this guy is simply an attention whoring troll? I never would have guessed that was the case.

ZoZo wrote:

If that were the case, he'd go completely dark rather than flitting around giving SUPER SEKRIT media interviews.

Nobody's going to take Assange out. He's been very open about the fact threats on his life are well-documented.

If you think about it for a second, the best way to keep yourself safe is to be extremely public. As opposed to going dark and then never coming back.

ZoZo wrote:

It does look bad that he's run. If it was only questioning for something which he was innocent of, then why run?

This is incredibly naive.

ZoZo wrote:

My main problem is the way his defenders have automatically assumed that the allegations must be completely fabricated. There is no evidence to suggest that. It is perfectly possible for the allegations to be true and for Sweden to go after him with full strength.

Just like the debate on the existence of a supreme being this is a faulty line of thinking.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They have to prove that the charges aren't false, because they are false by default, just like the defendant is innocent until proven guilty by default.

Considering the case has changed three prosecutors, the thing he is being charged with has changed at least twice, case has been dropped and reopened, warrants have been dismissed for lack of evidence, and they are changing a law to retroactively charge him, it shows that the prosecution, and by extension the "victims", don't have jack shit in the way of proof.

That's not even getting into circumstantial evidence against these allegations.

Psy-4 wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

It does look bad that he's run. If it was only questioning for something which he was innocent of, then why run?

This is incredibly naive.

Why? For someone who values transparency over possible danger to individuals, he's doing a remarkably poor job of practising what he preaches.

Psy-4 wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

My main problem is the way his defenders have automatically assumed that the allegations must be completely fabricated. There is no evidence to suggest that. It is perfectly possible for the allegations to be true and for Sweden to go after him with full strength.

Just like the debate on the existence of a supreme being this is a faulty line of thinking.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They have to prove that the charges aren't false, because they are false by default, just like the defendant is innocent until proven guilty by default.

Considering the case has changed three prosecutors, the thing he is being charged with has changed at least twice, case has been dropped and reopened, warrants have been dismissed for lack of evidence, and they are changing a law to retroactively charge him, it shows that the prosecution, and by extension the "victims", don't have jack shit in the way of proof.

That's not even getting into circumstantial evidence against these allegations.

Well if it's that flimsy a case, why doesn't he just answer to the charges rather than running away? Seriously.

ZoZo wrote:

Well if it's that flimsy a case, why doesn't he just answer to the charges rather than running away? Seriously.

Think about this for a second. What charges? The brits know well where he is and need a proper warrant from the Swedes to arrest him. He isn't evading anything, it's just a back and forth between the prosecutors and his lawyer, with accusations and warrants being flung from the former and demands for evidence from the latter.

They just want to talk to him is all. Not his lawyer as an official liaison, but him. Do you want me to break out admiral Ackbar on my own thread? Do you? Because I'll do it.

P.S. Oh look at that, another warrant.

P.P.S. I don't seriously have to explain the difference between a person's personal life and backdoor dealings and corruption of various institutions, do I? Or maybe I do, considering both involve rape of two women.