I don’t profess to be totally clued up on the Julian Assange situation and I think that, by and large, there appears to be little public opinion on the case – maybe because nearly 4 years of staying indoors doesn’t make for particularly exciting news.
However, today’s ruling by the UN panel has got him on the front pages again and I’m bemused as to how the UN can come to the ruling they did. As I see it, Assange is wanted in Sweden to answer allegations of a rape. The normal extradition paperwork has been done so he will be arrested by the UK police and extradited to Sweden. The wrinkle (albeit a pretty smart move by Assange) is that he is not technically in the UK whilst in the Ecuadorian embassy so if he stays there, he can’t be extradited.
This is the bit I don’t understand – how can hiding in a building on what is, in effect, Ecuadorian territory be considered as arbitrary imprisonment? If he was stuck in Brazil (a la Ronnie Biggs) would the same UN law apply?
Can any of the smart people on The Afterword explain the finer points to me? And feel free to explain why someone so hell bent on having the truth put out for all to see thinks it’s ok to avoid legal proceedings by hiding in an embassy.
Mirrors my thoughts on the matter perfectly – but then again, I’m no lawyer. Just seems cut and dried to me that he’s voluntarily entered the embassy seeking the modern equivalent of sanctuary to avoid the due process of law. I also wonder what the Ecuadorians get out of this? Why are they so keen to provide the said sanctuary? Genuinely puzzled by the whole affair.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the 400 odd days he spent tagged under house arrest long before he walked into the embassy.
As far as I am aware, although he had to wear a tag and report daily to a police station, he wasn’t confined to the house.
I’m not following this story all that closely, and from what I do know my opinion of Assange is fairly low, but isn’t the suggestion that he’s a threat to the powers that be, and that they’ve therefore concocted a rape allegation to justify his arrest, upon which he’ll be whisked off/rendered to some dark tower in the US and detained until he’s made a proper example of?
I’ve never been entirely clear what the alternative is: ignore the rape allegation and just let him go?
Well, as I see it, Assange sees himself as a bit of a messiah and therefore above the law, hence this and the fact that he hasn’t been charged means he’s done nothing wrong and has nothing to answer for. Unless I’m wrong, I seem to remember his supporters spreading some unpleasant slurs against the women in question of the “they were asking for it” variety. Not only in this matter but in the matter of an unauthorised biography he was very keen to try and dismiss any negative opinions. It’s not only Sweden who want him, but the States as well. I have a very superficial and one-sided take on this so I’d be interested to read further opinions.
My well thought out analysis
Puffed up ego driven sex pest who even his colleagues think is a narcissistic arsehole. This whole “yeah I’ll walk out tomorrow” stunt was announced fully in the knowledge that the judgement had gone his way and that he wouldn’t have to.
My guess is he’ll wait until the last charge against him runs out of legal time and then leave, get arrested for skipping bail, slap on the wrist and swiftly off to somewhere the Yanks can’t get at him.
Then again that would be far too simple and unmelodramatic for the great big ponce. I loved his “will someone shut that guy down” towards a heckler asking when he was going to face the rape charge. Freedom of speech, dickhead.
The legal clock runs out in 2020. Only another four years, then.
I, too, wonder how the UN can classify him as ‘imprisoned’, even taking into account the line of argument summarised by Bingo above.
He comes across as a smirking and smug, weaselly and arrogant nasty little self-publicist [*that’s enough adjectives – Admins*]. OOAA, of course.
More displaced anger there from DFB. Let me guess, you’re hurt and angry on behalf of the wimmin?
Excellent analysis DFB i.e same as mine.
The cost of keeping a police guard outside the embassy, from June 2012 to October 2015, was reported as £12.6 million. How’s that work then? I’d have done it myself for a tenth of that cost.
10 million of that is for pies from Greggs on the corner
This is Marina Hyde’s take from the Grauniad:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-un-panel-blame-fugitive
Brilliant stuff, forget Clarkson, Liddle, Hopkins and those other prannies, Hyde is the best columnist in British newspapers at the moment
Agreed about the Marina Hyde piece, she nailed it completely. There’s another Guardian piece looking at the UN verdict from a legal perspective and being as bemused as the rest of us. See: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/un-julian-assange-wikileaks
Excellent. She really is the best writer in any newspaper.
Some suggested reading can be found here , collated by another Swede over the years since Assange became a suspect, someone else who reckons the Swedish justice system is something to be very wary of, especially in the hands of those pursuing this particular case…
Nice to see he got some fresh air and exercise today, standing on a balcony waving some paper.
He just looks like a wrong’un don’t he.
How does that work then?
By UN logic I was ‘arbitarily detained’ earlier this week in the branch of WHSmiths that I ran into to avoid a rain shower.
*writes to lead singer of Echo & the Bunnymen*
Apparently his luvvie friends, who incidentally have lost their bail money, pop in daily with a hamper from Harrods. Hardly 3 years banged up in the Scrubs!
He does have an “Embassy Tan” though and is allegedly the ambassador’s bitch.
Be fair, he does have to put up with mad old bat Vivienne Westwood visiting him which is the cruel and unusual punishment he’s complaining about
Yeah, old Viv’s well known for her astute insight into world affairs and legal matters…
How could anything be worse than being imprisoned (effectively) in an Ecuadorian Embassy and visited by Vivienne Westwood? You’d think the arms of the law would be a welcome embrace after that …
Perhaps he’ll emerge from ‘captivity’ in a nice new set of tartan bondage strides, a chic little off the shoulder binbag and a crazy gold lame pointy hat.
Actually, looking at the pair of them … he could easily put on her clothes, add a bit of lippy, and mince out into the street without anybody noticing.
Not to mention her tax arrangements…. (see Private Eye for details).
She could employee him as an intern – no need for payment
Shoot me down if you like. Feel free to do so at will, but my emotionally unstable, fully biased, totally arbitrary view is that once you’ve got George Galloway rooting for you, you’re a wrong ‘un.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/aug/20/george-galloway-julian-assange-rape
I salute your indefatigability sir
(Christ, that’s a bastard to spell)
S-A-L-U-T-E.
Hope that helps.
It’s very odd. Just heard a clip of him talking about how he is vindicated and that the UK government haven’t appealed the decision when they have had it for 2 weeks. It’s almost as if he sees this decision is a proclamation of innocence. He’s a strangely underwhelming speaker as well.
He may be the world’s most self-serving twerp, and an arrogant arse to boot, but what the heck does that have to do with the question of a) whether or not he has a case to answer in Sweden, and b) whether or not it is likely that said case, should it prove to be a chimera of half-truths, is actually merely a device to put him within reach of the US Department of Justice who want to lock him up for a billion years in one of their, you know, “places” for running Wikileaks and spilling lots of diplomatic beans about, er, you know, their “places” and stuff?
i suppose the answer to that depends on whether he is a rapist or not. But he’s doing everything he possibly could to not answer that question. The threat of the US government doing bad things is quite handy for him at the moment.
I think you might be surprised to read what the alleged events actually were, and reflect upon the weight of the word “rapist”, whether that is an appropriate description of the alleged offensive behaviour, what the alleged defendants have said on record about the events, and then ask yourself why that particular word has been bandied around in this case.
I am deeply alarmed by the media-led character assassination that has taken place in this case, unfortunately aided by Assange’s own knob-cheese demeanour it has to be said, and possibly even more surprised at the venomous opinions scattered across this Afterword thread by intelligent persons who I must conclude have not been following this very closely from the start, and are therefore casting aspersions from a position of partial ignorance.
Simply being a dickhead, it seems, dooms one to pitchfork treatment by the Massive. How disappointing.
To be honest, I’m open minded with his guilt. I think he should address the charges in a court not by hiding and avoiding them. He’s clearly quite egotistical and arrogant but he’s also lucky to have very good legal counsel and rich friends backing him up. I can’t rationalise the freedom of speech angle he peddles with the avoiding court strategy he has adopted.
There is, of course, the potential for him to be a dickhead and a rapist.
The answer is that his alleged acts would be criminal – rape – in both Sweden and the UK.
David Allen Green gives what appears to be an objective statement of the facts:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange
Is it really likely that Sweden is a more willing lapdog for the US than is the UK? It seems, on the face of it, improbable.
Yes, it always struck me as extremely odd that someone convinced he might be handed over to the USA would come to the UK, of all places.
He’s a twat.
I say! Well played sir!
Irrelevant at best, at worst, bigoted.
Terribly sorry, I was forgetting that this is The Special Chamber of the Supreme Court and not an obscure and rather silly music blog. You can see how I could get the two things confused.
Personally, Moose, I’ve always thought you bigoted at best, irrelevant at worst.
Thanks. I’ve always aspired to bigotry. It looks like such fun.
So much better than littleotry.
One of the most enjoyable pastimes Moose! But first you’ll need to go a sports shop and buy yourself a Big Ott. The larger the better in my experience.
Dammit. Promised myself I wouldn’t talk about stuff like this on the internet, much less on here. @tim-admin or @hannah – is there any chance you could delete the above post? I’d rather not get involved. Moment of madness. Thanks.
Sorry bob, but that 2010 article is far from a complete picture of what is alleged to have transpired, as several later interviews with prosecutors and alleged victims has subsequently revealed.
No doubt that Assange is a prat. It’s worth reading the article by his would-be official biographer Andrew O’Hagen which shows what a weird, self obsessed person Assange is. O’Hagen gave up on the biography, as he was simply unable to get any straight answers out of Assange. He comes across as a very controlling figure, rather like a cult leader. But as the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. The Swedish legal case is very strange. What’s also very fishy is the Guardian’s unrelenting campaign against Assange. Meanwhile it’s a shame that his original idea of having a safe repository for leaks seems to have been lost.
Spot on. That O’Hagan article is excellent and shows you what an ego-driven twat Assange is, but it also shows you that sometimes it takes an ego-driven twat to get important things done. The real shame – as O’Hagan makes clear – is that practically every conversation about wikileaks is about Assange, who’s the least interesting thing about it.
Some of the information it uncovered – like UK collusion against pro-democracy groups in Middle-Eastern dictatorships – should have had way more publicity, but Assange was more interested in Assange than in compiling an ordered database as O’Hagan suggested.
I’m no conspiracy theorist but I don’t for a minute believe that there aren’t people working hard to get him to the US any way they can, and while he should stand trial for the rape charges, it’s more complicated than a guy dodging a rape charge.
If anyone is interested, below is a statement published by WikiLeaks from 2012. There’s a huge amount of stuff on the web about this case, but it’s been dragging on for so long now I suppose it’s inevitable that many people lost interest some time ago. A shame though, that when the case bubbles back into the public consciousness, the immediate knee-jerk reaction from so many is one tainted by what smells like the vindictive dislike of a peculiar man, rather than a genuine desire to understand what might have transpired and how it might have been hijacked. Hijacked by those that we all know do not give a flying one about our individual freedoms, and who have been proved to lie to us directly and indirectly without blinking.
“Misconception #1: Julian Assange has been charged with a crime.
Since the allegations arose, press organizations around the world have been claiming Julian Assange has been charged with a crime. In fact, it is so widespread that Mr Assange submitted a report to the Leveson Inquiry detailing his challenges with the Press Complaints Commission on trying to remedy this common falsity. But even after the submission, many media organizations still cannot seem to grasp this simple fact.
Julian Assange has not been charged with any crime in any country. Sweden is attempting to extradite him for the purpose of questioning related to sexual misconduct allegations. There are no charges and there have never been charges.
Misconception #2: Julian Assange is accused of rape.
On 20 August 2010, the initial prosecutor on the case unlawfully told Swedish tabloid Expressen that Julian Assange was wanted for rape, before even he was aware of the allegations. Within hours, a Google search for ‘Assange+rape’ returned millions of results.
There are four allegations against Mr Assange, the fourth which carries the Swedish title ‘mindre grov våldtäkt’, translated to ‘minor rape’. This is a concept which is not present in most legal systems. Originally the allegation was ‘ordinary rape’, which carries a higher jail sentence, but this was downgraded to ‘minor rape’ in November 2010.
The allegation is that, after complainant SW and Mr Assange had consensual sexual intercourse several times through the night and early morning, Mr Assange again initiated intercourse with SW while she was either ‘drowsy’ or ‘asleep’ (‘drowsy’ / ‘halvsov’ according to text messages from SW, ‘asleep’ according to the police report). SW expressed concern about continuing without a condom, but agreed to continue without one.
It should also be noted that SW’s interview is not even approved by her, as she was upset after hearing Mr Assange was being sought by the police and would not sign off on the document.
Misconception #3: Julian Assange fled Sweden to escape questioning.
A widely believed misconception is that Julian Assange left Sweden to escape questioning about the allegations of sexual misconduct. Even Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon believed this claim, recently reiterating it on national television, before being corrected by human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC.
Julian Assange stayed in Sweden for about 5 weeks to answer the allegations. Attempts to arrange interview were made through his lawyer Björn Hurtig, but all proposed dates were refused. When Mr Assange left Sweden, he did so only after receiving approval from the Swedish prosecutor on the case, Marianne Ny.
Mr Assange has offered himself to be questioned via telephone or video link from London, which are perfectly legal methods under Swedish law, despite Prosecutor Ny falsely stating otherwise. All offers by Mr Assange have been rejected.
Misconception #4: If Julian Assange is innocent, why doesn’t he go to Sweden?
This is the most common question used to attack Julian Assange, yet it fails on so many levels.
If Julian Assange is extradited to Sweden he will be immediately placed in prison, in solitary confinement, and incommunicado. There is no bail system in Sweden, nor is there a time limit to detention, so Mr Assange would likely spend up to a year in prison . And again, this is without having being charged of any crime.
If he is eventually charged, the trial will be held in secret. Sweden’s legal system also features a panel of lay judges who hold no formal legal training and are appointed because of their political affiliation.
Mr Assange then faces further extradition to the United States, where politicians have openly called for his assassination. Sweden holds a ‘temporary surrender’ agreement with the US which allows extradition without the usual lengthy procedure.
Furthermore, there is a basic human rights element to this issue. If the UK allows the extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden it means that anyone can be extradited between EU countries without charge and without evidence. By challenging his extradition to Sweden, he is challenging the EAW system as a whole, something which has faced criticism since it came into force in 2004.”
Thanks VV. That makes for interesting reading.
Thank you.
Interesting stuff, VV.
Do we know why every press organisation on the planet seems to have a different understanding of the case to that expressed above?
Are there any independent sources which verify what Wikileaks are saying?
Asked out of genuine interest, rather than to be combative. I don’t have an enormous amount of sympathy for the complaints about the Swedish legal system, but I’m certainly interested in the idea that a rape allegation is being pursued here without the support of the purported victim.
The legal blogger David Allen Green has written extensively about Assange, and links to other people doing the same, from his Twitter feeds (as himself and Jack Of Kent), his Jack Of Kent blogs and from his articles in the Financial Times.
Cheers, GCU.
Does he verify the Wikileaks arguments? I only had a quick Google, but the article which came up first suggests that, as of this week, he’s fairly critical of Assange’s position.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/767b537e-cbe3-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0.html#axzz3zNjgpCJi
He comes at it from a quite narrow legal angle – he is a solicitor – which a lot of Assangeists don’t like. If it was anyone other than Assange, the underlying allegations/charges against him would not have been overwhelmed by the sheer weight of exegesis (I think that’s the right word) over who he is, and his involvement with Wikileaks. Saint Julian doing another Juliet-style balcony scene does neither side any favours.
I posted this further up but it seems to fit better here (and threads move on) so here is legal blogger David Allen Green’s account of the facts of the case – which would appear to contradict, in an evidence-based way, the above account:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange
It’s actually quite simple for me. Another EU country has requested his extradition on a serious charge. I see no reason why the UK should refuse the request.