That's nonsense. You only have to look at Roman Polanski, who fled rape charges to a foreign jurisdiction and the amount of press generated over that.
The women accusing Assange have a fundamental human right to due process. It is extremely unusual for someone to deny that process by fleeing into a foreign embassy. Wikileaks adds to the press, but it is noteworthy regardless of that.
It is worth pointing out that the women in question did not go to the police to file a complaint. Nor have charges been taken out (there is an arrest warrant for questioning on suspicion).
This case was pursued by the prosecutor at the instigation of Swedish police, after a previous prosecutor had initially closed the case stating that there was no indication anything illegal had taken place.
The women in question does not under Swedish law legally have any say in whether or not the case is pursued or not - if a prosecutor believes a crime has taken place, it is their duty to pursue the case in the interest of the state, not on behalf of the women.
(What does make this case stink, though, is that one of the women in question at one point prior to the case against Assange published a blog post about leveraging this exact method to "legally" take revenge against a lover who she found had was involved with someone else)
The prosecutor said there was no case of rape to follow, but did concede that there was a case of sexual assault. The rape case was reopened and the sexual assault case remained opened
Interesting parallel perhaps in the two cases: the accused was initially not too concerned about the outcome, and cooperated, then suddenly something changed and it spooked the accused enough to go on the run.
In the Polanski case, his lawyer had arranged a plea bargain, then, later at trial, the judge suddenly reneged without explanation. In the Assange case, he had already been questioned, the allegations were dropped, then suddenly a couple days of media coverage pass and the allegations are reinstated.
Not to imply either is a case of no wrongdoing, but in each case the accused initially faced the allegations, then something changed and scared the accused enough to go on the run.
The victim in the Polanski case has all but forgiven him, but does anyone disagree he would be crazy to ever set foot in the US again? The prosecutors office seems to have a very long memory and an uncanny ability to hold a grudge.
that's rude. You may not have intended it, but that's how that sounds.
on a related note, I'm feeling HN is getting increasely overwhelmed by rude comments. something about the culture and the kind of people it attracts, perhaps an increasingly young male techie demographic, dunno.
This is the second comment by you where you are accusing someone of misogeny or justifying rape without basis. I think you should be careful about talking about moral high ground.
How so? I'm not saying that anyone is correct because they are being smeared. I assert no connection between your smears and the alleged smear campaign against Assange, and I certainly am not saying that your smears in any way vindicate the accusations of those who you are smearing. I'm just saying it is amusing.
Well, not really amusing; that is the wrong word. There is nothing amusing about accusing somebody of "all but justifying raping women". That is a serious allegation.
There's nothing amusing about the remark that "one could argue that 'sex without a condom' with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape". The notion being put forth is a justification of rape, and "one could argue" is a way of rhetorically evading responsibility for putting the notion forward.
That is not a justification of rape. You could argue that that it conveys some sort of implied approval (and I am likely to disagree there, unless you can come up with a better supporting argument than namecalling) but it is not a justification.
Now, before you decide to accuse me of justifying rape as well, allow me to state this explicitly: I do not approve of the actions as portrayed in that narrative.
Maybe "justify" is too strong a word. The central principle is that having sex with someone who does not consent is rape. It doesn't matter if their clothes are on or if you're in bed with them. It doesn't matter if they consented to protected sex, but you chose to have unprotected sex with them instead even though they didn't consent to it. It's still rape.
To say that it isn't technically rape could mean a few things. It could mean that it's worse than rape or at least equivalent to rape, or it could mean that it's not as bad as rape. But if it's just as bad as rape or even worse, there would be no point to the remark at all, especially in a series of comments meant to defend Assange. Obviously, the intention was to say that this action is something less than rape.
To say that this particular type of rape is something less than rape might not justify it, but it does minimize it in such a way that denies the basic agency, dignity, and human rights of the victim. It's a hideous, misogynistic notion. (That's not a supporting argument, by the way, it's a conclusion.)
Phil, these are very serious allegations you are claiming as fact.
Phil, have Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén said the sex was rape?
For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads promoting that Assange is a rapist, that women have accused him of rape, and that he is charged with rape. Yet, despite being requested for citations showing your accusations are factual, you have failed to do so for two years now.
> Phil, these are very serious allegations you are claiming as fact.
Not at all. I simply think the Swedish justice system should fully process these accusations, and whatever outcome or verdict is reached will simply be whatever it is.
I am dismayed that in many rape cases, it's easier to perform a character assassination on the alleged victims and intimidate them from testifying. I'm worried that people with some sort of political sympathy for Assange due to his work with WikiLeaks will engage in this kind of character assassination and intimidation. Fortunately, the Swedish prosecutors seem to have collected depositions already, so Assange's alleged victims might not have to go through the agony of reliving their experiences on a worldwide stage only to be called liars or sluts, or to be accused of being paid off by the CIA.
Still, there's a very high chance that even if Assange is guilty, he will not be convicted. I simply hope that if he is guilty, he is convicted, and that if he is innocent, that he is not only acquitted but fully exonerated. No innocent man deserves that kind of cloud over his head.
> For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads...
You seem to be keeping very close tabs on my activity on HN. If you had an email address in your profile I would ask you about this privately, but you seem determined to retain your pseudonymity, so I will ask publicly. Why exactly are you so interested in my comments in particular?
If I was stalking you as you are absurdly trying to assert then I'd be commenting frequently on your comments here, which I don't.
Your comments on the rape sounded familiar and I looked through past threads on Assange and was surprised to notice that you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape and he has been charged with rape, both which are false. The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape, but I do want to point out that your claims about Assange are bald faced lies and you have an agenda.
It would be one thing if you had heard in passing that the women had accused him of rape and he was being charged with rape and mistakenly thought it was correct. But you have a history of promoting these claims and during this time have not provided evidence either that he has been charged with rape or that either woman has claimed to have been raped. Thus you do know what the facts are, and you are intentionally choosing to lie here. There is nothing innocent about your assertions and your propaganda tactics are far from naive.
Your comments about "rape cases" where people blame the victims, "intimidate them from testifying" and engage in "character assassination" are more of your attempts to falsely promote and assert that these women have said they were raped and that he was been charged with rape, but then adds on a new accusation - there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News! Who here is intimidating them from testifying? Name them! Rape has not been accused by the women or charged, so there is no rape case. There is no character assassination against the women to repeatedly ask you to show your evidence that rape has been charged, or that the women have accused him of rape. Cite specifically the character assassination that has occurred here. Show your evidence. Asking you to provide evidence of your claims is not character assassination against women, nor is it blaming victims, nor is it intimidating witnesses in a trial, and it is absurd rhetoric to claim these things.
> If I was stalking you as you are absurdly trying to assert
droithomme, has Philip Welch ever said your interest in his past comments on this issue was stalking? You have failed for one hour to provide a single citation showing your accusation is factual!
> you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape
It's all me, huh? If Google is to be trusted, the word "rape" has been used to describe the accusations against Assange by over a thousand news sources today alone. I promise you I'm not responsible for that.
> The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape
Now that's just plain bad faith on your part. My interest is in the basic human rights and dignity of all people. Some women get raped, and as a culture we do a bad job of handling it. We do a bad job of handling when men get raped, too.
> your propaganda tactics are far from naive
You give me too much credit, and yet too little at the same time.
> there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News!
I'm not the one spinning conspiracy theories. I'm not the one calling people propaganda artists. I'm not the one who thinks it's all a CIA frame job intended to somehow make it easier to spirit Julian Assange away to Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, it's sadly a common thing for those accused of rape and their supporters to commit character assassination and intimidation against the alleged victims in order to undermine the criminal justice system. I'm far from the first or only person to notice this. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, I'm just disappointed that, as always, these tactics will interfere with the ability of the justice system to decide once and for all whether or not Julian Assange is guilty.
The women accusing Assange have a fundamental human right to due process. It is extremely unusual for someone to deny that process by fleeing into a foreign embassy. Wikileaks adds to the press, but it is noteworthy regardless of that.