Julian Assange, Swedish Law and the unholy alliance of the left and right!

I'm not sure, but I don't think we have a subject about this.

Kiss me, I'm Swedish!

I guess everybody knows the essentials behind Wikileaks and its founder and figurehead Julian Assange.

Before getting into trouble with the Swedish legal system, Assange applauded Sweden for the Swedish traditions and laws concerning legal protection of whistleblowers and other news sources, the strong position of the Fourth Estate and freedom of speech in Sweden and so on. During a visit in Stockholm, Sweden, Assange spent time with two different women, who since then have accused Assange of rape and/or sexual assault. You all probably already know about this.

Guilty or not, I don't know - time will tell (or not).

What's really interesting though is to see the former opponents in the matter of "Wikileaks - good or bad?" to all of a sudden join forces against the new enemy: Sweden - "the Saudi Arabia of feminism". Fox News agitators as well as John Pilger, Michael Moore and Naomi Wolf are in touching agreement - holding someone down and forcing her to have sex without a condom against her will is not rape, nor sexual assault.

In Sweden this is naturally a big story. But here the focus is mainly on who's the most trustworthy; Assange or the women, and, will Assange be tried by a Swedish court? Here, it is also fully possible to dislike Assange, the individual, and at the same time approve of Wikileaks for what they have accomplished. The problem of these anglo-american, left wing celebrities seem to be that they can't separate Wikileaks as an organization from Julian Assange as an individual, or draw the line between the job as an investigative journalist and the role as Julian Assange's personal friend.

The other problem these left wing celebrities are having, and which they seem to have in common with right wing agitators on Fox News, is that they have absolutely no interest in finding out the facts in the case or how the Swedish legal system works. Instead they throw out absurdities like the defendant women being infiltrating marxists (if you're right wing), CIA-agents (if you're left wing) and, generally, moaning, flip-flopping bimbos who "should have known better".

The ranting stories of these people include inaccuracies as lawyer Claes Borgström being "a prominent figure within the powerful Social Democratic Party". Borgström is a Social Democrat but has never, to my knowledge, worked as an elected representative or worked politically on a higher level. The Social Democratic party has a long tradition in Sweden, but is actually weaker than ever. At the same time, the governing "conservative" party, The Moderates, are supposed to be sitting in the lap of the American government and the CIA. And the Swedish legal system, everyone agrees on, is "infested with feminist radicalism".

It would be interesting to hear from you guys. What are your thoughts about this, if you have any? Have you heard about this story?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I wasn't aware Pilger and co were endorsing the concept of enforced sex / rape suddenly. Does all seem a bit Polanski.

Like you say, the individual does seem to be overshadowing the organisation to an extent. On the latter it seems to me that releasing 'national security' stuff like high-risk infrastructure weak points etc (regardless of not giving absolute specifics) was foolhardy and pretty much benefits no-one except those who'd like to go all luke-warm-war on the US. Daft. It's one thing to expose mealy mouthed political lies, it's another to endanger lives &/or pretty much pick sides in geopolitical war games.

And it's left them now totally compromised (in that they've been so thoroughly shunned, that even with hackers defending 'em, they no longer have a 'base of operations', as it were, to provide even a basic level of authentication. Anyone could now set up a faux site and muddy the waters, it seems, or at least attempt to).

Interesting that it wasn't until they were about to go after the banks that they really got taken down tho. Guess we know who's really in charge

PS this whole subject has been cogently and maturely dissected... here

()

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

When the rape charges were publicised I was a little disturbed at the willingness of commentators and celebs to side with JA before any proper investigations. It was quite amusing to see human rights workers quivering with injustice over JA's spell in the 'Victorian cell' while apparently ignoring the women's claims.

Yeah, it's sad to see a legend like John Pilger - who's made a career of blaming journalists all over the world for not lending their voice enough to those who don't have one - to, without any investigation whatsoever on his own part, swallow whatever biased sources like Assange's own barrister are feeding him. Don't get me started on Michael Moore. I just visited his homepage and it's a farce. He's calling Sweden a paradise for rapists and using an Amnesty report as his source. One glance at the report and your suspicions are confirmed - he's taken bits here and there, completely out of context, and fabricated his own statistics and "scientific" explanation for them. Apparently Naomi Klein is also joining in, claiming that the rape accusation is a well known strategy, used by white supremacists in America against black men when they wanted to frame them for something, a strategy now used by Swedish authorities against Assange. There's also something about this being the same thing as the lies about the reasons for going into Afghanistan or something. It's really unbelievable.

[CORRECTION]Klein wasn't the one who said that about the rape accusation being a method to frame black men, that was a Swedish woman. Klein said that thing of Afghanistan though.

Well, whether or not he's a rapist makes no difference in the discussion about whether or not his organization is doing the right thing. He could have easily been pegged with any number of charges, and the main issue remains the same.

There're a lot of rapists out there but only one Wikileaks.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I can see why they won't seperate the man from the site/cause. As I've said in other posts concerning the news, it's all about the narrative. Assange, rather than wikileaks, has now become the product and no one wants to buy faulty goods, which is why no one promotes them. No one wants to be the person who backed the rapist (whether he is or not isn't the issue here) so you attack/rewrite the 'rape' part of the narrative. If he goes to trial and is found innocent, great. He's been found innocent, he's clean and it was all a US/right wing/NWO conspiracy, but justice won out because good people stood up. If he's tried and found guilty, well, of course he was found guilty. Anyone can be found guilty of rape in Sweden and those in the shadows pulled the strings and got what they wanted.

I'm pro wikileaks and, if he's tried and found guilty, I hope it continues in the same way it has been so far. However, I hate rapists, so if he's guilty I hope he's found guilty and dealt with.

My view atm, is that it is all a little convienent, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy. That is to say, I'm undecided.

You have to remember that Wikileaks are heroes in Sweden. Some critical voices from those who are uncomfortable about some of the documents revealed by Wikileaks have been heard of course. But the criticism you hear in America, that Assange is a terrorist and so on - there's nothing of that in Sweden. Wikileaks actually used a server in Sweden because they knew that Swedish servers are untouchable.

Another preposterous allegation is that "the powerful" Swedish Social Democratic party in some way is trying to "get" Assange. It's preposterous since Assange was in Sweden to speak in the LO-borgen (the "LO-castle"). LO is an umbrella organization for Swedish labour unions and with strong ties to the Social Democratic Party (not that long ago, membership in a LO labour union automatically meant membership in the Social Democrats). Assange was invited to speak there by the Broderskapsrörelsen ("Brotherhood association") an association of christian Social Democrats.

Is it plausible that this party is out to frame Assange?

So, if Wikileaks enjoy the almost total support of the Swedish public, news media and political establishment - why should we want to frame Julian Assange?

It is a fact that the people around Julian Assange began to distance themselves from him - before the rape accusations came to surface. Assange is said to be fixated with his own person, having a problem with people who disagree with him and showing despotic tendencies when it comes to how Wikileaks should be run. That's why key figures have left and started Openleaks and Greenlaeks instead.

Does he sound like a person who takes no for an answer?

I have heard of Wikileaks but not of the rape case because I'm a bumpkin who doesn't follow the news, but reading your post I'm confused about this:

Is Moore siding with or against Assange? Calling Sweden a paradise for rapists seems to be critical of Sweden and possibly Assange (the alleged rapist), which would be the opposite of Klein's allegation (that the women are just crying rape and Sweden is too quick to fall for it). Right? Unless Moore is being sarcastic.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I mean it sounds like they're both seem critical of Sweden, but their portrayals of Sweden's record as a feminist state don't seem to agree.

Moore is siding with Assange, he put up the money for Assange's bail. And if you think their accusations are contradictory - welcome to the club!

I think the point Moore is trying to make is: why prosecute Assange when all the "real" rapists are running free in Sweden (which is, of course, absurd). Naomi Klein are basically saying that the rape accusations are being used to trap Assange in Sweden, so Sweden then can hand him over to the US. Naomi Wolf thinks that Swedish women should shut up and learn how to say no properly, I think.

Thanks, that does clarify the incoherence somewhat, if that makes sense.

Well, Michael Moore, John Pilger, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf and others are apparently claiming that the rape accusations against Assange is in fact part of a strategy designed to silence Wikileaks. The allegedly false accusations are made up to discredit not only Assange, but the entire Wikileaks organization. It seems to me as they are the ones who can't stop viewing Assange and Wikileaks as inseparable.

And, as honeykid pointed out, if the accusations are in fact true and Assange is convicted - that's nothing but a legal travesty since Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism according to Assange.

That's the funny part - how can we be the Saudi Arabia of feminism, i.e. a place where rapists supposedly would have a not so cool time, and at the same time a paradise for rapists?

They're idiots.

Thanks for that post, Pidz.

I didn't know about this part that I've quoted, but it sits well with me as Assange does come over as the kind of arrogant, cocky prick that I'd have trouble spending more than 10 minutes with. Also, when this all broke and I saw the Wikileaks HQ, I said to a friend, "Does this guy suffer illusions of grandeur or what?"

no it doesn't make the slightest difference to the actual operation of wikileaks and the effect of the leaks themselves. However the willingness of people like Bianca Jagger to view JA as a person who shouldn't have to go through the justice system like any other man accused of rape, gives me misgivings.

Whatever happens the rape charges need to be proved/disproved in court for justice to be done, surely Assange would want that himself?

I support neither Assange nor Wikileaks. This organisation decides that they have to be a hornblower to the entire world, because the public has a "right to know".

Do we really give two sh!ts about the Wikileaks reports? Has any of you gone to the site and started reading them? From what I've read in the paper, they're only quoting the juicy bits about Sarkozy and Putin, which is of no concern whatsoever to me. It's being hyped up and to me, it looks more like an organisation wanting to make a name for itself, i.e. Assange looking to make a name for himself.

Yesterday, I heard on Belgian news that a fired Swiss banker has handed over the bank records of 2000 "very wealthy" clients of his. Now, I'm not sure if Wikileaks will publish this (are they even still operative?), but that would be disgusting if they did. That is confidential information that we have no right to know about; much like the reports they released from US diplomats.

If Assange raped those girls, he should be convicted and put in prison.

As to Michael Moore... the guy is a joke. Even his most critically-lauded "documentaries" just serve his own agenda. He manipulates his viewers just as much as the practices he denounces.

I tried to enter the site but I couldn't search for any documents. I don't know why, but I heard something about some attack on the Wikileaks website. Sounds plausible.

You are putting the finger on the what I think is the biggest problem with Wikileaks. The discussion about Wikileaks and Julian Assange has completely muffled the discussion about important information in the documents released by Wikileaks.

Unlike you I do think Wikileaks has had a huge impact on news and the world in general. I think it's similar to when people began to download music for free - It's not quite right, but it's necessary for things to change.

And I don't think I'll ever forget the film from the chopper in Iraq. That one story makes it all worth it.

And unlike you I think it's good that someone leaks about banks - especially Swiss banks. It's perhaps not legal, and perhaps not right - but it may be necessary for things to change a bit. And banks are still too powerful - people don't seem to remember how they actually created this last global financial crisis.

I supported the release of the Pentagon Papers, but this leaking has no muckraking story behind it. The only purpose is to make the United States look bad and harm it.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

The media and its readers-listeners of pre-trial hoopla may indeed focus on which of the characters are more believeable. But I would hope that in Sweden, as here, the court's decision will be whether the prosecution provided proof beyond reasonable doubt. He said-she said don't count for chit unless there are witnesses or other proof to back up one claim over another.

I'll have to take your word on what's happening on Fox because I don't watch even real television news and certainly not those so-called political pundits they trot for the entertainment of the masses.

That's probably true for some although I personally don't give a damn about Assange one way or another. I certainly don't regard him as a crusading journalist. His crusade is for his private agenda, but he is not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination. I think he and his setup have done some harm and in at least one case may be the cause of one politico in an African country being exterminated. But the harm to the US isn't that great--we've survived worse and we'll survive this.

Celebrities always support the "underdog" if he's famous and has some enviable position or funds. Look at all the big names who raised a stink after Polanski got picked up.

Even the guy who outed the Pentagon Papers held back material he thought too sensitive to release. His point was to reveal what got us into that war, not to share military information with the enemy that might get US soldiers killed. But Assange had no such scruples.

The whole wikileaks thing is reckless and stupid, and like someone else said they put a lot of things up without caring about the consequences.

Honestly, I used to enjoy Michael Moore's agitprop shenanigans, but I've lost all respect for him because of his support of Julian Assange. For a guy who says he is speaking for the common man, his support of a website that actually endangers our troops overseas strikes me as hypocritical.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/