locus1.1
Having read the BBC link you’ve provided I can’t help thinking that you’re interpreting the report in an angry and biased way. Of course it may be that I’m biased in reading the reportand detecting no opinion one way or the other.Carol1.1.1
This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty.Article 221.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.My view is that Assange should stand trial for the Swedish allegations or rape etc. There should be a guarantee from Sweden that they will not co-operate in, or agree to, extraditing Assange to the US.rosy1.1.1.1
I’ve had various UK news channels on all day and the government has backed away from the threat to enter the embassy – their ‘right’ to do so comes from a piece of legislation written after the killing of the British policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher, in 1984 from the Libyan Embassy – lots of advice and warnings from QCs and diplomats about the safety of British embassies if they do this. It appears William Hague is now preparing for a very long stand-off. The UK won’t give free passage for Assange to leave the UK.The author Tariq Ali, an Assange supporter, has proposed the idea of Ecuador giving Assange an Cultural Attache post, or the like. That way he gets diplomatic immunity. I wonder how that will fly. Apparently the Swedes are fuming and have called in the Ambassador to express this.- I agree.However Assange has done his reputation a lot of harm by not fronting up to the allegations and disproving them immediately. Excusing his cowardice in this regard by saying he’s scared of extradition from Sweden to the US is – given his status as a hero for honesty – spineless.Very stupid (for so many reasons) for the British to say they might invoke legislation created to prevent murderous acts as an excuse to break in to an Embassy to arrest someone who they have a legal obligation to extradite to Sweden.Interestingly,extradition laws in Sweden and the UK are absolutely clear on the fact that someone cannot be extradited if the reason is to answer allegations which if proven might result in the death penalty in that country. I suppose that the US could find a way around this, but wouldn’t it have been awesome if Assange had disproven the allegations in Sweden and then as a worldwide hero stood up to the bullying arrogance of the US.
- The problem is that it’s not about proving himself innocent.
My guess is that he probably did what he has been accused of. However, his actions are not a crime in the UK and almost all other places in the world including NZ. It would not even constitute common assault let alone a sexual offence.
It would be like being extradited to a country because you drank coffee on a Sunday. I would allow my to be extradited – would you?McFlock1.1.1.2.1.1
That’s outright wrong. At least one allegation conforms to rape in NZ (an unconscious person cannot consent) and the restraint bit might be common assault or something more serious (don’t recall offhand).- I didn’t know that one count constituted rape by our standards. Do you have a source?
Colonial Viper…
If you are lying in bed next to your sleeping sexual partner, I suggest to take care not to touch her, or to lie close enough to touch her, because she will be unable to consent to being touched in any way, and you may inadvertently leave yourself open to an assault charge or worse.- Particularly if you [allegedly] touch her in a way she has refused to be touched when conscious.
- Okay, McFlock, in the article you cite above, the language that is used seems to be from the statute of Sweden. If that is what he did then he’s an A-hole and deserves the appropriate sanctions under the law.
Someone who acted in such a way has committed a crime under Swedish law.
But before you can equate what the laws say with what happened – you have the process of interpretation.
What do the participants say happened?
Who can I believe?
The [jury/judge/prosecutor] then create a narrative of what they believe to be the truth.
They then interpret the “truth” to determine if they align with and interpretation of the law that say it is a crime.
Obviously, the first prosecutor said no crime had been committed. The second said there had.
Does that indicate room for doubt? Is so, does the problem lie with being able to interpret what happened. Could his actions have been misinterpreted? It happens.
The charges are written to be unambiguous and they sound damning. But human behaviour and the narrative of events are not so clear.
I am not defending Assange just calling for the possibility that we need to wait to see if his actions have been misinterpreted. He may be a serious sad fuck and I will be the first to suggest he gets what he deserves (contrary to Weka’s predetermined view of me) - I fully and comprehensively agree with you.
But I think the only place to determine the truth of the matter is in a court of law. Which is what the Swedes are stepping towards with their investigation.
The question becomes whether the fear of rendition to the US if he goes to Sweden is reasonable (i.e. disproportionate punishment even if he’s guilty of the allegation). Interestingly enough, the risk of rendition was not one of the grounds he used to appeal the extradition from the UK. weka…
But before you can equate what the laws say with what happened – you have the process of interpretation.
What do the participants say happened?
Who can I believe?
There is a certain amount of information in the public domain, but my own personal opinion is that it is not possible for people to judge the guilt/innocence of the women or Assange at this distance. All I am arguing for is that people who support Assange in the general wikileaks drama don’t assume the women are lying, and don’t use accusations of them lying to support one’s political agenda because that damages all women.Edit: what McFlock said.
He may be a serious sad fuck and I will be the first to suggest he gets what he deserves (contrary to Weka’s predetermined view of me)
I don’t have any predetermined view of you William. I don’t know what you think about rape in general, nor much about your views on Assange. All I did was call you out on one comment today (and one yesterday). It’s pretty simple. If I am wrong, you can just clarify.
- If you are lying in bed next to your sleeping sexual partner, I suggest to take care not to touch her, or to lie close enough to touch her, because she will be unable to consent to being touched in any way, and you may inadvertently leave yourself open to an assault charge or worse.
I’ve said this to you before CV. If your understanding of consent is that fucked up, you really shouldn’t be around women. Nor commenting on sex.
But of course, your understanding isn’t that fucked up. You are just misusing rape issues to make a point. It’s sick.- You are not permitted by law to touch someone without their consent, regardless of whether it is physical contact of a sexual nature or non-sexual nature. That is my understanding. And as McFlock has stressed, no consent can be given by someone who is asleep.
- Don’t be full of shit, CV.
Sticking your penis inside someone is not a simple “touch”.
For example, the NZ Crimes Act s128A (3): A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is asleep or unconscious.
You’ve just given us another example of an Assange fan making shit up to minimise the accusations.EDIT: I’ll shift this down to Weka’s new thread. Reply there if you want.
- Remember what I said yesterday about women’s sexuality being expendable to the left when the fate of the Hero is at stake?
It would be like being extradited to a country because you drank coffee on a Sunday.
Irrespective of whether what Assange (allegedly) did meets the criteria for charging him with crimes, if you consider his actions to be like drinking a cup of coffee, you are supporting rape culture.
Have you read the complainants’ descriptions? You really think it is ok to treat women like that?- Although I get your point, William Joyce’s opinion isn’t expressed by the majority of commentators here… So no generalizing about supporting rape culture please.
- Nor do I hold the opinion weka has imputed to me. Weka tried this strategy with me last night and I was too tired to correct it and though weka was just another practitioner of eisegesis.
- Jackal, my generalisation, such as it is, is that anyone who thinks being arrested for something neutral like coffee drinking is similar to being arrested for sexual assault, supports rape culture. Do you really have a problem with that generalisation?
- I have a problem with this generalization:Here on TS, where women are deemed expendable?and;[If] you aren’t naming the problem and arguing against it, then you are supporting the expendability of women.I’ve already made my thoughts clear on the coffee drinking analogy. Even if I hadn’t, it wouldn’t be an indication that I supported rape culture.
- You really have a psychological need to take what I say, equate it with something I didn’t say, and label me a rape-supporting misogynist of the left – all to support some pet theory you have about “women’s sexuality being expendable to the left”Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
If you want to use me as confirmation of your pet theory then you are barking up the wrong tree and need to get more objective and at least ask me for my opinion rather than pulling it out of your arse.
I have not read the charges since the months after this whole thing blew up. If it is as bad as you say then I may to do a rethink.
But that wont satisfy you – you have already made a determination of my attitude -seesh!- Nice avoidance William. If I got it wrong, please explain your cup of coffee analogy. I’m open to the possibility that we miscommunicate rather than you not understanding what rape culture is. Please prove me wrong.btw, you would have to read the complainants’ statements to understand what I am talking about.
- I did not know that one charge is the equivalent of rape. McFlock kindly gave me a link. Something you could have done before leaping to conclusions about my support for “rape culture”.
You are assuming that what he did was rape. That has yet to be determined by a court. If he is a rapist then he’s toast and quite rightly so. You are looking at the charges, written in unambiguous, emphatic language and interpreting what happened in that light.
So of course you think it is rape.
But we are not there yet. Before we get there we have to go through a process (which I have written in response to McFlock) to develop the best narrative we can about what happened.
I am not trivialising the enormity of rape. The validity of my coffee analogy hangs on the way Swedish law defines rape. It is my understanding is that the Swedish law defines certain action as rape when would not. They venture into areas of what constitutes consent that we do not. The venture into areas that can constitute a misunderstanding between the participants.
Now that doesn’t seem that way when you read the charges because charges are, by nature, emphatic and damning. But before you get to that you have a shit load in interpreting. - The coffee analogy was wrong because it somewhat trivialized the issue, but it’s a huge leap to say that William Joyce is supportive of rape culture because he reiterated a statement that has been extensively promoted by the media.Peoples indifference to things like sexism, abuse, porn, media normalization and victims remaining silent are some of the things that generally support rape culture… Pointing out that different countries have different laws doesn’t.
- Remember what I said yesterday about women’s sexuality being expendable to the left when the fate of the Hero is at stake?The hotel worker who accused the IMF’s Dominique Strauss-Kahn was fully victimised and character assassinated before you could even start your computer up. All sides of the political economic spectrum do it because it is all too easy to stop women from having an equal voice in the proceedings.I personally think Assange should be forced to front up in Sweden asap and Sweden should facilitate this by assuring Assange that they will not co-operate with requests to extradite him to the US on any charges relating to espionage/Wikileaks/national security.
- Just because everyone else does it doesn’t mean that you or any other Assange supporter should do it.
Oh, and negotiation =/= “forced”.- You don’t think there should be any negotiation. Something about Sweden’s sovereign rights to not question Assange even if he is available for questioning.Their position is likely because they have no real interest in questioning him re: the allegations, they are just mainly interested in taking him into custody.
- I think you’re almost correct :the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning.I think that he will most likely be formally charged with sexual assault and/or rape after interview number 2. Not for rendition to the US.
- I think there are two things there CV. There is the attempt to silence the women who have been assaulted. And then there is the attempt in conversations like this to make women’s issue less important than men’s. The second one is shown whenever we have discussions about Assange that can’t include the possibility of his guilt, AND that his possibly guilt might be the more important issue.The most obvious example on TS is Morrisey who already KNOWS that Assange is innocent and that the women are lying (god forbid that he is ever on a rape trial jury). What I would be interested to know is if any of the people who think Assange should be given asylum have challenged Morrisey on his assertion that the women are lying? See? Why can we not have a conversation that supports Assange (or not), but at the same time doesn’t reinforce the rights of men to call women who report rape liars?On another matter, does the Swedish govt have enough information to make the call you want them to?
Professor Longhair…
“…Morrisey who already KNOWS that Assange is innocent and that the women are lying….”I have carefully followed Morrissey’s contributions to this debate, and he has not said or implied those things. His concern is with the state apparatus of disinformation and defamation, and its (often unwitting) accomplices in the media. You have either chosen to deliberately misrepresent his views, or you are hopelessly confused.You are ill-intentioned or ill-informed; whichever it is, you have not done the background reading to be able to comment with any authority on this topic.- You’ve carefully followed Morrissey’s contributions on the matter. Likethis effort from yesterday:There is no sexual assault investigation. There are vague and fantastical allegations, which no one of integrity thinks hold water.
Seems to strongly imply innocence and disbelief of the complainants, to my reading anyway…
- Quotes from Morrissey –
You know perfectly well what his point was. But just to confirm what you already know but lack the integrity to admit: the allegations against Assange are baseless, ludicrous, fantastical, and vicious. The “case” against Assange makes the case—giraffes in the basement and all—against Peter Ellis look robust.
There’s nothing run of the mill about sexual assault, CV.
There is no evidence that Assange sexually assaulted anyone. You know that, of course.
I have never been convinced that he was certainly, without a shadow of a doubt, guilty.
There is no evidence at all that Assange is guilty of anything.Only formal complaints from two women.
There were no complaints from them. The women were inveigled, probably threatened, into complying with this bizarre attempt to snare Assange. - I have carefully followed Morrissey’s contributions to this debateYeah I’ve noticed that and something has been nagging me – you know like when you have a song going round but you can’t remember the name of it – it happens with phases people use too, they stick in my head – like this oneMorrisey – “Something called “QoT” tried, unwisely, to be clever…”
Prolonghair – “Something calling itself “Te Reo Putake” started off well, then got itself just a bit confused…”http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13072012/comment-page-1/#comment-493027
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-01082012/comment-page-1/#comment-500887It’s obvious you two are close and I’m cool with that. It’s a masterly stroke to use the term, “something” when talking about a person – it completely dehumanises them – they are commodified and objectified all at once.but i know, i know – I’d better read up on it and so on… - Well spotted marty, and snap – I’d been getting the feeling that our strings were being pulled
Vicky32…
What I would be interested to know is if any of the people who think Assange should be given asylum have challenged Morrisey on his assertion that the women are lying?Personally, I think they’re lying – which is not the same thing as thinking that all women who allege rape are lying! These women actually have harmed the cause of women who actually have been assaulted.- And your basis for thinking that both women are lying is… ?
- Personally, I think they’re lying
Well that’s the reason there are legal procedures that have to be worked through.
- A loon called “weka” writes, in apparent high seriousness, that “if you consider his actions to be like drinking a cup of coffee, you are supporting rape culture.”Do others agree that our feathered friend’s effort is the funniest post of the week?
- Only if they think Assange should not be investigated for sexual assault, even if it’s possible that he did it.
- Assange should definitely be investigated for alleged sexual assault. He can be questioned today, if Swedish authorities wish.
- If they kowtow at his convenience.
Pascal's bookie…
Personally I don’t find any of this particulalry funny Prof.But if I had to choose I’d say the funniest part over the last two days has been your comments. Firstly you took umbrage about ‘fan’ comments, and since then all you’ve done is insult anyone who questions your narrative, in which Assange is playing the lead part in airport thriller.Quite amusing.Morrissey…
Do others agree that our feathered friend’s effort is the funniest post of the week?I’m not sure whether it’s (a) unintentionally funny, (b) an exercise in fraudulent political correctness, or (c) just sad.Possibly a bit of all three.
Bored1.1.1.3
Carol, respectfully we will disagree on My view is that Assange should stand trial for the Swedish allegations or rape etc. You have put the horse before the cart.As I understand it Assange is accused BUT not charged. The Swedes want to interview him before they decide whether there is case to answer. If there is then I agree, he stands trial.The problem with this is that there appear to be strings being pulled by “puppies” of the US empire so that they might lay their hands on Assange for what is officially an “unrelated” issue. For example the British position which is contrary to international law which they signed. Who pulled that chain?Imagine that you as a woman are wanted by the Swedish investigators responding to unproven accusations of assaulting your husbands lover. You know that it is bollocks but you are prepared to go and clear your name. You have in your job done some whistle blowing on some dirty political deeds in the US which has issued a warrant for your arrest with a possible death penalty. Sweden will allow the US to extradite you. Are you going?I would suggest given the seriousness of the accusations that the “facts” are made public by the Swedes. If they have veracity let’s get Assange into the dock. Maybe another scenario is a public guarantee from the US that they will not pursue Assange.- Carol, respectfully we will disagree on My view is that Assange should stand trial for the Swedish allegations or rape etc. You have put the horse before the cart.As I understand it Assange is accused BUT not charged. The Swedes want to interview him before they decide whether there is case to answer. If there is then I agree, he stands trial.Bored, I stand corrected on that point, and agree on the last sentencePS: I’ve never had and am never likely to have a husband.
- Thanks Carol, on the PS we mere males are happily content with your company “en-blog”.
- 1.) “Having read the BBC link you’ve provided I can’t help thinking that you’re interpreting the report in an angry and biased way.”Morrissey’s construing of the BBC piece seems to me to be an astute reading of a typically mendacious effort by that organization.2.) “Of course it may be that I’m biased in reading the reportand detecting no opinion one way or the other.”You are not so much biased as willfully naïve.
- According to Pagani we’re all “angry and biased”
Tuesday 9 January 2018
Just imagine if China threatened to invade the US embassy to arrest a Chinese dissident (Aug. 17, 2012)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just imagine if China threatened to invade the US embassy to arrest a Chinese dissident