What is the feminist view of the Julian Assange stand off

Whatme, the area in which the guardian asks the new statesman to correct the story is NOT with respect to whether the questioning could take place here but as to whether or not the final decision to extradite Assange from Sweden tO the us would rest with the Swedish courts or the Swedish parliament

Merlin, he isn't on Ecuador's soil, he is in the Ecuadorian Embassy which is granted certain diplomatic privileges by the UK government, which can be "overruled" in certain circumstances (following the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher when police were unable to apprehend the shooter by entering the embassy, the law was changed). So until the UK do that "overrule" or Assange steps outside the embassy, he can't be arrested but he also can't go to Ecuador!

Question.... but why are we discussing Assange extradition and trial while he's already on Ecuador's soil?

Am I wrong or it isn't possible to be extradited from Ecuador, for any reason? I thought they had already given him political asylum.

^^Whatmeworry - someone already mentioned this link above which touches on the 'questioning' thing...
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition^^

Yet another pundit mouthing off...already been asked to correct his story by he Guardian.

There's a clear implication that they think justice for victims of sexual violence should take second place to the alleged perpetrators right to political asylum in this case. It seems like a strange attitude from an organsation called Women Against Rape. It's almost like they're suggesting it's okay to brush sexual violence under the carpet if the alleged perpetrator has also done lots of good non-violent things that Women Against Rape approve of.

I think that's a complete and wilful misrepresentation of what they said, not that I'm surprised you did it, seems par for the course in this debate.

But the main point re the OP's question is that there are Femsinist groups who do think differently to the MN RadFem bubble here

That doesn't seem out of whack with the kind of interview judiciary would give in this country about an ongoing case, quite often reasons cannot be given because it would compromise a legal case or invade privacy or whatever

No, that's not it at all. The Swedish Prosecutors Office could easily have said all that, but didn't - despite Martha Kearney coming at it from a number of angles in that interview. It is very clear that they did not want to talk about the reasons she did not follow fairly standard Swedish procedures.

If you read the Swedish papers its clearer (eg SvenskaDagbladet)

Apparently, it is alleged, a sealed indictment has been produced.

I think he should go to Sweden FWIW. It's likely their own abuse of process has damaged any possible case, sadly.

But why, OMC? One assumes that if Sweden hadn't decided there was a case against him, he would have pootled about the world until the extradition request came through to whatever jurisdiction he was in at the time. The Swedish trial may be over before any extradition request is made.

TheDoctrineOfEnnis Sat 25-Aug-12 15:53:54
OMC they can't say that though - there is no US extradition request to accept or deny as yet.

Not publicly, at least.

Uf he is extradited to Sweden both Sweden and uk would need to agree to any onward extradition, which I assume would take place after any trial (and subsequent sentence if applicabke)

yes, Britain's got a good record for sending people to the US - (and Sweden, of course).

I think he needs to get in front of a Swedish court. It will disappoint me if he does, isn't found guilty and ends up in US detention.

OMC they can't say that though - there is no US extradition request to accept or deny as yet. Uf he is extradited to Sweden both Sweden and uk would need to agree to any onward extradition, which I assume would take place after any trial (and subsequent sentence if applicabke)

MerlinScot Sat 25-Aug-12 08:58:59
I thought the last good one to walk this earth was mother Theresa of Calcutta. ... and there is more than one view of her, too.

To the thread: I think Sweden should say they aren't in the least interested in extraditing JA to the states (which I think the US is after, actually). Then I think JA should go to face the questioning and charges.

I've read [in translation] some of the Swedish stuff, and they really have been a bit slack with following their own processes. Look at how well the UK police do, and it isn't all that surprising.

"There's a clear implication that they think justice for victims of sexual violence should take second place to the alleged perpetrators right to political asylum in this case. It seems like a strange attitude from an organsation called Women Against Rape. It's almost like they're suggesting it's okay to brush sexual violence under the carpet if the alleged perpetrator has also done lots of good non-violent things that Women Against Rape approve of."

It seems that way to me too. And it's a scary idea. My ex had a free ticket for rape and abuse because of who he was volunteering for.

How many exceptions are there for being convicted for rape? That might explains why in Scotland the convictions are only 3%.....

Then I must spend some time online to understand what good things this JA did for the world peace and people. I thought the last good one to walk this earth was mother Theresa of Calcutta.

Must update myself

I think there were similar arguments in some quarters re DSK - at a time of (economic) crisis, we mustn't bother the Great Men with such matters.

The fact that there will always be an economic crisis somewhere, so that would have been a career-long "get out of jail free" card for DSK didn't seem to matter!

Exactly StormGlass and it sort of begs the question who else is so special and important that it doesn't matter that they are a rapist? Barack Obama's been a force for political good, how many free rapes does that earn him?

I also think it's a bit odd that Women Against Rape seem to be saying that Assange shouldn't be prosecuted, simply because they "cannot ignore this threat" of extradition to the US.

There's a clear implication that they think justice for victims of sexual violence should take second place to the alleged perpetrators right to political asylum in this case. It seems like a strange attitude from an organsation called Women Against Rape. It's almost like they're suggesting it's okay to brush sexual violence under the carpet if the alleged perpetrator has also done lots of good non-violent things that Women Against Rape approve of.

Ok whatme I have listened to it now, the interviewer is saying that in the past some interviews have been carried out overseas by video link etc, and all the interviewee is saying is that the prosecutor has decided it is necessary for Assange to be interviewed in Sweden, and at this stage of the investigation the prosecutor doesn't want to spell out her reasons for this decision.

That doesn't seem out of whack with the kind of interview judiciary would give in this country about an ongoing case, quite often reasons cannot be given because it would compromise a legal case or invade privacy or whatever.

Whatme, I'm sure in the UK some senior people within the justice system think one approach is right whilst others would pick another.

I haven't listened to your link - did she say "well it could have been done this way or that but we chose this way" or did she say "the way chosen was highly unusual" or words to that effect? As the UK high court went through several appeals wrt the extradition request and still ruled it valid, it seems likely that it was a reasonable approach. Have you read the record of the extradition appeal on judiciary.gov.uk? It's quite interesting.

But we were much more involved in rendition. So why did JA come here?

That is a damned good question.

That has been canvassed on another thread. I think it was Kladdkaka (Swedish, or at least resident in Sweden) explained it. He has to be interviewed in a police station, and they can't use fiction of just designating some where in the UK as one. It would only delay the inevitable anyway-they question him, say 'OK, come back to face trial' and he would still say no

The link I pointed to is later than that and straight from the BBC Radio 4 interviewing Karin Rosander, Director of Communications for the Swedish Prosecution Authority. In it she says clearly they could have/can interview Assange in the UK, the case prosecutor doesn''t want to, but won't say why. I doubt its procedural.

Naomi Wolf isn't a feminist and Women Against Rape have some fairly dodgy feminist credentials

...ie they disagree with you. They are the Wrong Sort Of Feminists, clearly :o

Good question - why did he come to UK?
Large influential English using media perhaps?

But we were much more involved in rendition. So why did JA come here?

A lefty barrister friend of mine (like many others) gives the Swedish govt's involvement in rendition, as a valid reason for JA not going to Sweden.

Thanks to MN and the brilliant info/threads here, I was able to point out in return that the Amnesty report of Sweden's involvement in rendition was in 2006. However in 2010 JA himself chose Sweden as the safest possibly harbour for him to settle in Europe. Until he was about to be charged with rape that is -then he fled the country the day before.

It's fairly safe to assume that JA, being such a well informed person in these matters, was well aware of Swedens involvement with rendition yet still chose it as the best place for him to reside & work.

EldritchCleavage, thanks for explaining that.

Anyway, Assange seems to act like he knows he's guilty of the charges... why did he hide in the Ecuador embassy in the first place? Because he knows he can't be extradited from there, it is like Equadorian soil...

This seems like a copy of what happened with the famous Italian murderer and terrorist Cesare Battisti.

I don't know why everybody is fooled by the whole mess CIA-USA-wikileaks. It seems Assange is using that excuse to escape a conviction, not the opposite.

Sweden could have interviewed him in the UK, continually chose not to despite being invited, but still won't give their reasons why not

That has been canvassed on another thread. I think it was Kladdkaka (Swedish, or at least resident in Sweden) explained it. He has to be interviewed in a police station, and they can't use fiction of just designating some where in the UK as one. It would only delay the inevitable anyway-they question him, say 'OK, come back to face trial' and he would still say no.

People also don't seem to realise he is now in the formal prosecution process-the procedure and language is very different from the UK and so misleading. Sweden has a very different system, they formally 'charge' at the last moment and trial must then follow within 2 weeks. All this was explained in the UK court proceedings and the 3 courts all accepted JA is at a stage equivalent to being charged in the UK. So it isn't a case where the Swedes are still deciding if there is a case to answer. They are prosecuting him for these alleged offences, as I understand it.