Assange (continued)

[Omg20]

The thread is apparently to big for anymore posts lol

Original thread here

I want to make sure there is a thread for the outcome of the trial so that people can post what they think about the outcome and also to continue debate that was ongoing in the op.

Oh, you think that he should go on trial?

Brilliant. I think we are all in agreement, then.

He already is in trial lol for extradition. I maybe should have said case or hearing maybe you would have understood

No, I understand exactly what is going on. A hearing is not a trial. Most people on the other thread want him to face a trial, that's the whole point. It's important to use the correct terminology, otherwise we all get into bother.

Trial is the correct terminology lol

"In law, a trial is when parties to a dispute come together to present information (in the form of evidence) in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute."

"In law, a hearing is a proceeding before a court or other decision-making body or officer, such as a government agency.[1]

A hearing is generally distinguished from a trial in that it is usually shorter and often less formal.[1] In the course of litigation, hearings are conducted as oral arguments in support of motions, whether to resolve the case without further trial on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, or to decide discrete issues of law, such as the admissibility of evidence, that will determine how the trial proceeds. Limited evidence and testimony may also be presented in hearings to supplement the legal arguments."

both of these could be used to describe what assange is doing at the minute. He is in hearings and overall trial. That is why i linked the original topic aswell so that no one would get bother.

Omg - I think you have got that wrong. It's a hearing on extradition to face a trial in Sweden.

The bit you have put in bold refers to a hearing not a trial.

I thought it was a hearing on extradition to Sweden to face questioning. AFAIK he hasn't been formally charged/indicted yet - hence the primary defence argument is that the European Arrest Warrant was invalid. The purpose of which is to extradite people either to face trial or to serve a sentence, not to facilitate an investigation.

Oh right, a new thread. Good. What I was going to say on that other thread, was, why, when feminists say Assange should be extradited to be questioned about these rape allegations, do all his supporters say that feminists have decided he's guilty already?

We haven't. We've merely said that rape allegations should be taken seriously and that people accused of it, should answer any questions that the authorities want to put to them.

Why do some people make the massive leap of logic that says that means we've all condemned him without a trial?

Are their critical thinking skills really so poor?

Off to bed now, back some time this weekend...

It is Jeanine

I've had a massive Facebook cull over the Assange case, not any of my real friends, but people I knew from school, university and my employment days who I accepted out of politeness.

I've seen too many comments suggesting that the US Government are behind this, that the UK Government will be making sure the court rules to extradite him so as not to damage the 'special relationship' with the US etc.

After banging my head on the desk, I just deleted them all.

I had a mass delete over the rape anonymity laws. It made me feel better.

HerBeX wrote:
Why, when feminists say Assange should be extradited to be questioned about these rape allegations, do all his supporters say that feminists have decided he's guilty already?

... even on this board, he's been referred to as a rapist more than once. I got told off for saying nobody's "a rapist" until they have been convicted. I speak as someone whose circumstances have forced her to have a lot of contact with specialist police services; I have been known to say things like "A man who [does xyz] is a rapist" as a result of what I've learned.

Assuming no-one on this board has sufficient intimate knowlege of Assange to raise those concerns, we're talking about an admittedly strange man who's been accused of technical rape at a time when he was being hounded by powerful agencies for acts unrelated to his personal or sexual habits. Anybody who refuses to perceive a potential connection between the two is blinkered.

I said earlier, I suspect he did it. That's no more than a guesstimation: there's no way I'd say Assange is "a rapist" as others have asserted on this board. If you can't tell the difference between a personal opinion and a legally indicteable, criminal accusation, you can't blame feminists like me (never mind non-feminists) for querying your validity.

Grrr.

What's a technical rape AgingGrace, how does it differ from a rape?

And where has Assange unequivocally and categorically been declared a rapist?

I'm not sure he actually has been. But I do think that when people say people who have been accused of rape, should answer the charges, other people immediately see that as mad hairy feminists condemning all men as rapists.

When in fact it's people who say "oh all men do that" who are condemning all men as rapists.

'I got told off for saying nobody's "a rapist" until they have been convicted'

do you think that there are no unconvicted rapists?

And for 'the legal system' read 'society'.

Does anyone know what the stats for rape reporting/conviction are in other countries?

The day has come :) Appeal to follow no matter who wins case.