What is the feminist view of the Julian Assange stand off

[TeamGBsometimes]

It should be simple shouldn't it. The man is wanted for questioning in Sweden for a sexual assault allegation. Sweden is a western democracy, not a country known for human rights transgressions. I'm sure it's not 100% squeaky clean, nowhere's perfect.

Are Ecuador right or wrong to allow him to asylum in their embassy? Should we just be looking at the sexual assault charge and ignoring the wiki leaks background?

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.

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.

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.

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 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!

"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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

^^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.

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.

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!

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

TheDoE, I was convinced 100% that when you're inside an embassy you are benefiting of the same advantages like being on the saem country's soil...
I must update myself about that too.

Anyway, for the moment it seems that this situation isn't going anywhere. He's not leaving the embassy but he can't be arrested inside.

Merlin (I have typed your name a few times now and phone has finally stopped autocorrecting to Merkin but is now trying with Berlin!) I think it used to be like that re soil but now it's more a figure of speech. Plus the Ecuadorian embassy is in an office block near Harrods so has no roof for Bond-style helicopter rescue of Assange. He's stuck there - though they might have got him a non-air bed by now.

Women Against Rape are part of Crossroads, inc Wages for Housework, English Collective of Prostitutes

they think they're Marxists - they're not

www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/davis-angela/housework.htm

oops
www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/davis-angela/housework.htm

Ecuador has a great track record of extraditing people when it suits them

I think the UK and Sweden's enthusiasm in this case has taken quite a lot of people by surprise....Ecuador at least has the benefit of being anti-American.

And American has a track record of covert activities in that region to topple governments and questionable means of extracting people they want. Rafael Correa won't be in office forever. His successor might be tempted to hand over his "prize" to the US for the right "price."

Sure, he is swapping today's certain frying pan for tomorrow's possible fire, and hoping something comes up in the meantime - but this way there is a meantime.