Ass = Assange

By DeusExMacintosh

Slutwalk London supports Julian Assange

Oh dear, Slutwalk London. On Saturday you’re marshalling crowds of women in fishnets and bras to chant “my dress is not a yes” and promoting petitions insisting that the Home Office should prosecute rapists. Come Tuesday, you’re taking to Twitter to issue statements objecting to the extradition of Julian Assange to face rape allegations in Sweden. Rapists should be prosecuted, but according to Slutwalk London, the fact that many who are accused of rape ultimately aren’t convicted means that this particular accused rapist shouldn’t be subject to due process. It’s an awkward position to adopt, and the most awkward thing of all is the way it conscripts those who joined the march to a cause that was never part of the prospectus.

I’ve squinted at the statement, lurched back and forth at my monitor, and made myself boss-eyed in the hope that the statement is the literary equivalent of a Magic Eye picture: looks like a nonsensical smear on first glimpse, eventually resolves into glorious meaning. I’m going to save you some time here. Don’t bother with any of that, because the statement really is nothing but a self-contradictory trainwreck. Slutwalk Toronto (the mother of all Slutwalks) has already discreetly expressed its concern about the London branch’s statement, again via Twitter.

Sarah Ditum, The Guardian (CIF)


  1. Mel
    Posted September 29, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, that’s weird.

    The whole Assange story sounds like a B grade airport novel (that’s my favourite kind, btw) …

  2. Posted September 29, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    I think the bigger lesson is that evidently a large portion of the public lack the trust in various governments to deal with politically sensitive issues according to the law.

  3. Posted September 29, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    Well unfortunately a large portion of the public has a point Desi, having seen ancient legal principles brushed aside in the last decade for the sake of political expediency (loss of habaeus corpus and indefinite detention without trial, various Terrorism Acts, some interesting extra-territoriality, a UK return for the court of Star Chamber – because that worked so well last time we tried it – and frankly just pure making-sh*t-up when it comes to “military tribunals” at Guantanamo).

    Some of the conspiracy theories are now starting to getting a trifle David Icke in places – I’m just waiting for the first alien lizard.

    Has anyone else noticed that Icke and Assange have the same hair?!

  4. Posted September 30, 2012 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    Assange seems awfully keen to not go anywhere near the Swedish judicial system.

  5. Yvonne
    Posted September 30, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    I have to say I get monumentally frustrated by any comment that insinuates that ‘as long as you are on the left’ implies some sort of homogenous touchy feely types and distrust of the US who have no or little factual reasons for their opinions. It’s as stupid as: all those ‘on the right’ are all raving God bothers and refer to a certain book for all their redneck opinions.
    Why can a comprise not be made and a video link be set up for Assange to face the rape allegations before the court in Sweden? I cannot fathom why this could be such an out there solution. Isn’t this the 21st century?
    As for distrusting the US’ and Sweden’s possible ulterior motives….wasn’t Sweden a nation that allowed aircraft ferrying prisoners to other countries with more ‘sophisticated’ interrogation techniques and less pesky legal types to be ‘interrogated’? Rendition wasn’t happening either remember?
    So, is the argument above you cannot possible be angry about Assange being an alleged rapist not facing court AND have a reserved opinion about politically expedient motives, because then you’re just a raving Lefty? Wow.

  6. Yvonne
    Posted September 30, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Sorry, noticed a few grammar/spelling mistakes. Happens when I don’t preview and am hot under the collar! So am cringing, as one little snobby point of mine is that right wing types are often poor spellers and have little grasp of grammar as opposed to us lefties……

  7. Posted September 30, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Yvonne has rather proved DEM’s point.
    Don’t twist yourself into a pretzel Yvonne.

  8. MI6
    Posted September 30, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    What a bunch of assholes.

    The Guardian – of the right to be stupid.

  9. kvd
    Posted September 30, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    As to videolinks, it must be because the UN is closer than Sweden, or something.

    But as has been said many times before, Assange represents to different issues: 1. the wikileaks furore; 2. the rape allegations. I think it plays to his advantage that the two are confused, and I don’t think it is appropriate to elevate one of the other in terms of importance – by letting the other slide. Let him face the Sweden investigation; let his actions on wikileaks be assessed separately.

    [email protected] I think your “one little snobby point” is just that; but if it makes you feel superior then good for you. We all need something, however petty, to give meaning to our lives.

  10. Posted September 30, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Yvonne @ #8:
    As a regular who frequents left & right wing sites in more or less equal number, I assure you that both poor spelling and frail grasp on grammar is not a feature of right wingers only, as both are very prevalent among left wing blog posters. Prevalent to the point they are at times near incomprehensible.

  11. Posted September 30, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    Wot LE sed! 😉

    I’m not sure the issue is lack of teleconferencing facilities or the impossibility of transplanting one nation’s jurisdiction to anothers geography (as was done by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands for the Lockerbie case) that’s the issue.

    When equality before the law and treating like cases alike is such an important principle, why should Assange get to be a special snowflake? I don’t think anyone is arguing that his Wikileaks work is *SO* important that it means he should be legally untouchable. And so far only a few of the worst conspiracy nuts think the whole Swedish procedure is a) rigged or b) a pretense to get him extradited to the US. If the criminal accusation is a fit up, a Swedish court will prove that is the case and then take it into account when considering any subsequent American application for extradition.

    It’s actually easier to extradite him from the UK because there is a special ‘no questions asked’ agreement, at least for UK suspects of US crimes. No EU country will extradite a suspect to face the death penalty (though the UK will accept written promises from the yanks that this won’t happen, all of which they’ve kept to date) and I think you could trust the Swedish courts to demand a guarantee that he’d be treated in loco-Americanus ie. given the same rights as a US citizen in any prosecution before they’d even consider extradition. He’s already been unusually lucky that he wasn’t turned into Australia’s Gary McKinnon and extradited to the US over his earlier hacking career.

    I can admire Assange’s whistleblower support work but if he wasn’t willing to do the time (or risk the prosecution) etc, etc.

  12. TerjeP
    Posted October 2, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

    Are all those women really sluts? I suspect some of them may be faking it.

  13. Jolly
    Posted October 2, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    Are all those women really sluts? I suspect some of them may be faking it.- Terje P.

    I say most of them are faking it, man!! They grunt, they moan and they fake it!!

  14. Posted October 3, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Are they reading from the same dictionary as I?

    Mine says a “slut” is a slovenly & untidy woman, blah blah blah.

    They could well all be sluts you know!

  15. Chris
    Posted October 3, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Sweden has a record when it comes to deporting people to foreign countries at the request of the US (CIA) where they are then tortured

    Ahmed Agiza (Arabic: ???? ??????) and Muhammad Alzery (Arabic: ???? ???????) (also Elzari, el-Zary, etc.) were two Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United States Central Intelligence Agency.[1] The forced repatriation was criticised because of the danger of torture and ill treatment, and because the deportation decision was executed the same day without notifying the lawyers of the asylum seekers. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers.

    So its not being totally paranoid to think that the US may be able to influence the Swedish government and/or judicial system.

    As has been mentioned above, a simple agreement to refuse to extradite Assange – just say that they will return him to the UK where the US can apply for extradition if they want to after Sweden is finished with him – would remove most of the opposition. If its true that its easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden then the US won’t object. So why don’t they do that?

One Trackback

  1. By Skepticlawyer » Ass = Assange | Cranky Old Crow on September 29, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    […] Skepticlawyer » Ass = Assange. […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *