![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redsageI posted this to Facebook, and it bears repeating here.
I am really disgusted by people who would normally find it unacceptable to dismiss rape charges without trial but who suddenly think that's ok because it's their hero who stands accused. This article says it better than I can:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/index.html
One thing that gets me is that people seem to see this as either exactly true OR politically motivated. It's entirely possible that it's both.
Here's a possible scenario: girl has a fucked up sexual encounter with Assange where she asks him to stop and he doesn't. She believes in his mission, fundraises for him. Even after this encounter, she still believes in what he's doing - but feels conflicted, violated. She stays quiet. Things heat up, and she is approached by others who ask her about the situation. Maybe they tell her they have ties to those who hate WL, maybe they don't. They show her the endless praise for Assange from certain segments, and it makes her sick. They convince her that her violation is more important than staying quiet.
Did it happen like that? No idea. I don't know either of them. But I have seen that situation happen before on a less international scale, and it's totally plausible. It really bothers me that people are so ready to dismiss this out of hand because the timing is convenient for certain world powers.
Whether or not the accusation is politically motivated has NO bearing on whether or not it's true. Anita Hill didn't say anything about having been harassed by Justice Thomas until his confirmation hearings, and I don't think that makes her testimony any less credible either.
The real question here is whether Assange and his accuser can get a fair trial at this point, and if so, where. It would deeply upset me if a politically-motivated false accusation were the means by which Assange was removed from the world stage, just as it would upset me if a true accusation were dismissed without fair trial either because of perceived heroism or because of suspicion of a setup.
I am really disgusted by people who would normally find it unacceptable to dismiss rape charges without trial but who suddenly think that's ok because it's their hero who stands accused. This article says it better than I can:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/index.html
One thing that gets me is that people seem to see this as either exactly true OR politically motivated. It's entirely possible that it's both.
Here's a possible scenario: girl has a fucked up sexual encounter with Assange where she asks him to stop and he doesn't. She believes in his mission, fundraises for him. Even after this encounter, she still believes in what he's doing - but feels conflicted, violated. She stays quiet. Things heat up, and she is approached by others who ask her about the situation. Maybe they tell her they have ties to those who hate WL, maybe they don't. They show her the endless praise for Assange from certain segments, and it makes her sick. They convince her that her violation is more important than staying quiet.
Did it happen like that? No idea. I don't know either of them. But I have seen that situation happen before on a less international scale, and it's totally plausible. It really bothers me that people are so ready to dismiss this out of hand because the timing is convenient for certain world powers.
Whether or not the accusation is politically motivated has NO bearing on whether or not it's true. Anita Hill didn't say anything about having been harassed by Justice Thomas until his confirmation hearings, and I don't think that makes her testimony any less credible either.
The real question here is whether Assange and his accuser can get a fair trial at this point, and if so, where. It would deeply upset me if a politically-motivated false accusation were the means by which Assange was removed from the world stage, just as it would upset me if a true accusation were dismissed without fair trial either because of perceived heroism or because of suspicion of a setup.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-09 02:13 am (UTC)1. violence
2. threat of violence
3. threat of criminal acts
4. inappropriate utilization of unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication, illness, bodily injury, mental disorders or other circumstances leading to a state of helplessness
As one of the Reuters reports states that one of the charges was that JA had had sex with one of the women, initiated while she was sleeping, and with disregard for her assent conditional on condom use, it actually falls under definition clause 4.
Whether that Reuters report is accurate or not is a different question, and one I _REALLY_ would want to see a court settle instead of Random Internet Opinions and press releases from Assange's attorneys. That the charges that are rumored to have been brought fall within the defining scope of «våldtäkt» is however pretty clear.