Assange Assiduities.
I once found myself at Stanstead Airport with £20 in English money to get rid of, and lo! Julian Assange’s ‘leaked’ (oh, the irony!) autobiography on special offer. Three hours of Ryanair delay, three hours of no nicotine, and three hours with only Julian’s putrid paranoid prose to distract me, and I came close to converting to the Catholic faith on the grounds that there was such a place as Purgatory, and I was incontrovertibly well and truly in it…
Julian has been in ‘persecuted’ mode since he first clamped his mouth round his Mother’s nipple. Our Jules has been roaming the world ever since, escaping from what he sees as persecution. That he has a ‘fear of persecution’ is beyond doubt; that it is ‘well founded’, in the sense of being based on the evidence of the number of times he has been ‘forced’ to move home, move country, move benefactor, because he ‘fears’ being persecuted yet again, may be self-referential; what matters now is whether he has a:
[…] well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.’
That will stand up to close examination by International Law experts. Unfortunately for Jules, the ‘well founded’ is to be judged objectively, not from inside his head…
Our Jules has many supporters on the Internet, indeed there is a creed which says he must not be criticised from within the Internet, he being our Saviour for having fearlessly revealed that members of the Royal family were total free loading plonkers, and other matters of world importance that our media were either too scared to report or had already decided that we might have guessed. Along the way he reported that the US ambassador to Tunisia wasn’t that impressed with the table china in some houses where he dined, and this was a good enough reason why Our Jules should not ever be expected to answer impertinent questions regarding the legal basis of his casual leg-overs.
Assange numbers amongst his supporters every conspiracy theorist worth his salt, who will tell you that the US could send a drone to kill him at any moment, that foreign governments often set ‘honeypot’ traps to discredit fearless internet truth seekers, that a man who changes his underpants only when he finds a new benefactor to buy him some more should be able to have whatever sex he wants, where he wants, when he wants, without interference from pesky lawyers and other truth seekers.
I don’t see the same level of support for Bradley Manning, the man who actually had the courage of his convictions, albeit slightly skewed, and risked everything to reveal truths to the world that he thought important – it seems the internet only has sympathy for the software coder who made money out of flogging those cables to the press. Bradley must rue the day he joined the army and learned to change his underpants on a regular basis. No celebrity backers for him. No cushy ‘house arrest’ in salubrious country mansions or London embassies whilst his supporters run round like headless chickens paying for expensive lawyers to defend him…Assange defenders barely mention him. Google Julian Assange and you get one hundred and fifty million results. Mention poor Bradley in the same breath and you scrape by with a paltry 6 million.
Certainly Ecuador used to be a bastion of liberal laws, freedom of the press, honesty, truth and all things Green and wonderful. That was until the military junta swept into power in 1925 and clamped down on everything that Our Jules professes to believe in. They called it the Julian revolution. No really, look it up.
The ultimate irony is that it was Julian who was so keen to publicise the fact that the US ambassador to Ecuador thought ‘corruption among Ecuadorian National Police officers is widespread and well-known with corruption becoming more pronounced at higher levels of power’. Presumably he thought we should know that in case any of us were thinking of relocating there. Now he denies the evidence of his own Wikileaks and thinks that Ecuador is a bastion of Human Rights and the only place in the world that he might be safe from the ravages of political corruption.
On the other hand, his enforced host, prominent journalist Vaughan Smith, might just have suggested that Our Jules wash his own socks this week – having read that autobiography from front to back, I can tell you – that would be more than enough to convince Assange that he was being persecuted yet again.
For God’s sake Julian, go back to Sweden and answer the questions. If the allegations are as ill-founded as you say, what are you worried about? There are British tax payers out here paying for this self-obsessed paranoid nonsense of yours…
Mind you, the idea of Julian successfully applying to munch on Roast Guinea Pig for the rest of his life does appeal, and the raw fish marinated in lemon juice would get on your nerves after a while…that would qualify as cruel and unusual treatment in my book.
Oh, before I go Julian, a word in your ear. Article 22 of the Ecuador Criminal Code, as reformed in 2005 (Official Register No. 45 of 23 June 2005), in CEDAW (2007), p.19
‘No offence is committed when a person kills or wounds another person during the act of being sexually abused or raped’.
Just thought I ought to point that out to you. Those Swedish girls might annoy the Hell out of you with their impertinent questions – but the Ecuadorian lasses can batter your brains to a pulp, disembowel you, nail your miserable bollocks to their front door – and get away with it…..now that’s what you call persecution.
Anna Raccoon
Ms Raccoon lives in the Monbazillac area of South West France, renown for its fine wines and gourmet food, so she frequently finds better things to do than sit in front of a computer all morning. She is liable to take off traveling at a moment’s notice. Consequently this blog only gets updated these days when it is raining – and it doesn’t rain very often round here…
-
1
June 21, 2012 at 14:21 -
I’m not one of his defenders. Far from it. The man is a criminal and should be booted out by the Ecuadorians forthwith
-
2
June 21, 2012 at 14:56 -
That was a really good article, Anna. I enjoyed that. However, I blame his Mother. All Julians get persecuted. I should know, having one of them myself. I was even accused of giving him a girl’s name by some cretinous ward maid some five minutes after I had barely survived his birth. Since when he has always been in trouble due to other people leading him astray, and despite being one of the nicest people I have ever met, albeit with an over active sense of Justice. Not that my Julian has any sexual peculiarities, at least, I hope not.
But then all Maureens are Irish Peasants, so I know how he feels. Actually, I am an Irish Peasant, it’s what keeps me going.However, what he appears to have done in Sweden does not appear to be an offence in England. France would not extradite him to Sweden in these circumstances.
-
3
June 21, 2012 at 15:27 -
I know you are being funny, but I don’t really blame his mother. Narcissist Personality Disorder types are born that way.
Great post Anna. Liking Ecuadorian victims rights….-
4
June 21, 2012 at 16:11 -
I’ve got another one who has slight problems with conforming to Society in general, although God knows, I did try to force him into conformity. Fortunately I failed because he is a nice person as well. Number One Son is entirely the right and proper thing, but I put that down to too strict potty training. So I suspect that I might be the one with the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Hey Ho. The children must conform. But they often don’t, thank God.
Julian Assange did, or does have a child of his own who he was prevented from seeing by the child’s mother, which The Australian State condoned. I don’t know how much damage that might have done. I shudder to think. On balance I am on his side. But only Legally speaking.
The Rape Charge is highly suspect because he was in bed with her after consensual sex, and then had intercourse with her on the next morning before she was fully awake. So at what point in time do women accept that they do sometimes put themselves in compromising situation? I know that I have.
This in my mind is a Femenist Issue. As for America, I am tired of their arrogance, which The Western World cow tows to.-
5
June 21, 2012 at 16:20 -
and then had intercourse with her on the next morning before she was fully awake.
Is simply, and explicitly, rape under English law (legal language in the comment @ 15:44). And appears to be so under Swedish law.
So at what point in time do women accept that they do sometimes put themselves in compromising situation?
Is having a one-night stand high risk behaviour – well, yes, although many women seem to do it without that much adverse consequences. I sometimes go out of the house and leave my front door unlocked. In neither case is the crime excused by the victim’s behaviour. In the trivial case it is still burglary (which merely requires you to be trespassing not to have broken in), in the serious case it is still rape (which merely requires penetration without consent – and defines asleep as reversing the burden of proof.)
Please note that these comments apply to English law – the situation in Sweden is significantly different (but seems to be less favourable to the accused.)
-
6
June 21, 2012 at 16:58 -
I very much doubt that English Law would find him guilty under these circumstances. Or even that it was a Crime. Why didn’t she throw him out after the first encounter? Why did she have consensual sex with him in the first place? This has nothing to do with Burglary. He was invited into her home. He didn’t sneak in through an unlocked door.
-
7
June 21, 2012 at 17:09 -
I can’t see either woman having a case in England. Especially as they complained after they found out about each other…”So he slept with you too? The bastard! I’m not even special to him! Let’s go to the police”
-
-
8
June 21, 2012 at 17:05 -
“Number One Son is entirely the right and proper thing”…that’s nature not nurture too!
-
9
June 21, 2012 at 17:47 -
Thank God for that. And there was me thinking it was all my fault that he turned into a boring, conventional pain in the arse who has never forgiven his Mother for running away to France.
And yes, you are right. How dare Assange sleep….sorry, have sex with someone else? How awfully conventional they both turned out to be. So much for Feminism.
-
-
-
-
10
June 21, 2012 at 15:44 -
However, what he appears to have done in Sweden does not appear to be an offence in England
Hmm. Some of, some not of. Remember there are two quite distinct ladies and multiple accusations.
The accusation that he rolled over in the night and had another go despite her saying no would clearly be an s1(1) SOA03 offence. As would not wearing a condom if she said “only if you wear a condom” (that is the one that is usually described by the assangeophiles as “the condom split”), which falls under s76(2)(a):
the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;
Now, the “had another go while she was asleep” is to – s75(2)(d):
the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
So, on a simple reading of the accusations under English law, there would be enough for him to be asked some quite pointed questions.
I have to say, though, if he is innocent, it doesn’t say much about either his morals or his sexual prowess!
-
11
June 21, 2012 at 16:19 -
His morals are another issue, but so are the morals of the women who willingly fell into bed with him. If that had been me, I would have kept my mouth shut. One Night Stands are hardly to be boasted about. Or did they get pissed off when they found out that they weren’t the only one? That is what appears to be the case as they only brought Charges after they got together and had a discussion on the subject. Sour Grapes, if you ask me.
-
12
June 21, 2012 at 16:25 -
It may well be sour grapes. He may well be innocent. Nor am I arguing that these are “good girls” – in the chaste until marriage, faithful thereafter sense. I’m merely saying that there appears to be a case to answer. And would be under English law too.
But running away to Ecuador complaining about evil Yankee imperialist swine doesn’t behove me to think that he thinks he has a good case …
-
13
June 21, 2012 at 17:11 -
I don’t think there is a Case under English Law. In fact I very much doubt it would have gotten past The CPS. I am not really interested in the morals of any of them. This is seriously not my business. They can all screw until the cows come home for all I care. I have even done a bit of it myself, a very long time ago. But I wouldn’t be pleading that it was okay last night, but not this morning. She was complicit by having him in her bed in the first place, and by having consensual sex the night before.
As for running off to Ecuador. The fact remains that The United States of America still condone The Death Penalty in certain States. This is what The US needs to be looking at.
-
-
-
14
June 21, 2012 at 17:20 -
To yoiu who aresuggesting this is sour grapes – well you’re spot on…
The ;lawyer from the Swedish CPS is a typical leftie misandrist loony…
-
-
-
16
June 21, 2012 at 20:44 -
If we stand back and disregard any personal feelings we may have either way about the unusual Mr Assange, it is very clear that his web-site has dislocated a lot of noses in very high places. They may have managed to nail Bradley Manning, but Assange is the Big Fish – if they couldn’t pin a data crime on him, obviously they needed some other method. So up pop the two girlies with long-disregarded complaints. That’s enough to trigger some initial legal processes, which may later expend/convert into something of substance, in some state or other, somewhere, sometime. In the meantime, at least it compromises his further data-leaking.
Let us not forget that they only ever got Al Capone for tax evasion, but it was enough. They have long memories in the FBI.
-
18
June 22, 2012 at 07:32 -
I thought he was reluctant to go to Sweden because he fears they will deport him to the USA, even if he is found innocent of the charges against him. In his shoes I wouldn’t go either, if I could avoid it.
-
19
June 22, 2012 at 09:00 -
Don’t forget – Just because he’s paranoid that doesn’t mean they’re not out to get him (CIA, FBI, etc).
-
20
June 22, 2012 at 09:36 -
Tariq Ali: “He should be given bail. There is no chance of him absconding”.
ROTFLMAO, made my day…
-
23
June 22, 2012 at 15:18 -
I think that the Americans are as ‘pissed as Hell’ at Assange for ‘leaking’ their putrid little secrets all over ‘tinternet. I think that they would infinitely prefer to get their hands on him by any lawful or semi-lawful means and that would include the ‘softly softly catchee monkey’ approach – I think they would try the ‘honey trap’ to get their man but there does not appear to be evidence of this here.
I think that Assange has obligingly placed himself in their path, if they can somehow arrange to get him to the USA lawfully. He appears to be an arrogant fellow. I can’t see the point of insulting your own Prime Minister, whatever the circumstances you have found yourself as his attributed comments will doubtless not go down well in Australia and surely, it would have been better not to launch a broadside in that direction right now. Whilst it has been all jolly japes to see various famous and well connected people squirm, there is no doubt that real people have and will suffer, as a result of these disclosures, and the underlying principle of leaking has one potentially fatal flaw – if you happen to be American or living/brought to America and that is that America will not forget the wrongs done to it…
I often wonder to myself what Assange has got out of all this. At its height, Wikileaks was, reportedly receiving £85,000 a day in donations and other revenue, a not inconsiderable sum, but then and again various legal costs have reportedly cost him dearly. I have read his Wikipedia entry and it appears that he has been an activist for years but… what is his real motive? Surely no one would deliberately take on the USA in this fashion, or did Assange not fully think through the consequences of publishing such material? There is also something very odd about Assange being pally with the President of Ecuador, that well known bastion of civil liberties and tolerance.
Clearly, Assange is a desperate man but even so, there are limits to the polite company that one would like to keep…
-
24
June 23, 2012 at 11:16 -
I would have thought that Assange would be a much easier target for American retribution in Ecuador than nuetral Sweden. In most South American countries money talks and Assange will be seen as a considerable risk to US security. You could imagine an unfortunate accident happening.
Like you say Assange and the president of Ecuador make strange bedfellows.
Also some of those in this country who sponsor his legal gryations to avoid deportation, will come from the same group/ class of people howling in indignation at thier phone messages being hacked.
As I’ve said before if these allegations were made about a Tory MP or Premier league footballer, there woulds be “BBC” mock outrage that they werent sent back straight to Sweden to face justice.
The hypocracy of the left knows no limits.
-
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }