|
On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing.
correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not?
|
On August 17 2012 09:20 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:57 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2012 08:54 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:52 Deshkar wrote:
UK's original threat to enter the embassy, US interest in shutting JA up and Sweden's inability to promise not to extradite JA to US and their silly "no condom" charges really messed up all my views of these countries-_- Same here. You are absolutely clueless if you expect Sweden to give such a promise. On the previous pages there are multiple posts by Swedish people explaining why Sweden simply can not and will not make such a promise. It is very easy to sit in Singapore and Luxembourg and lose your respect for a country if you expect them to act against its own laws and systems. But why all this overreaction in England and Sweden for such an unimportant (in respect of other international matters) even and person then ? I mean threatening an ambassador is not a thing to take lightly and for me if you compare the allegation and the actions of both governments I just think it's disproportionate. That's raising an alarm for me.
Ecuador is kind of overreacting too. He's a person wanted for questioning in a country with the some of the highest standards in the world over a very serious accusation. After 2 months of negotiating, the UK,who has an obligation to give him to Sweden, sends a letter detailing their possible legal actions and Ecuador (who back home has a terrible human rights / freedom of speech record) goes nuts and gives him asylum.
|
On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing.
wait...the fact that was asleep, and thus unable to give consent to any sexual acts involving her body, says nothing?
So if someone fucks a girl and, sadly enough, she sleeps through the entire thing and doesn't know it happened, it's not rape?
Maybe we're getting a little off topic, but I would question the logic there...
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:
This whole thing makes me angry.
I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.
Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.
The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.
The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or that at least that it was plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.
It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.
Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.
Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?
Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.
Firstly, Assange isn't charged with anything. They just want to question him. So why did Sweden reject the offer to question him at the Ecuador embassy? Because they don't want to question him, they want to extradite him to the US. And you know this? You are from Australia... do you even know jack shit about Sweden and our history as a country of justice ? That the police wants you for questioning is a non-negotiable fact. You don't get to condition it on anything. Guided by that principle Sweden must turn his offer down. This does not, however, mean that we are going to hand him over to the US. If you knew anything about EU , Sweden and Britain and how things are interconnected you would know that it is way easier for US to get him extradited from the UK directly.
Like when we shipped suspects - via US planes - to Egypt, to be tortured?
That kind of justice?
This is why my life goal is to stay as far away from politics and laws as is humanly possible, preferably some Carribean tax paradise is where I end my days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery
Ahmed Agiza (Arabic: أحمد عجيزة) and Muhammad Alzery (Arabic: محمد الزيري) (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.
Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, which were found to be inadequate. There are strong allegations that both men were tortured, but Sweden has been unable to prove or disprove these allegations, due to refusal by Egyptian authorities to allow proper investigations. Alzery was released without charges after two years in prison, but was not allowed to leave his village, nor could he speak to foreigners. Agiza was sentenced to 15 years in prison in a military tribunal.[2] He was finally released from prison on August 9, 2011.[3] The process was not considered fair, and there is doubt as to the men's guilt.
Sweden alleges that the two men had been involved in acts of terrorism, but no basis for such beliefs have been disclosed. When pressed by reporters, Swedish authorities mentioned alleged earlier convictions in Egypt, but these allegations turned out to be patently wrong. As a complicating factor, the decision was made at cabinet level, by Foreign Affairs minister Anna Lindh, who was murdered in 2003, before the scandal broke loose.
Real proud of this one.
|
On August 17 2012 09:11 Dundron2000 wrote:
whether or not there is rape is a question for the Swedish justice system to determine, not internet mobs.
i'm just going to keep copy pasting that in every time you feel like having your little impromptu court session here.
We're all ignorants talking here, alway, in every thread. So how is it any special now? 
I simply give my opinion and you give yours - which is obviously that it was rape.
On August 17 2012 06:50 Dundron2000 wrote:
dude, for one, having sex with someone who is asleep doesn't really pass the bar as consensual. but i think this debate has been beaten to death already.
On August 17 2012 08:53 one-one-one wrote:
You can't know this. The only thing you can know is that there is a chance that the court finds that he has abused the women sexually by having sex with them against their will - rape in other words.
Even if you find this scenario unlikely it it conceivable that he will be sentenced to prison in this case.
Mr Assange does not deny sleeping with two women over the four-day period. Should he lose his battle against extradition, he will return to the country where his problems began with two apparently casual encounters last summer.
In one corner is the woman known for legal reasons as Miss A, an ambitious political activist in her early-30s who has worked in a Swedish embassy abroad and relished her reputation as an equal-rights campaigner.
[...]
In the other corner is Miss W. Her story is rather different. Younger, and apparently less savvy, than her counterpart she would later tell police how she became fascinated with the Australian activist, whom she considered "interesting, brave and admirable", and spent months reading up on him, before apparently obtaining a press pass as a photographer.
[...]
It emerged later that Mr Assange and Miss A had slept together the previous night. After returning to her flat earlier than expected, the pair went out for dinner. Both agree they went on to have consensual, protected sex, but the condom split.
[...]
Enter Miss W, who until this point, had been watching the heroic campaigner from the back of the auditorium. She found herself having lunch with Mr Assange.
By evening, they had enjoyed a stroll around the alleys of Stockholm's old town, a trip to the Natural History Museum, where Assange stopped to check his Twitter account at a computer terminal, and a date at a local cinema. According to Miss W, they did not watch the film. (they had sex)
After relaxing in a park, they said their goodbyes, with Mr Assange promising to be in touch. He had a party to go to, he said. He did not say Miss A was the host.
They next met on Monday. It is alleged that Mr Assange asked to spend the night at Miss W's first-floor flat, in Enkoping, an unremarkable suburb about 45 miles outside Stockholm.
The romance, she told police, was beginning to falter. During the train journey there, "he paid more attention to the computer than to me", she complained. She accuses Mr Assange of refusing to wear a condom the following morning. Despite parting amicably, she says that he did not keep his promise to call.
[...]
Confiding to a woman whom she barely knew, she explained that she had had unprotected sex, and was worried about the possibility of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Finally, on the evening of Friday, August 20, both women went together to a local police station.
[...]
Miss A told the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet that Mr Assange had not been violent. However, she added: "In both cases, what started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault. [Miss W] wanted to report rape. I gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her."
The way I see it, things got a little rough in the bedroom, they didn't like it, and now they're bringing it to court.
|
On August 17 2012 09:35 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:
This whole thing makes me angry.
I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.
Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.
The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.
The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or that at least that it was plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.
It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.
Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.
Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?
Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.
Firstly, Assange isn't charged with anything. They just want to question him. So why did Sweden reject the offer to question him at the Ecuador embassy? Because they don't want to question him, they want to extradite him to the US. And you know this? You are from Australia... do you even know jack shit about Sweden and our history as a country of justice ? That the police wants you for questioning is a non-negotiable fact. You don't get to condition it on anything. Guided by that principle Sweden must turn his offer down. This does not, however, mean that we are going to hand him over to the US. If you knew anything about EU , Sweden and Britain and how things are interconnected you would know that it is way easier for US to get him extradited from the UK directly. Like when we shipped suspects - via US planes - to Egypt, to be tortured? That kind of justice? This is why my life goal is to stay as far away from politics and laws as is humanly possible, preferably some Carribean tax paradise is where I end my days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-ZeryShow nested quote +Ahmed Agiza (Arabic: أحمد عجيزة) and Muhammad Alzery (Arabic: محمد الزيري) (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.
Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, which were found to be inadequate. There are strong allegations that both men were tortured, but Sweden has been unable to prove or disprove these allegations, due to refusal by Egyptian authorities to allow proper investigations. Alzery was released without charges after two years in prison, but was not allowed to leave his village, nor could he speak to foreigners. Agiza was sentenced to 15 years in prison in a military tribunal.[2] He was finally released from prison on August 9, 2011.[3] The process was not considered fair, and there is doubt as to the men's guilt.
Sweden alleges that the two men had been involved in acts of terrorism, but no basis for such beliefs have been disclosed. When pressed by reporters, Swedish authorities mentioned alleged earlier convictions in Egypt, but these allegations turned out to be patently wrong. As a complicating factor, the decision was made at cabinet level, by Foreign Affairs minister Anna Lindh, who was murdered in 2003, before the scandal broke loose. Real proud of this one.
that was completely fucked up. but it has little to do with whether Assange should go to Sweden to answer for charges of rape.
|
On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not?
If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say.
|
On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say.
Violence and drugs are means to an end of either ignoring or not being granted consent, no?
Thus, any situation in which a woman is unable or incapable of giving consent, yet has sexual acts performed on her, is rape.
|
On August 17 2012 09:31 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:20 LunaSea wrote:On August 17 2012 08:57 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2012 08:54 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:52 Deshkar wrote:
UK's original threat to enter the embassy, US interest in shutting JA up and Sweden's inability to promise not to extradite JA to US and their silly "no condom" charges really messed up all my views of these countries-_- Same here. You are absolutely clueless if you expect Sweden to give such a promise. On the previous pages there are multiple posts by Swedish people explaining why Sweden simply can not and will not make such a promise. It is very easy to sit in Singapore and Luxembourg and lose your respect for a country if you expect them to act against its own laws and systems. But why all this overreaction in England and Sweden for such an unimportant (in respect of other international matters) even and person then ? I mean threatening an ambassador is not a thing to take lightly and for me if you compare the allegation and the actions of both governments I just think it's disproportionate. That's raising an alarm for me. There is no overreaction. The whole thing would be out of this world if Assange had gone to Sweden 2 years ago. Instead he took this route. That is the only overreaction in this case. By the laws of the European union it is not a big thing to extradite a person for crimes committed in another European country. That is one of the reasons why the EU is a good thing. It is not worse than a criminal being arrested in Arizona and then sent to California where the crimes were committed. There is a flip side however. The way things are set up it is actually very important that a person arrested in England for crimes committed in Sweden is actually extradited there. It is very severe if this process doesn't work. For all the Swedes and google-translators out there I have an illuminating article: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sveriges-slar-tillbaka-efter-ecuadors-kritik/
In short it says that the foreign minister of Ecuador says that the Swedish justice system cannot guarantee JA's safety.
The Ecuadorian (?) ambassador in Sweden is now called to the department of foreign affairs for a meeting, and the Swedish foreign minister basically tells him to fuck off and don't interfere in a Swedish justice process.
According to the Swedish department of foreign affair's press guy, there's reason for the asylum to Ecuador in the first place, as it's illegal (according to EU law) for Sweden to hand people out to the US as they have the death penalty.
It's also stated that there's not even a request from the US to hand him over anyway, and as the US has better relations with the UK than they do with Sweden, they're taken aback by the accusations coming from Ecuador.
|
On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say.
That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me.
|
On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me.
Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious.
|
On August 17 2012 09:35 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:
This whole thing makes me angry.
I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.
Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.
The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.
The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or that at least that it was plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.
It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.
Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.
Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?
Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.
Firstly, Assange isn't charged with anything. They just want to question him. So why did Sweden reject the offer to question him at the Ecuador embassy? Because they don't want to question him, they want to extradite him to the US. And you know this? You are from Australia... do you even know jack shit about Sweden and our history as a country of justice ? That the police wants you for questioning is a non-negotiable fact. You don't get to condition it on anything. Guided by that principle Sweden must turn his offer down. This does not, however, mean that we are going to hand him over to the US. If you knew anything about EU , Sweden and Britain and how things are interconnected you would know that it is way easier for US to get him extradited from the UK directly. Like when we shipped suspects - via US planes - to Egypt, to be tortured? That kind of justice? This is why my life goal is to stay as far away from politics and laws as is humanly possible, preferably some Carribean tax paradise is where I end my days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-ZeryShow nested quote +Ahmed Agiza (Arabic: أحمد عجيزة) and Muhammad Alzery (Arabic: محمد الزيري) (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.
Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, which were found to be inadequate. There are strong allegations that both men were tortured, but Sweden has been unable to prove or disprove these allegations, due to refusal by Egyptian authorities to allow proper investigations. Alzery was released without charges after two years in prison, but was not allowed to leave his village, nor could he speak to foreigners. Agiza was sentenced to 15 years in prison in a military tribunal.[2] He was finally released from prison on August 9, 2011.[3] The process was not considered fair, and there is doubt as to the men's guilt.
Sweden alleges that the two men had been involved in acts of terrorism, but no basis for such beliefs have been disclosed. When pressed by reporters, Swedish authorities mentioned alleged earlier convictions in Egypt, but these allegations turned out to be patently wrong. As a complicating factor, the decision was made at cabinet level, by Foreign Affairs minister Anna Lindh, who was murdered in 2003, before the scandal broke loose. Real proud of this one.
You kinda come in from the side on this one as this was already brought up a few pages ago.
I'll let it pass just because you are Jinro though
Here is a link to a previous post where I address this.
It happend once ... it is not an excuse but you can't argue that there is an inherit feature of the Swedish government to extradite people left and right like this.
|
Sorry why are we discussing the law? Regardless if you think it's stupid or not it's there.
The law is probably in place for the same reason there's a legal age to have sex. If the younger person feels they have been exploited they can file charges. This doesn't mean that every person who's under age and has sex with someone slightly older files charges, as they have no reason to do so, but it's still in fact a law.
You might think it's stupid but it's completely irrelevant to the topic.
This is starting to feel like the gun discussions in the batman movie killing spree thread.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious.
Are you serious?
You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley.
You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing"
He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here"
you say "Oh ok then, sorry."
|
On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry."
That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape.
Your example is very stupid btw. But maybe in your town they lies everywhere unconscious woman in the alleys.
|
On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:
[quote]
"lets blame the rape victim!"
you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape.
What's your point?
|
On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious.
You don't magically get the right to have sex with someone because they're asleep. Just like you don't get to rape old people with alzheimers just because they (hopefully) wont remember it ever happening. This is probably the most glaring example of broken logic I've seen on TL, congratulations.
On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:
[quote]
"lets blame the rape victim!"
you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. Your example is very stupid btw. But maybe in your town they lies everywhere unconscious woman in the alleys.
Who said it needs to happen often? It's a matter of principle. Murders are rare, but they're still wrong (and illegal). So is sex with sleeping people (even if they've given consent in Sweden these days. Was up in court a while ago).
|
On August 17 2012 10:02 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:
[quote]
Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law.
wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. What's your point?
Pretty simple, a rape involves sex against the will of the victim with violence or you simply plan with drugs the make someone unconscious. But anyway it leads to nothing this discussion. Now strange cases with people with alzheimeer are suddenly involved in this matter and unconscious girls that lay in the alley. I have said everything.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On August 17 2012 09:51 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:35 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On August 17 2012 00:10 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:
This whole thing makes me angry.
I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.
Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.
The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.
The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or that at least that it was plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.
It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.
Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.
Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?
Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.
Firstly, Assange isn't charged with anything. They just want to question him. So why did Sweden reject the offer to question him at the Ecuador embassy? Because they don't want to question him, they want to extradite him to the US. And you know this? You are from Australia... do you even know jack shit about Sweden and our history as a country of justice ? That the police wants you for questioning is a non-negotiable fact. You don't get to condition it on anything. Guided by that principle Sweden must turn his offer down. This does not, however, mean that we are going to hand him over to the US. If you knew anything about EU , Sweden and Britain and how things are interconnected you would know that it is way easier for US to get him extradited from the UK directly. Like when we shipped suspects - via US planes - to Egypt, to be tortured? That kind of justice? This is why my life goal is to stay as far away from politics and laws as is humanly possible, preferably some Carribean tax paradise is where I end my days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-ZeryAhmed Agiza (Arabic: أحمد عجيزة) and Muhammad Alzery (Arabic: محمد الزيري) (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.
Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, which were found to be inadequate. There are strong allegations that both men were tortured, but Sweden has been unable to prove or disprove these allegations, due to refusal by Egyptian authorities to allow proper investigations. Alzery was released without charges after two years in prison, but was not allowed to leave his village, nor could he speak to foreigners. Agiza was sentenced to 15 years in prison in a military tribunal.[2] He was finally released from prison on August 9, 2011.[3] The process was not considered fair, and there is doubt as to the men's guilt.
Sweden alleges that the two men had been involved in acts of terrorism, but no basis for such beliefs have been disclosed. When pressed by reporters, Swedish authorities mentioned alleged earlier convictions in Egypt, but these allegations turned out to be patently wrong. As a complicating factor, the decision was made at cabinet level, by Foreign Affairs minister Anna Lindh, who was murdered in 2003, before the scandal broke loose. Real proud of this one. You kinda come in from the side on this one as this was already brought up a few pages ago. I'll let it pass just because you are Jinro though Here is a link to a previous post where I address this.It happend once ... it is not an excuse but you can't argue that there is an inherit feature of the Swedish government to extradite people left and right like this.
I looked but it's a pretty long thread -0- sry
|
On August 17 2012 10:20 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 10:02 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:
[quote]
wat.
I'm walking around at night.
I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout.
Then I stick my dick in her.
Probably rape, no?
Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. What's your point? Pretty simple, a rape involves sex against the will of the victim with violence or you simply plan with drugs the make someone unconscious. But anyway it leads to nothing this discussion. Now strange cases with people with alzheimeer are suddenly involved in this matter and unconscious girls that lay in the alley. I have said everything.
I think it's been mentioned a couple dozen times already. There are different laws in every country. In Sweden you can be charged for rape if you have sex with someone who's asleep, if the victim decides to file a lawsuit. If you disagree with this and have a Swedish citizenship, go right ahead and send an email to the Swedish parliament, or open a new thread about why you think it's wrong if you think it deserves a discussion.
It's still currently a law, and the women JA slept with accused him of rape. His response to this was to flee the country to another EU country, which is obligated to hand him right back. That's where we're standing.
I don't see how so many people are taken aback by the fact that the laws of a different country isn't the exact same as the one you live in. Did this come as a shock?
There are plenty of other laws in Sweden that are different from the one you live in. How's this for example: the only legal way of buying a bottle of whiskey in Sweden is to go to a government owned liquor store. It's illegal to buy sex, but not to sell. There are 8 political parties in the parliament. To take a mortgage from a bank, you have to first pay them 15% of the total amount as a safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
