|
On August 21 2012 06:15 noD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. Can someone give me a link to a an article, debate or something else by someone with a respectable track record containing arguments for Assange's side of the case by people not obviously biased (like his lawyers or fellow Wikileakers)? I have showed you multiple articles and blog entries by professors and experts on human rights where it is argued with facts that Assange's fears are not justified. Why do you expect me to believe in Assange's story when it contains blatant errors and serious disinformation? You can believe whatever you want, but as longs as there is nothing substantial backing it up it will be nothing but a belief. As a very recent example I present a debate article published yesterday in Stockholm's biggest newspaper and also a second article written as a response that was published today. This is the first article written by two journalists who support Assange's case: http://www.dn.se/debatt/fallet-assange-ett-hot-mot-den-svenska-rattsstatenIt translates to English really well with Google translate, but in the last paragraph the word "rule" should be interpreted as the concept of a Rechtsstaat. The second article is written by the accused women's lawyer Claes Borgström. http://www.dn.se/debatt/manga-felaktigheter-i-artikeln-om-assangeNotice that, while he is obviously not unbiased, he still is trying to back his claims up by facts that are easy to verify. my point was actually simpler if my life was at stake, I wouldn't glamble on USA being a democracy and not an empire, even if most publications are saying Sweden wouldn't do anything that could make his life at risky. In my personal belief it's too much of a gamble to let UK send him to Sweden when he can simply chill over the Ecuador embassy ....
I wasn't addressing your first point really. I was writing in response to "I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P".
|
I wonder how the people who defend Cheney from torture charges feel about Assange and what to do with him. There was always a consistent defense that charges on Cheney were merely a personal attack, and that it was all just a witch hunt. And now we face the same situation: a man may or may not be guilty, and a witch hunt is sent after him, only to attack his character as an attention whore and douche-bag. The difference being we know officially and explicitly that Cheney is guilty, even in his own words.
|
On August 21 2012 06:17 Scheme wrote:Found this on bestof reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_government_extradie_julian/c5vn3ue?context=1Contains comments from (supposedly) Constitutional Law prof. I copied the text below. Note: Obviously one-one-one and Euronyme are never wrong about the law =P but he does summarize some of the points that people have been trying to make it here. The person above seems to be arguing that some of the stances by the Swedish prosecution violates Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the ECHR. Anyway, the text is below. + Show Spoiler +That's a red herring. I'll try to explain why, but it's going to be long. (And if you wonder, I'm a Constitutional Law prof.)
This is what happens when the US wants France to extradite someone who eventually could be sentenced to death:
The French courts states that the extradition is impossible because the death penalty could be sought.
The relevant US DA (or their boss at a high enough level) writes down that they will not seek the death penalty, and the French lawyers representing the US in front of the French extradition court produce this paper and enter it in the court's records.
The French extradition court then validates the extradition.
The US DAs keep their promise, because if they don't, the French courts won't ever again extradite anyone towards the US.
What Assange wants is not a decision from Sweden's government, but a promise from Sweden's prosecutors. I'm perfectly familiar with ministertyre (as a cynic, I consider it to be just one of the many ways the Swedes use to feel superior to the others; whenever it matters, ministerstyre is conveniently forgotten, see e.g. the Pirate Bay case...) but it doesn't apply here.
Another interesting tidbit is that Assange is only sought by Sweden for questioning and has not been formally charged. While the British High Court has decided that the current advancement of the Swedish procedure is equivalent to being charged in the UK, I consider this ruling to be an aberration; the common-law steeped High Court failed to understand a finer point of the civil-law influenced Swedish penal procedure.
Being wanted for questioning is the Swedish equivalent of the French penal status of protected witness. This means that someone is sufficiently suspect of a crime that they whould be afforded extra care so that the case against them does not become contaminated by self-incrimination issues, but not sufficiently thought guilty that they would be charged at the moment. The distinction between both cases is simple: charging someone can only be done by a judge; giving someone protected witness status is a decision commonly taken by the senior detective in charge of the case.
The official next step in the Swedish penal procedure would be to question Assange, and, depending on his answers and other elements, then either formally charge him or officially decide not to charge him.
Assange and his lawyers have offered to the Swedish prosecutors to produce Assange for questioning either in person in the UK or through Skype-like videoconference in the Swedish prosecutor's office. The Swedish prosecutors refused. It has happened that judges and prosecutors would move abroad to be able to question someone, but it is uncommon and inconvenient, so there is not much meaning attached to the Swedish prosecutor refusal to go to the UK.
But the refusal to question Assange through videoconference is much more difficult to accept. Not only does it seem to be petty and obstructive, it is also a clear violation of Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the ECHR.
The French penal procedure used to demand similarly that a suspect should surrender and go to prison on the eve of his criminal trial. The European Court consistently found this a violation of 6§1 in a string of cases (Omar, Guerin, Khalfoui, Goth, Papon, Coste, Morel, Walser, etc.) that eventually managed to have the French law amended.
There is not much wiggle room here: Assange has a fundamental right to be questioned by the prosecutors without having to surrender to Swedish police. This is cristal clear jurisprudence from the ECHR, and the Swedish prosecutors know it.
Let me recap (aka TLDR):
Assange is not charged (yet) and the High Court is wrong on that point
Assange has a fundamental right clearly recognized by the ECHR not to surrender to Swedish police before appearing in front of the Swedish prosecutor
The Swedish Prosecution Service has consistently refused to promise that Assange wouldn't be extradited to the US once in Swedish custody; this type of promise is common in extradition cases and within the power of the Swedish prosecution service
The Swedish Prosecution Service has refused the opportunity to question Assange through videoconference, while insisting on Assange's surrender to Swedish custody; this is a clear and known violation of the ECHR that the Swedish prosecutors can't ignore.
There's only one possible conclusion: the Swedish prosecutors are acting in bad faith here. Their penal-fu is bad and they should feel bad.
Edit: Feel free to challenge his points on reddit. The post is barely a day old.
Yea he's a constitutional scholar who happens to disagree with the British high court on the legality of JA's extradition to Sweden. Sounds legit. On the other hand also i know the power of cut and paste which I will use to further dispel the posts basic points.
The Swedish Prosecution Service has consistently refused to promise that Assange wouldn't be extradited to the US once in Swedish custody; this type of promise is common in extradition cases and within the power of the Swedish prosecution service
It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.
By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.
Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.
Assange is not charged (yet) and the High Court is wrong on that point
Assange has a fundamental right clearly recognized by the ECHR not to surrender to Swedish police before appearing in front of the Swedish prosecutor
The Swedish Prosecution Service has refused the opportunity to question Assange through videoconference, while insisting on Assange's surrender to Swedish custody; this is a clear and known violation of the ECHR that the Swedish prosecutors can't ignore.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.
Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor’s position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:
140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:
"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.
"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.
"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.
"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not “disproportionate” as submitted by Assange’s lawyers:
160. We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea, that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr Assange's surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge.
The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution.
Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
etc etc
edit: format, spelling and general shittyness
|
On August 21 2012 03:52 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 02:02 plogamer wrote:
And wikileaks isn't an extraordinary case? Julian Assange isn't wanted for anything ordinary (theft, assault, etc.) in the US - he leaked highly classified state-secrets. it wasn't highly classified, rather the lowest classified stuff, but that won't make much difference.
Ahh, thanks for clarifying that.
And you're right, it doesn't make much difference. A simple promise is too much for the Swedish government.
|
On August 21 2012 06:56 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 03:52 Nizaris wrote:On August 21 2012 02:02 plogamer wrote:
And wikileaks isn't an extraordinary case? Julian Assange isn't wanted for anything ordinary (theft, assault, etc.) in the US - he leaked highly classified state-secrets. it wasn't highly classified, rather the lowest classified stuff, but that won't make much difference. Ahh, thanks for clarifying that. And you're right, it doesn't make much difference. A simple promise is too much for the Swedish government.
its not a promise that the Swedish government can make. its not up to the Swedish government, if it was then Assange would have greater reason to feel suspicious since it would follow that such decisions are made according to political considerations and not the process of an independent and neutral judicial system.
|
Yea he's a constitutional scholar who happens to disagree with the British high court on the legality of JA's extradition to Sweden. Sounds legit. On the other hand also i know the power of cut and paste which I will not use to further dispel the posts basic points.
LOLOLOL, whos got the tinfoil hat on...
I found the post on reddit and thought I would share it. I looked at the persons comments on reddit and at least a few months back he has been talking about continuitinal law, general law etc. Pretty active on reddit:http://www.reddit.com/user/downandoutinparis?count=175&after=t1_c4mrjpx
Seemed plausible and thought people could read it.
Like I said, few free to argue with him on reddit, feel free to disagree with his points, but don't be butt hurt at me for sharing a link.
|
On August 21 2012 06:59 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +
Yea he's a constitutional scholar who happens to disagree with the British high court on the legality of JA's extradition to Sweden. Sounds legit. On the other hand also i know the power of cut and paste which I will not use to further dispel the posts basic points.
LOLOLOL, who got the tinfoil hat on... I found the post on reddit and thought I would share it. I looked at the persons comments on reddit and at least a few months back he has been talking about continuitinal law, general law etc. Pretty active on reddit:http://www.reddit.com/user/downandoutinparis?count=175&after=t1_c4mrjpx Seemed plausible and thought people could read it. Like I said, few free to argue with him on reddit, feel free to disagree with his points, but don't be butt hurt at me for sharing a link.
yes, i have a tinfoil hat on.. because i believe that the British high court has more knowledge of European extradition treaties than a self professed constitutional scholar on reddit. silly me.
|
On August 21 2012 07:02 Dundron2000 wrote:
yes, i have a tinfoil hat on.. because i believe that the British high court has more knowledge of European extradition treaties than a self professed constitutional scholar on reddit. silly me.
Nope, I mentioned the tinfoil hat just that you were remarking the coincidence of such thing taking place.
European Court of Justice has overturned the british high court before, no?
Edit: the comment above is just to remark that high court ruling are not infallible.
|
On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it.
Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden.
Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land.
Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations.
This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such.
Sweden is one of the most feminist-dominated nations in the world. This isn't a myth, it's fact.
On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
Handing over people to the US is very unpopular, why would they sacrifice a lot of credibility and ultimately voters because of this?
Because the US can offer major concessions to Sweden that would be worth the popularity loss. Regardless, even if Assange is not extradited, the US would be happy with Assange rotting in a Swedish prison. Assange reasonably fears the small chance of extradition, and the larger chance of a stacked rape trial.
On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
Also a representative of the Swedish government has explicitly repeated that Sweden does not hand over people to countries where they risk unfair trials , military trials , political trials or capital punishment Hint much?
And yet it clearly happens (and that's not including all the times that they aren't caught).
|
On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see.
I challenge you to find multiple examples of "victim blaming" in this thread. Disputing the accounts of "victims" or finding fault with the evidence is not the same thing as blaming the victims.
|
Just read the article and their discussion comments(some of which you might not agree, so be careful) seem pretty interesting as well.
Edit: realized that you copy and pasted most of that comment, except the bit where you criticized me for copy and pasting. wow, just wow.
|
On August 21 2012 08:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. I challenge you to find multiple examples of "victim blaming" in this thread. Disputing the accounts of "victims" or finding fault with the evidence is not the same thing as blaming the victims.
Many of them are mentioned in the second article in my post.
Maybe my example was bad though, I might have confused things with other forums.
But that doesn't mean that this thread is free from other types of similar techniques...
On August 21 2012 08:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it.
Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden.
Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land.
Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations.
This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such. Sweden is one of the most feminist-dominated nations in the world. This isn't a myth, it's fact.
I never said that it wasn't . I'm not admitting that it is true either though and an excerpt of a Swedish documentary on youtube does certainly not make it a fact.
The myth I talked about is that "Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women".
I just invalidated it because that statement is way to general. Anything involving women ....
You might argue about some specific cases or scenarios where something like that could have happened.
I saw no such thing....
In the real world, there is actually statistics debunking that myth which I have already given you earlier in this thread.
You argue by just throwing stuff out there with very little to back it up.
edit:
Just like 99% of Assange's zombies.
|
On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 08:03 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. I challenge you to find multiple examples of "victim blaming" in this thread. Disputing the accounts of "victims" or finding fault with the evidence is not the same thing as blaming the victims. Many of them are mentioned in the second article in my post. Maybe my example was bad though, I might have confused things with other forums. But that doesn't mean that this thread is free from other types of similar techniques... Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 08:01 sunprince wrote:On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it.
Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden.
Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land.
Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations.
This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such. Sweden is one of the most feminist-dominated nations in the world. This isn't a myth, it's fact. I never said that it wasn't . I'm not admitting that it is true either though and an excerpt of a Swedish documentary on youtube does certainly not make it a fact.
It's part 1, not an excerpt. You can continue to watch the remaining parts of the documentary on Youtube. Regardless, what makes it a fact is not the documentary, but the evidence that the documentary points out.
On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
The myth I talked about is that "Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women".
I just invalidated it because that statement is way to general. Anything involving women ....
You might argue about some specific cases or scenarios where something like that could have happened.
I saw no such thing....
In the real world, there is actually statistics debunking that myth which I have already given you earlier in this thread.
The fact that a statement is general does not make it invalid. You have given no such statisitics debunking anything related to this. Sweden is a place where hate speech against men is legal. Some legal experts in Sweden want to make sex a presumptive crime whenever a woman calls rape. Hell, Sweden wants to ban stand-up urination. Laws concerning divorce and father's rights heavily favor women (though not particularly worse than most Western nations). The following is an account of an actual rape case (taken from a recent book studying gender issues in Sweden). which highlights just how ridiculously stacked the judicial system has become:
A Brief History of Swedish Sex
25 September 2010. Teenage couple breaks up.
Joakim, 18, spends an evening at his computer. He is in his boy’s room in his mother’s four room apartment. As usual he has spent some time with his girlfriend. She often stays over at his place as she has a lot of conflicts with her parents. The pair has sex practically every time they meet, oral as well as vaginal, which is no secret to the mother as the flat is not very sound proof. Sweden is still quite tolerant in these matters: Young people can have sex at home. The girlfriend herself says that they have a good relationship and that they like each other. They watch movies, meet friends and make trips on his moped. This evening she goes to bed while Joakim stays at his computer.
Before he goes to bed, he gets horny and wants to poke some fun at his sleeping girlfriend. He swings his penis in the air in front of her face and let’s it caress her between the lips to wake her up. She does, but dizzy with sleep she asks what he is doing, pushes him away, turns over and falls to sleep again.
Next day the girlfriend is picked up by her mother who brings her shopping for a journey she actually doesn’t want to make: Going to Finland with her parents on September 27 – 29. She would rather have stayed with Joakim. He calls her 2-3 times every day from his mother’s phone on her Finland tour to keep the girlfriend’s spirits up. When she returns from Finland she spends the night with him and they have sex as always.
On Saturday October 2, Joakim had to see his grandparents. He had promised to call his girlfriend the minute he returned home. He did not however, thinking it was too late. She is disappointed and wakes him up by a call the following morning and complains. The quarrel ends by Joakim saying that she has 24 hours to decide whether to continue seeing him. She says she does not want to stay together. Joakim returns her belongings.
5 April 2011. Joakim sentenced to prison for rape.
The sentence against Joakim, 18, is passed for the events on September 25, 2010. He gets four months’ imprisonment for rape and is convicted of paying damages to his ex-girlfriend. The girlfriend considered Joakim being the one breaking up although he only took her at her word and handed back her belongings.
The subsequent day she met her social worker to talk about her problems with her parents that she so far had been able to flee from to Joakim. She wondered what would happen if she would now report that Joakim one week earlier had woken her up with his penis between her lips. The social worker checked with the Police who said that in legal terms it could be a crime. The girl then reported her former boyfriend Joakim to them and asked for large damages. A chat conversation had been saved and used as evidence in court: “i put my cock in ur mouth once for 3 sec when u slept (…) did i force u to have it? it dont count as trying rape, just if i had continued, i stopped at once, i fucking tested it one time”
Three seconds of bodily touching between two persons in a relationship who normally have sex – including oral – every time they meet is however regarded as a serious crime in Sweden. It does not matter that they after this incident had sex as usual as soon as they were reunited after her trip to Finland. In the judgment one can read:
“Through the information it is proven that Joakim NNN at the time has put his erect penis in A’s mouth through improperly exploiting that she due to sleep was in a helpless state. The district court also finds that there has been a question of a sexual act that with with regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse. Joakim NNN is therefore guilty of rape (…) Rape according to Chapter 6, Article 1, second paragraph of the Penal Code carries a penalty of imprisonment for at least two years and a maximum of six years. If the offense under the circumstances is to be regarded as less serious, the sentence (…) is imprisonment not exceeding four years. If, in view of the circumstances , the crime is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall, according the third paragraph, be imposed. (…) In this case, it has been the case of a short-term events. Joakim NNN has suspended his act as soon as A woke up and made it clear to him that she did not accept his actions. No violence or threat has been present. The District Court therefore finds that Joakim NNN shall be sentenced for rape under Chapter 6, Article 1, third paragraph of the Penal Code.”
If the proposal from the Center Party (c) in the Parliament on March 2, 2005, had won, 18-year-old Joakim would have been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for his three-second contact between his and his girlfriend’s bodies that he immediately interrupted when she woke up, pushed him away and turned over to sleep again. If the current development of Justice policy proceeds it could very well be that ordinary bedroom behavior between two partners can lead to two years’ imprisonment. The ex-girlfriend demanded that Joakim pay 75,000 SEK (10,440 USD) in damages for the violation and 10,000 SEK (1,400 USD) for pain and suffering. The judge lowered this to 25,000 SEK (3,480 USD) and 5,000 SEK (700 USD) respectively. In the publicly available judgment the name, personal registration number, and address of the sentenced perpetrator Joakim is obviously written out. There is however no information whatsoever about the girlfriend, since her name is classified as secret, as always in rape cases in Sweden. We cannot even know her age. Due to her school situation (High School) she should be between 16 and 18. Age is not a case. She was in no way underage since the age of consent is 15 in Sweden.”
On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
Just like 99% of Assange's zombies.
Enough with the stupid ad-hominems already. I'm not even an Assange supporter, I'm just opposed to unjust judicial systems, but even if I were, it has no bearing on the argument at hand.
|
On August 21 2012 10:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 08:03 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. I challenge you to find multiple examples of "victim blaming" in this thread. Disputing the accounts of "victims" or finding fault with the evidence is not the same thing as blaming the victims. Many of them are mentioned in the second article in my post. Maybe my example was bad though, I might have confused things with other forums. But that doesn't mean that this thread is free from other types of similar techniques... On August 21 2012 08:01 sunprince wrote:On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it.
Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden.
Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land.
Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations.
This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such. Sweden is one of the most feminist-dominated nations in the world. This isn't a myth, it's fact. I never said that it wasn't . I'm not admitting that it is true either though and an excerpt of a Swedish documentary on youtube does certainly not make it a fact. It's part 1, not an excerpt. You can continue to watch the remaining parts of the documentary on Youtube. Regardless, what makes it a fact is not the documentary, but the evidence that the documentary points out. Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
The myth I talked about is that "Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women".
I just invalidated it because that statement is way to general. Anything involving women ....
You might argue about some specific cases or scenarios where something like that could have happened.
I saw no such thing....
In the real world, there is actually statistics debunking that myth which I have already given you earlier in this thread. The fact that a statement is general does not make it invalid. You have given no such statisitics debunking anything related to this. Sweden is a place where hate speech against men is legal. Some legal experts in Sweden want to make sex a presumptive crime whenever a woman calls rape. Hell, Sweden wants to ban stand-up urination. Laws concerning divorce and father's rights heavily favor women (though not particularly worse than most Western nations). The following is an account of an actual rape case (taken from a recent book studying gender issues in Sweden). which highlights just how ridiculously stacked the judicial system has become: Show nested quote +A Brief History of Swedish Sex
25 September 2010. Teenage couple breaks up.
Joakim, 18, spends an evening at his computer. He is in his boy’s room in his mother’s four room apartment. As usual he has spent some time with his girlfriend. She often stays over at his place as she has a lot of conflicts with her parents. The pair has sex practically every time they meet, oral as well as vaginal, which is no secret to the mother as the flat is not very sound proof. Sweden is still quite tolerant in these matters: Young people can have sex at home. The girlfriend herself says that they have a good relationship and that they like each other. They watch movies, meet friends and make trips on his moped. This evening she goes to bed while Joakim stays at his computer.
Before he goes to bed, he gets horny and wants to poke some fun at his sleeping girlfriend. He swings his penis in the air in front of her face and let’s it caress her between the lips to wake her up. She does, but dizzy with sleep she asks what he is doing, pushes him away, turns over and falls to sleep again.
Next day the girlfriend is picked up by her mother who brings her shopping for a journey she actually doesn’t want to make: Going to Finland with her parents on September 27 – 29. She would rather have stayed with Joakim. He calls her 2-3 times every day from his mother’s phone on her Finland tour to keep the girlfriend’s spirits up. When she returns from Finland she spends the night with him and they have sex as always.
On Saturday October 2, Joakim had to see his grandparents. He had promised to call his girlfriend the minute he returned home. He did not however, thinking it was too late. She is disappointed and wakes him up by a call the following morning and complains. The quarrel ends by Joakim saying that she has 24 hours to decide whether to continue seeing him. She says she does not want to stay together. Joakim returns her belongings.
5 April 2011. Joakim sentenced to prison for rape.
The sentence against Joakim, 18, is passed for the events on September 25, 2010. He gets four months’ imprisonment for rape and is convicted of paying damages to his ex-girlfriend. The girlfriend considered Joakim being the one breaking up although he only took her at her word and handed back her belongings.
The subsequent day she met her social worker to talk about her problems with her parents that she so far had been able to flee from to Joakim. She wondered what would happen if she would now report that Joakim one week earlier had woken her up with his penis between her lips. The social worker checked with the Police who said that in legal terms it could be a crime. The girl then reported her former boyfriend Joakim to them and asked for large damages. A chat conversation had been saved and used as evidence in court: “i put my cock in ur mouth once for 3 sec when u slept (…) did i force u to have it? it dont count as trying rape, just if i had continued, i stopped at once, i fucking tested it one time”
Three seconds of bodily touching between two persons in a relationship who normally have sex – including oral – every time they meet is however regarded as a serious crime in Sweden. It does not matter that they after this incident had sex as usual as soon as they were reunited after her trip to Finland. In the judgment one can read:
“Through the information it is proven that Joakim NNN at the time has put his erect penis in A’s mouth through improperly exploiting that she due to sleep was in a helpless state. The district court also finds that there has been a question of a sexual act that with with regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse. Joakim NNN is therefore guilty of rape (…) Rape according to Chapter 6, Article 1, second paragraph of the Penal Code carries a penalty of imprisonment for at least two years and a maximum of six years. If the offense under the circumstances is to be regarded as less serious, the sentence (…) is imprisonment not exceeding four years. If, in view of the circumstances , the crime is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall, according the third paragraph, be imposed. (…) In this case, it has been the case of a short-term events. Joakim NNN has suspended his act as soon as A woke up and made it clear to him that she did not accept his actions. No violence or threat has been present. The District Court therefore finds that Joakim NNN shall be sentenced for rape under Chapter 6, Article 1, third paragraph of the Penal Code.”
If the proposal from the Center Party (c) in the Parliament on March 2, 2005, had won, 18-year-old Joakim would have been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for his three-second contact between his and his girlfriend’s bodies that he immediately interrupted when she woke up, pushed him away and turned over to sleep again. If the current development of Justice policy proceeds it could very well be that ordinary bedroom behavior between two partners can lead to two years’ imprisonment. The ex-girlfriend demanded that Joakim pay 75,000 SEK (10,440 USD) in damages for the violation and 10,000 SEK (1,400 USD) for pain and suffering. The judge lowered this to 25,000 SEK (3,480 USD) and 5,000 SEK (700 USD) respectively. In the publicly available judgment the name, personal registration number, and address of the sentenced perpetrator Joakim is obviously written out. There is however no information whatsoever about the girlfriend, since her name is classified as secret, as always in rape cases in Sweden. We cannot even know her age. Due to her school situation (High School) she should be between 16 and 18. Age is not a case. She was in no way underage since the age of consent is 15 in Sweden.” Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
Just like 99% of Assange's zombies. Enough with the stupid ad-hominems already. I'm not even an Assange supporter, I'm just opposed to unjust judicial systems, but even if I were, it has no bearing on the argument at hand.
lol keep linking.. SOME legal experts want to do this, SOME legal experts want to do that, "SWEDEN" wants to ban standing urinals, but when i read it turns out thats not what it says at all. whats your point?
|
|
|
On August 21 2012 10:39 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:34 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 08:03 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. I challenge you to find multiple examples of "victim blaming" in this thread. Disputing the accounts of "victims" or finding fault with the evidence is not the same thing as blaming the victims. Many of them are mentioned in the second article in my post. Maybe my example was bad though, I might have confused things with other forums. But that doesn't mean that this thread is free from other types of similar techniques... On August 21 2012 08:01 sunprince wrote:On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it.
Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden.
Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land.
Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations.
This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such. Sweden is one of the most feminist-dominated nations in the world. This isn't a myth, it's fact. I never said that it wasn't . I'm not admitting that it is true either though and an excerpt of a Swedish documentary on youtube does certainly not make it a fact. It's part 1, not an excerpt. You can continue to watch the remaining parts of the documentary on Youtube. Regardless, what makes it a fact is not the documentary, but the evidence that the documentary points out. On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
The myth I talked about is that "Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women".
I just invalidated it because that statement is way to general. Anything involving women ....
You might argue about some specific cases or scenarios where something like that could have happened.
I saw no such thing....
In the real world, there is actually statistics debunking that myth which I have already given you earlier in this thread. The fact that a statement is general does not make it invalid. You have given no such statisitics debunking anything related to this. Sweden is a place where hate speech against men is legal. Some legal experts in Sweden want to make sex a presumptive crime whenever a woman calls rape. Hell, Sweden wants to ban stand-up urination. Laws concerning divorce and father's rights heavily favor women (though not particularly worse than most Western nations). The following is an account of an actual rape case (taken from a recent book studying gender issues in Sweden). which highlights just how ridiculously stacked the judicial system has become: A Brief History of Swedish Sex
25 September 2010. Teenage couple breaks up.
Joakim, 18, spends an evening at his computer. He is in his boy’s room in his mother’s four room apartment. As usual he has spent some time with his girlfriend. She often stays over at his place as she has a lot of conflicts with her parents. The pair has sex practically every time they meet, oral as well as vaginal, which is no secret to the mother as the flat is not very sound proof. Sweden is still quite tolerant in these matters: Young people can have sex at home. The girlfriend herself says that they have a good relationship and that they like each other. They watch movies, meet friends and make trips on his moped. This evening she goes to bed while Joakim stays at his computer.
Before he goes to bed, he gets horny and wants to poke some fun at his sleeping girlfriend. He swings his penis in the air in front of her face and let’s it caress her between the lips to wake her up. She does, but dizzy with sleep she asks what he is doing, pushes him away, turns over and falls to sleep again.
Next day the girlfriend is picked up by her mother who brings her shopping for a journey she actually doesn’t want to make: Going to Finland with her parents on September 27 – 29. She would rather have stayed with Joakim. He calls her 2-3 times every day from his mother’s phone on her Finland tour to keep the girlfriend’s spirits up. When she returns from Finland she spends the night with him and they have sex as always.
On Saturday October 2, Joakim had to see his grandparents. He had promised to call his girlfriend the minute he returned home. He did not however, thinking it was too late. She is disappointed and wakes him up by a call the following morning and complains. The quarrel ends by Joakim saying that she has 24 hours to decide whether to continue seeing him. She says she does not want to stay together. Joakim returns her belongings.
5 April 2011. Joakim sentenced to prison for rape.
The sentence against Joakim, 18, is passed for the events on September 25, 2010. He gets four months’ imprisonment for rape and is convicted of paying damages to his ex-girlfriend. The girlfriend considered Joakim being the one breaking up although he only took her at her word and handed back her belongings.
The subsequent day she met her social worker to talk about her problems with her parents that she so far had been able to flee from to Joakim. She wondered what would happen if she would now report that Joakim one week earlier had woken her up with his penis between her lips. The social worker checked with the Police who said that in legal terms it could be a crime. The girl then reported her former boyfriend Joakim to them and asked for large damages. A chat conversation had been saved and used as evidence in court: “i put my cock in ur mouth once for 3 sec when u slept (…) did i force u to have it? it dont count as trying rape, just if i had continued, i stopped at once, i fucking tested it one time”
Three seconds of bodily touching between two persons in a relationship who normally have sex – including oral – every time they meet is however regarded as a serious crime in Sweden. It does not matter that they after this incident had sex as usual as soon as they were reunited after her trip to Finland. In the judgment one can read:
“Through the information it is proven that Joakim NNN at the time has put his erect penis in A’s mouth through improperly exploiting that she due to sleep was in a helpless state. The district court also finds that there has been a question of a sexual act that with with regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse. Joakim NNN is therefore guilty of rape (…) Rape according to Chapter 6, Article 1, second paragraph of the Penal Code carries a penalty of imprisonment for at least two years and a maximum of six years. If the offense under the circumstances is to be regarded as less serious, the sentence (…) is imprisonment not exceeding four years. If, in view of the circumstances , the crime is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall, according the third paragraph, be imposed. (…) In this case, it has been the case of a short-term events. Joakim NNN has suspended his act as soon as A woke up and made it clear to him that she did not accept his actions. No violence or threat has been present. The District Court therefore finds that Joakim NNN shall be sentenced for rape under Chapter 6, Article 1, third paragraph of the Penal Code.”
If the proposal from the Center Party (c) in the Parliament on March 2, 2005, had won, 18-year-old Joakim would have been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for his three-second contact between his and his girlfriend’s bodies that he immediately interrupted when she woke up, pushed him away and turned over to sleep again. If the current development of Justice policy proceeds it could very well be that ordinary bedroom behavior between two partners can lead to two years’ imprisonment. The ex-girlfriend demanded that Joakim pay 75,000 SEK (10,440 USD) in damages for the violation and 10,000 SEK (1,400 USD) for pain and suffering. The judge lowered this to 25,000 SEK (3,480 USD) and 5,000 SEK (700 USD) respectively. In the publicly available judgment the name, personal registration number, and address of the sentenced perpetrator Joakim is obviously written out. There is however no information whatsoever about the girlfriend, since her name is classified as secret, as always in rape cases in Sweden. We cannot even know her age. Due to her school situation (High School) she should be between 16 and 18. Age is not a case. She was in no way underage since the age of consent is 15 in Sweden.” On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
Just like 99% of Assange's zombies. Enough with the stupid ad-hominems already. I'm not even an Assange supporter, I'm just opposed to unjust judicial systems, but even if I were, it has no bearing on the argument at hand. lol keep linking.. SOME legal experts want to do this, SOME legal experts want to do that, "SWEDEN" wants to ban standing urinals, but when i read it turns out thats not what it says at all. whats your point?
Nice of you to selectively ignore the evidence which you don't have an answer for.
The point, which wasn't addressed towards you, is that Assange has every reason to be wary of the Swedish judicial system with regards to a rape trial.
If an 18-year-old boy can be found guilty of "rape" because his girlfriend vindinctively reported him of putting his dick in her mouth for 3 seconds (despite the fact that she didn't consider it an issue until after they broke up), then Assange is right to be suspcious of the rape accusations.
|
On August 21 2012 10:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:39 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 21 2012 10:34 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 08:03 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. I challenge you to find multiple examples of "victim blaming" in this thread. Disputing the accounts of "victims" or finding fault with the evidence is not the same thing as blaming the victims. Many of them are mentioned in the second article in my post. Maybe my example was bad though, I might have confused things with other forums. But that doesn't mean that this thread is free from other types of similar techniques... On August 21 2012 08:01 sunprince wrote:On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it.
Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden.
Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land.
Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations.
This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such. Sweden is one of the most feminist-dominated nations in the world. This isn't a myth, it's fact. I never said that it wasn't . I'm not admitting that it is true either though and an excerpt of a Swedish documentary on youtube does certainly not make it a fact. It's part 1, not an excerpt. You can continue to watch the remaining parts of the documentary on Youtube. Regardless, what makes it a fact is not the documentary, but the evidence that the documentary points out. On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
The myth I talked about is that "Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women".
I just invalidated it because that statement is way to general. Anything involving women ....
You might argue about some specific cases or scenarios where something like that could have happened.
I saw no such thing....
In the real world, there is actually statistics debunking that myth which I have already given you earlier in this thread. The fact that a statement is general does not make it invalid. You have given no such statisitics debunking anything related to this. Sweden is a place where hate speech against men is legal. Some legal experts in Sweden want to make sex a presumptive crime whenever a woman calls rape. Hell, Sweden wants to ban stand-up urination. Laws concerning divorce and father's rights heavily favor women (though not particularly worse than most Western nations). The following is an account of an actual rape case (taken from a recent book studying gender issues in Sweden). which highlights just how ridiculously stacked the judicial system has become: A Brief History of Swedish Sex
25 September 2010. Teenage couple breaks up.
Joakim, 18, spends an evening at his computer. He is in his boy’s room in his mother’s four room apartment. As usual he has spent some time with his girlfriend. She often stays over at his place as she has a lot of conflicts with her parents. The pair has sex practically every time they meet, oral as well as vaginal, which is no secret to the mother as the flat is not very sound proof. Sweden is still quite tolerant in these matters: Young people can have sex at home. The girlfriend herself says that they have a good relationship and that they like each other. They watch movies, meet friends and make trips on his moped. This evening she goes to bed while Joakim stays at his computer.
Before he goes to bed, he gets horny and wants to poke some fun at his sleeping girlfriend. He swings his penis in the air in front of her face and let’s it caress her between the lips to wake her up. She does, but dizzy with sleep she asks what he is doing, pushes him away, turns over and falls to sleep again.
Next day the girlfriend is picked up by her mother who brings her shopping for a journey she actually doesn’t want to make: Going to Finland with her parents on September 27 – 29. She would rather have stayed with Joakim. He calls her 2-3 times every day from his mother’s phone on her Finland tour to keep the girlfriend’s spirits up. When she returns from Finland she spends the night with him and they have sex as always.
On Saturday October 2, Joakim had to see his grandparents. He had promised to call his girlfriend the minute he returned home. He did not however, thinking it was too late. She is disappointed and wakes him up by a call the following morning and complains. The quarrel ends by Joakim saying that she has 24 hours to decide whether to continue seeing him. She says she does not want to stay together. Joakim returns her belongings.
5 April 2011. Joakim sentenced to prison for rape.
The sentence against Joakim, 18, is passed for the events on September 25, 2010. He gets four months’ imprisonment for rape and is convicted of paying damages to his ex-girlfriend. The girlfriend considered Joakim being the one breaking up although he only took her at her word and handed back her belongings.
The subsequent day she met her social worker to talk about her problems with her parents that she so far had been able to flee from to Joakim. She wondered what would happen if she would now report that Joakim one week earlier had woken her up with his penis between her lips. The social worker checked with the Police who said that in legal terms it could be a crime. The girl then reported her former boyfriend Joakim to them and asked for large damages. A chat conversation had been saved and used as evidence in court: “i put my cock in ur mouth once for 3 sec when u slept (…) did i force u to have it? it dont count as trying rape, just if i had continued, i stopped at once, i fucking tested it one time”
Three seconds of bodily touching between two persons in a relationship who normally have sex – including oral – every time they meet is however regarded as a serious crime in Sweden. It does not matter that they after this incident had sex as usual as soon as they were reunited after her trip to Finland. In the judgment one can read:
“Through the information it is proven that Joakim NNN at the time has put his erect penis in A’s mouth through improperly exploiting that she due to sleep was in a helpless state. The district court also finds that there has been a question of a sexual act that with with regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse. Joakim NNN is therefore guilty of rape (…) Rape according to Chapter 6, Article 1, second paragraph of the Penal Code carries a penalty of imprisonment for at least two years and a maximum of six years. If the offense under the circumstances is to be regarded as less serious, the sentence (…) is imprisonment not exceeding four years. If, in view of the circumstances , the crime is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall, according the third paragraph, be imposed. (…) In this case, it has been the case of a short-term events. Joakim NNN has suspended his act as soon as A woke up and made it clear to him that she did not accept his actions. No violence or threat has been present. The District Court therefore finds that Joakim NNN shall be sentenced for rape under Chapter 6, Article 1, third paragraph of the Penal Code.”
If the proposal from the Center Party (c) in the Parliament on March 2, 2005, had won, 18-year-old Joakim would have been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for his three-second contact between his and his girlfriend’s bodies that he immediately interrupted when she woke up, pushed him away and turned over to sleep again. If the current development of Justice policy proceeds it could very well be that ordinary bedroom behavior between two partners can lead to two years’ imprisonment. The ex-girlfriend demanded that Joakim pay 75,000 SEK (10,440 USD) in damages for the violation and 10,000 SEK (1,400 USD) for pain and suffering. The judge lowered this to 25,000 SEK (3,480 USD) and 5,000 SEK (700 USD) respectively. In the publicly available judgment the name, personal registration number, and address of the sentenced perpetrator Joakim is obviously written out. There is however no information whatsoever about the girlfriend, since her name is classified as secret, as always in rape cases in Sweden. We cannot even know her age. Due to her school situation (High School) she should be between 16 and 18. Age is not a case. She was in no way underage since the age of consent is 15 in Sweden.” On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
Just like 99% of Assange's zombies. Enough with the stupid ad-hominems already. I'm not even an Assange supporter, I'm just opposed to unjust judicial systems, but even if I were, it has no bearing on the argument at hand. lol keep linking.. SOME legal experts want to do this, SOME legal experts want to do that, "SWEDEN" wants to ban standing urinals, but when i read it turns out thats not what it says at all. whats your point? Nice of you to selectively ignore the evidence which you don't have an answer for. The point, which wasn't addressed towards you, is that Assange has every reason to be wary of the Swedish judicial system with regards to a rape trial.
Are you, with a straight face, going to cite this as your source? "A Brief History of Swedish Sex: How the Nation that Gave Us Free Love Redefined Rape and Declared War on Julian Assange." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Swedish-Sex-ebook/dp/B0087AZNCK
look at the cover for christs sake! sounds fair and balanced. and sure, you're no Assange supporter, just a concerned citizen.
Meanwhile in Sweden, hell, apparently we want to ban stand-up urinals! I wasn't aware. Oh wait, it turns out it wasn't Sweden, it turns out it was a suggestion raised by one local county politician from a party which represents roughly 5% of the electorate nationally.
the fact that you are so blatantly cherry-picking your "facts" to build a narrative that hardly corresponds to reality in the slightest is painfully obvious. i don't have to disprove your "evidence". you have to try again, and try harder.
|
On August 21 2012 11:01 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:46 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 10:39 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 21 2012 10:34 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 08:03 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. I challenge you to find multiple examples of "victim blaming" in this thread. Disputing the accounts of "victims" or finding fault with the evidence is not the same thing as blaming the victims. Many of them are mentioned in the second article in my post. Maybe my example was bad though, I might have confused things with other forums. But that doesn't mean that this thread is free from other types of similar techniques... On August 21 2012 08:01 sunprince wrote:On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it.
Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden.
Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land.
Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations.
This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such. Sweden is one of the most feminist-dominated nations in the world. This isn't a myth, it's fact. I never said that it wasn't . I'm not admitting that it is true either though and an excerpt of a Swedish documentary on youtube does certainly not make it a fact. It's part 1, not an excerpt. You can continue to watch the remaining parts of the documentary on Youtube. Regardless, what makes it a fact is not the documentary, but the evidence that the documentary points out. On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
The myth I talked about is that "Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women".
I just invalidated it because that statement is way to general. Anything involving women ....
You might argue about some specific cases or scenarios where something like that could have happened.
I saw no such thing....
In the real world, there is actually statistics debunking that myth which I have already given you earlier in this thread. The fact that a statement is general does not make it invalid. You have given no such statisitics debunking anything related to this. Sweden is a place where hate speech against men is legal. Some legal experts in Sweden want to make sex a presumptive crime whenever a woman calls rape. Hell, Sweden wants to ban stand-up urination. Laws concerning divorce and father's rights heavily favor women (though not particularly worse than most Western nations). The following is an account of an actual rape case (taken from a recent book studying gender issues in Sweden). which highlights just how ridiculously stacked the judicial system has become: A Brief History of Swedish Sex
25 September 2010. Teenage couple breaks up.
Joakim, 18, spends an evening at his computer. He is in his boy’s room in his mother’s four room apartment. As usual he has spent some time with his girlfriend. She often stays over at his place as she has a lot of conflicts with her parents. The pair has sex practically every time they meet, oral as well as vaginal, which is no secret to the mother as the flat is not very sound proof. Sweden is still quite tolerant in these matters: Young people can have sex at home. The girlfriend herself says that they have a good relationship and that they like each other. They watch movies, meet friends and make trips on his moped. This evening she goes to bed while Joakim stays at his computer.
Before he goes to bed, he gets horny and wants to poke some fun at his sleeping girlfriend. He swings his penis in the air in front of her face and let’s it caress her between the lips to wake her up. She does, but dizzy with sleep she asks what he is doing, pushes him away, turns over and falls to sleep again.
Next day the girlfriend is picked up by her mother who brings her shopping for a journey she actually doesn’t want to make: Going to Finland with her parents on September 27 – 29. She would rather have stayed with Joakim. He calls her 2-3 times every day from his mother’s phone on her Finland tour to keep the girlfriend’s spirits up. When she returns from Finland she spends the night with him and they have sex as always.
On Saturday October 2, Joakim had to see his grandparents. He had promised to call his girlfriend the minute he returned home. He did not however, thinking it was too late. She is disappointed and wakes him up by a call the following morning and complains. The quarrel ends by Joakim saying that she has 24 hours to decide whether to continue seeing him. She says she does not want to stay together. Joakim returns her belongings.
5 April 2011. Joakim sentenced to prison for rape.
The sentence against Joakim, 18, is passed for the events on September 25, 2010. He gets four months’ imprisonment for rape and is convicted of paying damages to his ex-girlfriend. The girlfriend considered Joakim being the one breaking up although he only took her at her word and handed back her belongings.
The subsequent day she met her social worker to talk about her problems with her parents that she so far had been able to flee from to Joakim. She wondered what would happen if she would now report that Joakim one week earlier had woken her up with his penis between her lips. The social worker checked with the Police who said that in legal terms it could be a crime. The girl then reported her former boyfriend Joakim to them and asked for large damages. A chat conversation had been saved and used as evidence in court: “i put my cock in ur mouth once for 3 sec when u slept (…) did i force u to have it? it dont count as trying rape, just if i had continued, i stopped at once, i fucking tested it one time”
Three seconds of bodily touching between two persons in a relationship who normally have sex – including oral – every time they meet is however regarded as a serious crime in Sweden. It does not matter that they after this incident had sex as usual as soon as they were reunited after her trip to Finland. In the judgment one can read:
“Through the information it is proven that Joakim NNN at the time has put his erect penis in A’s mouth through improperly exploiting that she due to sleep was in a helpless state. The district court also finds that there has been a question of a sexual act that with with regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse. Joakim NNN is therefore guilty of rape (…) Rape according to Chapter 6, Article 1, second paragraph of the Penal Code carries a penalty of imprisonment for at least two years and a maximum of six years. If the offense under the circumstances is to be regarded as less serious, the sentence (…) is imprisonment not exceeding four years. If, in view of the circumstances , the crime is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall, according the third paragraph, be imposed. (…) In this case, it has been the case of a short-term events. Joakim NNN has suspended his act as soon as A woke up and made it clear to him that she did not accept his actions. No violence or threat has been present. The District Court therefore finds that Joakim NNN shall be sentenced for rape under Chapter 6, Article 1, third paragraph of the Penal Code.”
If the proposal from the Center Party (c) in the Parliament on March 2, 2005, had won, 18-year-old Joakim would have been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for his three-second contact between his and his girlfriend’s bodies that he immediately interrupted when she woke up, pushed him away and turned over to sleep again. If the current development of Justice policy proceeds it could very well be that ordinary bedroom behavior between two partners can lead to two years’ imprisonment. The ex-girlfriend demanded that Joakim pay 75,000 SEK (10,440 USD) in damages for the violation and 10,000 SEK (1,400 USD) for pain and suffering. The judge lowered this to 25,000 SEK (3,480 USD) and 5,000 SEK (700 USD) respectively. In the publicly available judgment the name, personal registration number, and address of the sentenced perpetrator Joakim is obviously written out. There is however no information whatsoever about the girlfriend, since her name is classified as secret, as always in rape cases in Sweden. We cannot even know her age. Due to her school situation (High School) she should be between 16 and 18. Age is not a case. She was in no way underage since the age of consent is 15 in Sweden.” On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
Just like 99% of Assange's zombies. Enough with the stupid ad-hominems already. I'm not even an Assange supporter, I'm just opposed to unjust judicial systems, but even if I were, it has no bearing on the argument at hand. lol keep linking.. SOME legal experts want to do this, SOME legal experts want to do that, "SWEDEN" wants to ban standing urinals, but when i read it turns out thats not what it says at all. whats your point? Nice of you to selectively ignore the evidence which you don't have an answer for. The point, which wasn't addressed towards you, is that Assange has every reason to be wary of the Swedish judicial system with regards to a rape trial. Are you, with a straight face, going to cite this as your source? "A Brief History of Swedish Sex: How the Nation that Gave Us Free Love Redefined Rape and Declared War on Julian Assange." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Swedish-Sex-ebook/dp/B0087AZNCK look at the cover for christs sake! sounds fair and balanced. and sure, you're no Assange supporter, just a concerned citizen.
Read the actual book instead of jumping to conclusions. The book is primarily about gender issues in Sweden and how the definition of rape has been dramatically expanded. The relation to Assange and sensationalist title were just put in by the publisher to capitalize on the current headlings on Assange; reading through the book makes it readily apparent that the book was simply a historical analysis of Swedish politics/law/gender issues with Assange issues tacked on. The most important evidence of the book is the reported rape statistics in Sweden, which suggests that rape in Sweden is supposedly the highest in the world after Lesotho (in reality, it's that high due to expanded definitions of rape and a stacked judicial system).
On August 21 2012 11:01 Dundron2000 wrote:
Meanwhile in Sweden, hell, apparently we want to ban stand-up urinals! I wasn't aware. Oh wait, it turns out it wasn't Sweden, it turns out it was a suggestion raised by one local county politician from a party which represents roughly 5% of the electorate nationally.
The urinal issue is to point out how political and legislative rhetoric in Sweden is slanted against men, as corroborated by the link showing how hate speech against men is permitted, as well as the myriad of examples from the Swedish documentary I linked. The point is that Sweden's feminist-dominated political/legislative/judicial system is stacked against men, which makes Assange's avoidance of it fairly logical.
|
On August 21 2012 11:01 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:46 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 10:39 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 21 2012 10:34 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 08:03 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. I challenge you to find multiple examples of "victim blaming" in this thread. Disputing the accounts of "victims" or finding fault with the evidence is not the same thing as blaming the victims. Many of them are mentioned in the second article in my post. Maybe my example was bad though, I might have confused things with other forums. But that doesn't mean that this thread is free from other types of similar techniques... On August 21 2012 08:01 sunprince wrote:On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it.
Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden.
Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land.
Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations.
This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such. Sweden is one of the most feminist-dominated nations in the world. This isn't a myth, it's fact. I never said that it wasn't . I'm not admitting that it is true either though and an excerpt of a Swedish documentary on youtube does certainly not make it a fact. It's part 1, not an excerpt. You can continue to watch the remaining parts of the documentary on Youtube. Regardless, what makes it a fact is not the documentary, but the evidence that the documentary points out. On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
The myth I talked about is that "Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women".
I just invalidated it because that statement is way to general. Anything involving women ....
You might argue about some specific cases or scenarios where something like that could have happened.
I saw no such thing....
In the real world, there is actually statistics debunking that myth which I have already given you earlier in this thread. The fact that a statement is general does not make it invalid. You have given no such statisitics debunking anything related to this. Sweden is a place where hate speech against men is legal. Some legal experts in Sweden want to make sex a presumptive crime whenever a woman calls rape. Hell, Sweden wants to ban stand-up urination. Laws concerning divorce and father's rights heavily favor women (though not particularly worse than most Western nations). The following is an account of an actual rape case (taken from a recent book studying gender issues in Sweden). which highlights just how ridiculously stacked the judicial system has become: A Brief History of Swedish Sex
25 September 2010. Teenage couple breaks up.
Joakim, 18, spends an evening at his computer. He is in his boy’s room in his mother’s four room apartment. As usual he has spent some time with his girlfriend. She often stays over at his place as she has a lot of conflicts with her parents. The pair has sex practically every time they meet, oral as well as vaginal, which is no secret to the mother as the flat is not very sound proof. Sweden is still quite tolerant in these matters: Young people can have sex at home. The girlfriend herself says that they have a good relationship and that they like each other. They watch movies, meet friends and make trips on his moped. This evening she goes to bed while Joakim stays at his computer.
Before he goes to bed, he gets horny and wants to poke some fun at his sleeping girlfriend. He swings his penis in the air in front of her face and let’s it caress her between the lips to wake her up. She does, but dizzy with sleep she asks what he is doing, pushes him away, turns over and falls to sleep again.
Next day the girlfriend is picked up by her mother who brings her shopping for a journey she actually doesn’t want to make: Going to Finland with her parents on September 27 – 29. She would rather have stayed with Joakim. He calls her 2-3 times every day from his mother’s phone on her Finland tour to keep the girlfriend’s spirits up. When she returns from Finland she spends the night with him and they have sex as always.
On Saturday October 2, Joakim had to see his grandparents. He had promised to call his girlfriend the minute he returned home. He did not however, thinking it was too late. She is disappointed and wakes him up by a call the following morning and complains. The quarrel ends by Joakim saying that she has 24 hours to decide whether to continue seeing him. She says she does not want to stay together. Joakim returns her belongings.
5 April 2011. Joakim sentenced to prison for rape.
The sentence against Joakim, 18, is passed for the events on September 25, 2010. He gets four months’ imprisonment for rape and is convicted of paying damages to his ex-girlfriend. The girlfriend considered Joakim being the one breaking up although he only took her at her word and handed back her belongings.
The subsequent day she met her social worker to talk about her problems with her parents that she so far had been able to flee from to Joakim. She wondered what would happen if she would now report that Joakim one week earlier had woken her up with his penis between her lips. The social worker checked with the Police who said that in legal terms it could be a crime. The girl then reported her former boyfriend Joakim to them and asked for large damages. A chat conversation had been saved and used as evidence in court: “i put my cock in ur mouth once for 3 sec when u slept (…) did i force u to have it? it dont count as trying rape, just if i had continued, i stopped at once, i fucking tested it one time”
Three seconds of bodily touching between two persons in a relationship who normally have sex – including oral – every time they meet is however regarded as a serious crime in Sweden. It does not matter that they after this incident had sex as usual as soon as they were reunited after her trip to Finland. In the judgment one can read:
“Through the information it is proven that Joakim NNN at the time has put his erect penis in A’s mouth through improperly exploiting that she due to sleep was in a helpless state. The district court also finds that there has been a question of a sexual act that with with regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse. Joakim NNN is therefore guilty of rape (…) Rape according to Chapter 6, Article 1, second paragraph of the Penal Code carries a penalty of imprisonment for at least two years and a maximum of six years. If the offense under the circumstances is to be regarded as less serious, the sentence (…) is imprisonment not exceeding four years. If, in view of the circumstances , the crime is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall, according the third paragraph, be imposed. (…) In this case, it has been the case of a short-term events. Joakim NNN has suspended his act as soon as A woke up and made it clear to him that she did not accept his actions. No violence or threat has been present. The District Court therefore finds that Joakim NNN shall be sentenced for rape under Chapter 6, Article 1, third paragraph of the Penal Code.”
If the proposal from the Center Party (c) in the Parliament on March 2, 2005, had won, 18-year-old Joakim would have been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for his three-second contact between his and his girlfriend’s bodies that he immediately interrupted when she woke up, pushed him away and turned over to sleep again. If the current development of Justice policy proceeds it could very well be that ordinary bedroom behavior between two partners can lead to two years’ imprisonment. The ex-girlfriend demanded that Joakim pay 75,000 SEK (10,440 USD) in damages for the violation and 10,000 SEK (1,400 USD) for pain and suffering. The judge lowered this to 25,000 SEK (3,480 USD) and 5,000 SEK (700 USD) respectively. In the publicly available judgment the name, personal registration number, and address of the sentenced perpetrator Joakim is obviously written out. There is however no information whatsoever about the girlfriend, since her name is classified as secret, as always in rape cases in Sweden. We cannot even know her age. Due to her school situation (High School) she should be between 16 and 18. Age is not a case. She was in no way underage since the age of consent is 15 in Sweden.” On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
Just like 99% of Assange's zombies. Enough with the stupid ad-hominems already. I'm not even an Assange supporter, I'm just opposed to unjust judicial systems, but even if I were, it has no bearing on the argument at hand. lol keep linking.. SOME legal experts want to do this, SOME legal experts want to do that, "SWEDEN" wants to ban standing urinals, but when i read it turns out thats not what it says at all. whats your point? Nice of you to selectively ignore the evidence which you don't have an answer for. The point, which wasn't addressed towards you, is that Assange has every reason to be wary of the Swedish judicial system with regards to a rape trial. Are you, with a straight face, going to cite this as your source? "A Brief History of Swedish Sex: How the Nation that Gave Us Free Love Redefined Rape and Declared War on Julian Assange." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Swedish-Sex-ebook/dp/B0087AZNCK look at the cover for christs sake! sounds fair and balanced. and sure, you're no Assange supporter, just a concerned citizen. Meanwhile in Sweden, hell, apparently we want to ban stand-up urinals! I wasn't aware. Oh wait, it turns out it wasn't Sweden, it turns out it was a suggestion raised by one local county politician from a party which represents roughly 5% of the electorate nationally. the fact that you are so blatantly cherry-picking your "facts" to build a narrative that hardly corresponds to reality in the slightest is painfully obvious. i don't have to disprove your "evidence". you have to try again, and try harder.
Yeah sunprince , your "evidence" makes me giggle.
No-one takes the left party seriously, they have made a whole array of stupid law proposals. They even proposed a man-tax.... Most Swedes find this a never ending source of amusement. I could go on and on about this, lol.
I'm sure you have political parties in the US proposing stupid shit all the time.
You take stories and copy-paste them as evidence but you don't even say where it is from...
Furthermore, every example is cherry-picked to support your theory.
I recall a quite recent example where the court argued that a raped woman had given clear signs that she wanted to have sex with the guy by "dressing in a sexy way". The prosecutors and lawyers of the accused rapist went very hard at her and forced her to answer humiliating questions about very personal and intimate stuff related about her sex life .
All this under oath of course.
Does all Swedish rape trials disfavor the woman because of this ? Does the Swedish judicial system consist of only man chauvinist pigs?
edit: YES, we do have some pretty goofy people saying they are feminist who wants to do one thing crazier than the other.
This doesn't mean that very much of it has permeated to the general public or our courtrooms.
Since you were unable to find it, here is the link I talked about:
THIS IS WRITTEN BY A SWEDISH PROFESSOR IN LAW!!!
Specifically note the passage:
" ....
What we do know is that Assange will receive fair treatment by Swedish legal institutions. And, yes, their respect for the rule of law extends to accusations of sexual offenses. As recently as a few years ago, the Swedish Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the same high standard of proof applied to other criminal allegations are to be applied in cases of suspected rape.
Similar criticisms of the Swedish legal system are based largely on myths and misconceptions. The framework of Sweden’s criminal law with respect to sexual offenses is no different from most other countries’. I will not be sentenced for rape if my condom breaks during a sexual act. But, like in many other countries, I can be convicted of rape if I have sex with a sleeping or unconscious person.
...."
As I was going back in this thread to find the link to the blog above I saw that we already had a discussion you and I.
I ended it by saying that I would discuss anymore with you.
Apparently I forgot that it was you, but now I intend to keep that promise.
Just one more thing:
For the love of god, tell me that you have actually been to Sweden.
|
On August 21 2012 11:20 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 11:01 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 21 2012 10:46 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 10:39 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 21 2012 10:34 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 08:03 sunprince wrote:On August 21 2012 06:04 one-one-one wrote:On August 21 2012 03:42 noD wrote:
Even when most people say they trust sweden wont send JA to the USA or it's really not political if it was me I would NEVER trust the slightest chance most people are wrong =P
I belive in conspiracy and think the USA wants him dead and will do so =P That "most people" believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. Obviously, some peoples opinion matter more than others. I feel a huge absence of source criticism in this case as blatant disinformation spread by biased sources is allowed to prevail. The same flawed arguments are brought up time and time again. Typically they are shaped in the mold of common techniques to argue by feelings like for example blaming the victim. Want proof - just go through the last 10-15 pages and tell me what you see. I challenge you to find multiple examples of "victim blaming" in this thread. Disputing the accounts of "victims" or finding fault with the evidence is not the same thing as blaming the victims. Many of them are mentioned in the second article in my post. Maybe my example was bad though, I might have confused things with other forums. But that doesn't mean that this thread is free from other types of similar techniques... On August 21 2012 08:01 sunprince wrote:On August 20 2012 18:43 one-one-one wrote:
On August 20 2012 07:36 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
Not trusting the justice system isn't a valid reason not to be subjected to it.
Maybe if he had some valid evidence that the justice system was corrupt, like say, being asked to appear in a Zimbabwe court. But he isn't being called to appear at some banana-republic judge, he's being ordered to appear for questioning in Sweden.
Sweden's justice system is as close to perfect as possible. If you think the judges twiddle their thumbs waiting for a phonecall from Washington, telling them what the verdict needs to be, you're living in a tinfoil-fantasy land.
Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women. On top of that, the fact that Sweden's justice system is generally fair to Swedish citizens does not mean that it will be fair with respect to a high-value prisoner who is a target for multiple powerful first-world nations.
This is a common myth being spread by the Assange cult. There is no evidence for this, only people using arguments based on their feelings about the Swedish law with regards to rape definitions , consent and such. Sweden is one of the most feminist-dominated nations in the world. This isn't a myth, it's fact. I never said that it wasn't . I'm not admitting that it is true either though and an excerpt of a Swedish documentary on youtube does certainly not make it a fact. It's part 1, not an excerpt. You can continue to watch the remaining parts of the documentary on Youtube. Regardless, what makes it a fact is not the documentary, but the evidence that the documentary points out. On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
The myth I talked about is that "Sweden's justice system has considerable blind spots with regards to anything involving women".
I just invalidated it because that statement is way to general. Anything involving women ....
You might argue about some specific cases or scenarios where something like that could have happened.
I saw no such thing....
In the real world, there is actually statistics debunking that myth which I have already given you earlier in this thread. The fact that a statement is general does not make it invalid. You have given no such statisitics debunking anything related to this. Sweden is a place where hate speech against men is legal. Some legal experts in Sweden want to make sex a presumptive crime whenever a woman calls rape. Hell, Sweden wants to ban stand-up urination. Laws concerning divorce and father's rights heavily favor women (though not particularly worse than most Western nations). The following is an account of an actual rape case (taken from a recent book studying gender issues in Sweden). which highlights just how ridiculously stacked the judicial system has become: A Brief History of Swedish Sex
25 September 2010. Teenage couple breaks up.
Joakim, 18, spends an evening at his computer. He is in his boy’s room in his mother’s four room apartment. As usual he has spent some time with his girlfriend. She often stays over at his place as she has a lot of conflicts with her parents. The pair has sex practically every time they meet, oral as well as vaginal, which is no secret to the mother as the flat is not very sound proof. Sweden is still quite tolerant in these matters: Young people can have sex at home. The girlfriend herself says that they have a good relationship and that they like each other. They watch movies, meet friends and make trips on his moped. This evening she goes to bed while Joakim stays at his computer.
Before he goes to bed, he gets horny and wants to poke some fun at his sleeping girlfriend. He swings his penis in the air in front of her face and let’s it caress her between the lips to wake her up. She does, but dizzy with sleep she asks what he is doing, pushes him away, turns over and falls to sleep again.
Next day the girlfriend is picked up by her mother who brings her shopping for a journey she actually doesn’t want to make: Going to Finland with her parents on September 27 – 29. She would rather have stayed with Joakim. He calls her 2-3 times every day from his mother’s phone on her Finland tour to keep the girlfriend’s spirits up. When she returns from Finland she spends the night with him and they have sex as always.
On Saturday October 2, Joakim had to see his grandparents. He had promised to call his girlfriend the minute he returned home. He did not however, thinking it was too late. She is disappointed and wakes him up by a call the following morning and complains. The quarrel ends by Joakim saying that she has 24 hours to decide whether to continue seeing him. She says she does not want to stay together. Joakim returns her belongings.
5 April 2011. Joakim sentenced to prison for rape.
The sentence against Joakim, 18, is passed for the events on September 25, 2010. He gets four months’ imprisonment for rape and is convicted of paying damages to his ex-girlfriend. The girlfriend considered Joakim being the one breaking up although he only took her at her word and handed back her belongings.
The subsequent day she met her social worker to talk about her problems with her parents that she so far had been able to flee from to Joakim. She wondered what would happen if she would now report that Joakim one week earlier had woken her up with his penis between her lips. The social worker checked with the Police who said that in legal terms it could be a crime. The girl then reported her former boyfriend Joakim to them and asked for large damages. A chat conversation had been saved and used as evidence in court: “i put my cock in ur mouth once for 3 sec when u slept (…) did i force u to have it? it dont count as trying rape, just if i had continued, i stopped at once, i fucking tested it one time”
Three seconds of bodily touching between two persons in a relationship who normally have sex – including oral – every time they meet is however regarded as a serious crime in Sweden. It does not matter that they after this incident had sex as usual as soon as they were reunited after her trip to Finland. In the judgment one can read:
“Through the information it is proven that Joakim NNN at the time has put his erect penis in A’s mouth through improperly exploiting that she due to sleep was in a helpless state. The district court also finds that there has been a question of a sexual act that with with regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse. Joakim NNN is therefore guilty of rape (…) Rape according to Chapter 6, Article 1, second paragraph of the Penal Code carries a penalty of imprisonment for at least two years and a maximum of six years. If the offense under the circumstances is to be regarded as less serious, the sentence (…) is imprisonment not exceeding four years. If, in view of the circumstances , the crime is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall, according the third paragraph, be imposed. (…) In this case, it has been the case of a short-term events. Joakim NNN has suspended his act as soon as A woke up and made it clear to him that she did not accept his actions. No violence or threat has been present. The District Court therefore finds that Joakim NNN shall be sentenced for rape under Chapter 6, Article 1, third paragraph of the Penal Code.”
If the proposal from the Center Party (c) in the Parliament on March 2, 2005, had won, 18-year-old Joakim would have been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for his three-second contact between his and his girlfriend’s bodies that he immediately interrupted when she woke up, pushed him away and turned over to sleep again. If the current development of Justice policy proceeds it could very well be that ordinary bedroom behavior between two partners can lead to two years’ imprisonment. The ex-girlfriend demanded that Joakim pay 75,000 SEK (10,440 USD) in damages for the violation and 10,000 SEK (1,400 USD) for pain and suffering. The judge lowered this to 25,000 SEK (3,480 USD) and 5,000 SEK (700 USD) respectively. In the publicly available judgment the name, personal registration number, and address of the sentenced perpetrator Joakim is obviously written out. There is however no information whatsoever about the girlfriend, since her name is classified as secret, as always in rape cases in Sweden. We cannot even know her age. Due to her school situation (High School) she should be between 16 and 18. Age is not a case. She was in no way underage since the age of consent is 15 in Sweden.” On August 21 2012 08:24 one-one-one wrote:
Just like 99% of Assange's zombies. Enough with the stupid ad-hominems already. I'm not even an Assange supporter, I'm just opposed to unjust judicial systems, but even if I were, it has no bearing on the argument at hand. lol keep linking.. SOME legal experts want to do this, SOME legal experts want to do that, "SWEDEN" wants to ban standing urinals, but when i read it turns out thats not what it says at all. whats your point? Nice of you to selectively ignore the evidence which you don't have an answer for. The point, which wasn't addressed towards you, is that Assange has every reason to be wary of the Swedish judicial system with regards to a rape trial. Are you, with a straight face, going to cite this as your source? "A Brief History of Swedish Sex: How the Nation that Gave Us Free Love Redefined Rape and Declared War on Julian Assange." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Swedish-Sex-ebook/dp/B0087AZNCK look at the cover for christs sake! sounds fair and balanced. and sure, you're no Assange supporter, just a concerned citizen. Read the actual book instead of jumping to conclusions. The book is primarily about gender issues in Sweden and how the definition of rape has been dramatically expanded. The relation to Assange and sensationalist title were just put in by the publisher to capitalize on the current headlings on Assange; reading through the book makes it readily apparent that the book was simply a historical analysis of Swedish politics/law/gender issues with Assange issues tacked on. The most important evidence of the book is the reported rape statistics in Sweden, which suggests that rape in Sweden is supposedly the highest in the world after Lesotho (in reality, it's that high due to expanded definitions of rape and a stacked judicial system). Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 11:01 Dundron2000 wrote:
Meanwhile in Sweden, hell, apparently we want to ban stand-up urinals! I wasn't aware. Oh wait, it turns out it wasn't Sweden, it turns out it was a suggestion raised by one local county politician from a party which represents roughly 5% of the electorate nationally. The urinal issue is to point out how political and legislative rhetoric in Sweden is slanted against men, as corroborated by the link showing how hate speech against men is permitted, as well as the myriad of examples from the Swedish documentary I linked. The point is that Sweden's feminist-dominated political/legislative/judicial system is stacked against men, which makes Assange's avoidance of it fairly logical.
i asked for more evidence to back up your completely outlandish narrative and your response is "read the book, it's not as terrible as it looks." i'll just copy paste the amazon description here as a warning to anyone who happens by this threat so they can see the mockery of what passes as critical thinking in the mind of an Assange supporter.
In August 2010 Wikileaks founder Julian Assange lectured in Sweden. He swiftly landed in the beds of two Swedish women, who a week later went to the police.
Suddenly a Prosecutor wanted the world hero for rape. Then a Chief Prosecutor reversed the decision and claimed it was just sex, not a crime. A week later a Head Prosecutor said, well that's rape! She engaged Sweden's full legal power to have Assange extradited from the U.K.
Those who read the leaked interrogation protocols shook their heads in disbelief. How could these sexual encounters become a national top priority and why could Sweden not interrogate Assange in the UK? And wasn't Sweden infamous for its free sexual culture?
Yes, it was.
In the 1960s, Sweden made headlines around the world with its daring movies and quite as daring sexual politics. The Northern nation pioneered sex education in schools, pursued sexual freedom for women, did away with laws regulating pornography and sex clubs, and even suggested state-run brothels for the less fortunate. "Make Love, Not War" has never rung truer than in 1960s Sweden.
But just a few years later, the long decline of "Swedish Sin" began. Free feminists fighting for women's right to enjoy sex were replaced by radical feminists, who instead declared war on both Sex and Men.
Sweden in 2012 is a nation where it is legal to sell sex but illegal to pay for it, and where sex-detectives from the police regularly break into hotel rooms to drag away men in the middle of the night because they are believed to having paid for a casual sexual relation – or attempting to do it.
Sweden in 2012 is a nation that has redefined its gravest sex-crime, rape, so many times that it now sports most rapes per capita in the world after the African nation of Lesotho and 8 times as high requency as in Scandinavian sister nation Denmark, that was a co-leader in sexual liberation. Sweden's rate is exploding while Denmark's is falling.
Sweden in 2012 is a nation where a former Deputy Prime Minister expresses herself like this: "Sometimes I wonder why not more women really hate men!"
A Brief History of Swedish Sex traces Sweden's change from a nation of free love to a leader in sexual repression. Through extensive research the author has constructed a captivating timeline of news stories, government reports, political speeches, pamphlets and court protocols of the last 60 years.
The text is rich in quotes that will make you laugh, doubt your eyes and mumble: "They must be kidding" – except that they are not! Everyday sexual incidents can turn into legal nightmares, which is shown through vivid examples from courts. Sexual touching is regarded as something much more harmful than brutal violence, beatings and assault.
In addition, the timeline reveals previously unknown political dimensions of the Assange arrest, making the book a must-read for anyone with a critical mind.
A Brief History of Swedish Sex gives you the necessary background.
for me, no thanks. i need those brain cells for later. and i already showed you why your myriad of examples didn't actually contain any accurate examples, which was pretty funny. but its getting late so good night. i trust some rational person will take on safe-guarding the thread from the tin-foils while i sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
