Monday, 20 August 2012

The problems with the logic in the objections to Assange being extradited to face justice:

Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault and rape.

As a victim of sexual assault, I am aghast at the rampant and ignorant support for Assange, which often involves ignorant beliefs.

1. The claim that this is all some vast conspiracy to get Assange to Sweden so he can be extradited to the US.

Problematic because it erases the victims and the notion of justice from the equation, and to be blunt, the whole thing would be a very convoluted and impossible way to go about getting one guy. If the US really wanted Assange that badly? They'd have applied to the UK government before Sweden did, it would have been both easier and quicker.

Also? Why wait over a year to do it?! If Sweden was so likely to just hand him over, why didn't they just submit an extradition request while he was there?!

The UK have agreed to extradite him to Sweden to face charges, they are not going to randomly give him to the US, no matter what Assange claims, it doesn't work like that! See three for more details of why the claim is impossible.

Funny how Assange wasn't terrified of this potential US bogey man until he faced being charged with a crime. Then suddenly it's a "conspiracy", to be blunt, he isn't the first to cry "conspiracy" to such charges, difference is most people don't get to do it so publicly, and in my experience "conspiracy" usually translates to "fucking guilty as hell".

2. The complaints about "zomg they dropped it then brought it back".

Funnily enough being questioned for a crime, not charged and then later charged with it because either new evidence has emerged or it's been reviewed and decided that it is worth pursuing is not an uncommon thing.

This argument is just rampant rape apologism. Given the appalling low conviction rate of rapists, many rapists may be questioned but not charged with rape, many may be questioned but not charged until later. That it happened to Assange, doesn't mean a single fucking thing given how fucking common it is.

It's a problem with the system that not all prosecutors will agree on whether something is worth taking to court or not, it has no bearing on whether or not Assange is a rapist.

3. omg why don't they just guarantee that they won't extradite him.

Because they can't, and extradition request is heard by the courts, any politician can say "oh we won't" but ultimately it is not they but the courts who decide if someone should be extradited, not politicians, which again gives lie to the claims that this is political persecution because the government has NO fucking say in what the courts decide.

4. They should give the evidence before they do.

No, they should not, that would violate the victims rights to a fair trial by biasing it towards Assange, I'm quite sure that the numerous judges who presided over Assange's appeals against extradition, had information about it that we don't, they all dismissed his appeals for a reason.

There's more arguments but they're equally as ignorant.

Basically what the whole belief Assange supporters have behind their arguments is:

"I agree with this guy's actions in terms of wikileaks so I want to believe he's innocent and this is a conspiracy".

Assange is a celebrity and like many celebs, people based their opinions on not if he's right, but whether or not they agree with or like him. It's perfectly possible btw to support the right of the people to know what their government are doing while acknowledging that there's a good chance that Assange is probably a rapist.

Also freedom of speech and expression, is not freedom from the consequences of breaking the law, if Assange is a rapist, then his victims deserve justice, all the mob protecting Assange is doing is adding to rape culture and sending a message that celebrity is more important than justice.

I believe Assange is a rapist and should face justice, I also find the case for a "conspiracy" against him to be flimsy as fuck and generally illogical in terms of legality. The US would have more chance of herding cats then of trying to get anything that convoluted to work, which argues it's just a paranoid conspiracy theory from people who don't really grasp how international justice works.

No comments:

Post a Comment