Sexual Assault
Anybody know if it comes up in the film? The trailers make me want to gag. "Assange is so great! All hail this brave, brave man!"
shareAnybody know if it comes up in the film? The trailers make me want to gag. "Assange is so great! All hail this brave, brave man!"
shareNo, they focus on Wikileaks's beginning and the relationship between JA and DDB, the movie ends way before.
[deleted]
Yes, and thanks to Cumberbatch's performance, one is able to visualize how Assange might be capable of alternating between seductive and creepy-gross, often in the same evening.
sharewell actually if you watch the trailer there is a scene hinting at some sort of intimate scene in the movie...could be they show him meeting the woman and leave it at that...
sharei really hope this isn't a puff piece showing him in a all positive light. wasn't he accused by 3(?) different women of sexual assault? that's disgusting.
shareNo, he was not. If you do a little research on the (ridiculous) accusations, you'll see that it's a sham. (for instance, one of the 'victims' invited Assange to her place after the 'rape' supposedly happened) Also, Swedish law has different definitions on sexual assault then most other countries. (Having consensual sex without a condom can still be sexual assault, if the other party (claims she) didn't know)
-Nousǝusǝ-
mylistsnstuff, thanx for clarifying this for me! :)
i wasn't sure what the deal was with the assault deal. i just vaguely remember hearing about it on the news (but i wasn't really paying attention the news cast on him).
i'm not judging him (or anyone in general) or anything. :)
All charges had been dropped.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316
No. he is wanted on three sexual assaults:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
Please do your own research on the details of the claims. I don't think rape victims end up having breakfast with their rapists.
Just because the victim supposedly invited Assange to her place after the assault occurred, it doesn't mean the assault didn't occur. And why does it matter if Swedish laws on the subject are a little unusual? They don't appear to be arbitrary or discriminatory, so Julian Assange was obligated to follow them as a condition of entering the country. You can't just dismiss laws that you don't like. Ultimately, that's the problem with Julian Assange and why so many people dislike him: he seems to think very highly of himself and he doesn't have any respect for the rule of law and governmental authority.
shareYou're completely ignorant of the situation. There was no sexual assault on either of the 2 women. The reason there were claims of sexual assault stem from the US government attempts to extradite Assange to the US to silence/torture him at their leisure. Sweden is happy to extradite to the US, and so creating the allegations there mean that it can be used as a stepping stop to have him sent to Guantanamo.
You really think that a man who has been working to uncover government corruption for years, knowing he was under surveillance, would suddenly decide to go and rape 2 women for fun? Does that seem like the actions of a rational and intelligent human being? The fact these "rapes" happened a month after publishing the Afghan war documents seems slightly convenient too, doesn't it?
Wake up. I'm surprised I even need to explain this.
couldn't agree more! This have always been my big concern in this case. Why would a man like him rape? It could as easily been planted on him by the United States. We already know how corrupt the world is so this could as easily be true.
shareI agree. This was simply a poorly designed honey trap, with especially the US and Brits working together.
share[deleted]
You missed the part where he said that it doesn't matter if Swedish laws are unusual, that everyone has to follow them no matter how crazy they are. So this guy is a "law abiding citizen" who wants to obey any law in any country. He realises that there was no sexual assault, but he still considers not wearing a common a sexual assault because there is law in Sweden that says so, so everyone entering the country has to respect it. I just wonder if before entering any country if we have to thoroughly read all their laws and their constitution. Because we are not somehow informed of them via telepathy are we?
shareYou would think the onus would be on the Swede to inform a foreigner and comply with their own countries laws before the foreigner?
For instance, I think one of these girls claims she asked Assange to put a condom on and he didn't - but the girl still had sex with him anyway. The girl, being a Swede, is breaking the law of her own country and should be more liable, or at least as liable, for having unprotected sex.
So is it true that he at first denied knowing the women, but then later admitted that he knew them, despite having done 'nothing wrong'? That's in the bullet points at the end of the movie, too. Why would a man so committed to 'openness' and 'honesty' lie? Conduct like that seems hypocritical at best, to me, sinister, at worst.
Maybe he did do the world a favour by exposing this stuff, but I'm not so sure that it was initiated for altruistic reasons... You can inadvertently do good things, and still be a disreputable person... Claiming he is blameless for everything would be just as absurd as arguing that he is the devil... I'm sure that neither extreme is true; like most of us he'll be somewhere in the middle of the morality spectrum, and my personal opinion is that he edges towards the negative end.
[wave]
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
[deleted]
Does that seem like the actions of a rational and intelligent human being?
In Sweden not wearing a condom can be regarded as a sexual assault. To accept such a "law" is equal to dismissing common sense. Besides how many people entering Sweden freaking know that? How can they know that, do you think they announce it via speakers to any foreigner entering a Swedish international airport?
shareOk, guys. Listen, it is NOT considered a sexual assault NOT WEARING A CONDOM in Sweden (somehow we do have a population going on), but it IS considered sexual assault to slip inside of someone pretending to wear a condom while not doing so. THIS is what at least one of the Swedish women claims happened. By stating this I BY NO MEANS say that Assange is guilty of any sexual assault at all or that he wasn´t set up, BUT get real, of course sex without a condom is not considered sexual assault here. Until there is a trial nothing will ever be clear in the two scenarios with these Swedish women. I do agree that it´s a very tricky situation, but I doubt Assange would be extradited to the US by swedish authorities especially now when we for a change once again have a Social Democrat government. however, I can understand Assange´s fear. BUT you do have to stand trial in the country where the supposed crime was committed.
shareJust because the victim supposedly invited Assange to her place after the assault occurred, it doesn't mean the assault didn't occur. And why does it matter if Swedish laws on the subject are a little unusual? They don't appear to be arbitrary or discriminatory, so Julian Assange was obligated to follow them as a condition of entering the country. You can't just dismiss laws that you don't like. Ultimately, that's the problem with Julian Assange and why so many people dislike him: he seems to think very highly of himself and he doesn't have any respect for the rule of law and governmental authority.
shareIt speaks to the nature of their relationship, doesn't it? She was so comfortable with him, that the night after he allegedly assaulted her, she threw a party for him. Should we take a poll of rape victims, to see how many people throw parties for their attackers THE NIGHT AFTER THE ATTACK? I don't think it's even a sizeable minority.
We are faced with people who not only make money from lying, but who also believe it's their patriot duty. Just as the government assassinated Manning's character in public, while torturing her/his body and mind in private... they seek to do the same with Assange. It's instructive, therefore, at the panicky, half-assed manner they've gone about it. What Assange did with his penis in Sweden, has nothing to do with what US army pilots did with their helicopters in Iraq. The thing is, the incontrovertible evidence that Manning exposed, and Assange disseminated... leads me to believe that the government is waving the sex assault charges like a cape, "don't look over here! Nothing to see here! Aren't salacious peccadillos more interesting than MURDER? I mean: 'penis, penis, penis'... and Manning is GAY!"
Don't forget the US military murdered innocent, unarmed, civilians --- a significant charge, given the lax terms of warfare. And, instead of addressing that, here we are wondering if a condom breaking constitutes an assault. The fact you don't see this makes you either greedy or stupid.
"Just because the victim supposedly invited Assange to her place after the assault occurred, it doesn't mean the assault didn't occur."
No, but it makes you question the charges doesn't it? If somebody raped you, would you invite them over again the next day? Nitwit.
"And why does it matter if Swedish laws on the subject are a little unusual?"
Because rape is a loaded word in english, and it doesn't translate as such in every language.
-Nousǝusǝ-
I don't think what you or someone else would hypothetically do if somebody raped you is relevant, because it is hypothetical, and cases aren't decided or dismissed based on "what would you do?".
I don't even understand what's so queer about swedish laws.
forcing someone to have unprotected sex against their will really isn't ok, so what is so weird about that?
Also, inform yourself and read maybe the transcript of the hearing ! Both the statement of the accuser and of Assange's lawyer about what happened.
And please! How would you know how the meaning of the word "rape" in other languages.
I suspect you are not even clear of the meaning in english.
'I don't think what you or someone else would hypothetically do if somebody raped you is relevant, because it is hypothetical, and cases aren't decided or dismissed based on "what would you do?".'
They might not be entirely decided on those grounds. But if you really think inviting the man who raped you to a party the next day won't make any judge doubt your claims, you're delusional, and frankly, stupid.
'read maybe the transcript of the hearing'
lol, what hearing? Are you talking about the extradition case? Because that is something entirely different. You do realize the rape case has never been tried right? He gave Swedish police a statement, and later appealed the warrant for his arrest. I think maybe it's you who should read some more before blurting out your 'opinions'.
-Nousǝusǝ-
Actually, I read up on him a bit, and the specifics of the charge were not that he assaulted the woman, but that he removed his condom in the middle of intercourse. As someone above said, that merits a rape charge in Sweden.
Did he do it? Maybe, maybe not. It seems unprovable to me, and I tend to think it was a setup. Very interesting timing of these charges to be brought forward, don't you all think? Just when the US government wanted him the most, and he just kept slipping through their fingers?
As far as his so-called disregard for the law, I'm all for disregarding laws that shield war crimes.
its like being burglared and then asking the burglars to mind your place while on holidays.Those accusations are total bs,which is why i think he should return to sweden.No competent judge on the planet would convict someone on the bs these girls are spewing.
But of course can Assange trust that a judge will not be paid off?
she didn't just invite him over after the 'assault' happened but threw him a party afterwards! if a girl gets raped i highly doubt she will invite him back over to her place and throw him a party. regardless, the 'assault' claimed is he didn't wear a condom, could she not feel he wasn't wearing one while they were having sex? the charges are trumped up so the US can extradite him
shareWhat sexual assault? The case was initially dropped because it didn't exist. It was only reopened under pressure from the US. One supposed rape-victim even had breakfast with him the morning after.
Assange is nothing more than a target for vile feminist hags who want to emasculate men, and all for the crime of being sexually desirable in a feminist dystopia like Sweden.
Ok so,..let me decipher the not so subtle subtext here...
..you find julian assange sexually desirable
...you have fears of being emasculated
... feminists are vile hags..
--oh boy, you have lots of therapy ahead of you.
nothing wrong with being attracted to men, but togehter with that fear of emasculation and aggressions against women it is kinda worrisome.
Umm, actually no. If you knew anything you'd realise a lot of feminists have come out in support of Assange. Even some ran for seats in the Wikileaks Party at the last Australian federal election. -_-
shareExactly. Tons of feminist women here in Sweden and tons of men that call themselves feminists here are totally pro-Assange in this case. "Feminist dystopia" and "emasculation" someone wrote. What a sad twat. yes, most men here stay at home with their kids during its first 2 years. That bonding with BOTH its parents it´s REALLY a nasty thing. Hahaha!
sharedjblack1313 tried to rape me . now i have accused you of raping me .so there is no positive thing left about you .grow up kid . accusing does nothing
shareWhat happened was he had consensual sex with a woman and the condom split. A few days later he had consensual sex with another woman and wasn't wearing a condom or the same thing happened (not so sure about the other one). Basically then the two women got together and tried to convince him to take an STD test but he refused. They then went to the police and tried to press charges, at which point they did follow up on it but the prosecutor threw it out of court.
Assange left the country thinking everything was cool, only for it to be picked up quite a while later by a different prosecutor and the women now claiming the condom didn't split and he wasn't wearing one in the first place. They're trying to extradite him to ask him questions about the assault and he hasn't yet been accused of anything. Assange said they can visit him and ask questions, or contact him via Skype and do the same thing but the Swedish prosecutors don't want that.
It's pretty suspicious to be honest, also adding to the fact that Sweden hasn't once denied extraditing a person onto the US makes it stink even more. Also if some random person did this then left the country they wouldn't try and extradite them over something so goddamn stupid. Not to mention the whole thing trivialises genuine sexual assault cases!
rofl, i love your comments. but in any even regardless of the accusations sounds like some dude that broke the law so he can get semi-famous so he can get laid & mulch from two women at the same time. no respect coming from me anyhow. just a sleazy low life
share...and you sound like a ignorant moron...
shareErr, he was already "famous" for co-founding WikiLeaks ...
shareYou are absolutely right.
shareSo you believe everything you read? Now THAT is disgusting.
shareBy far the most detailed and documented coverage of that episode is by Justin Raimondo. Here is the key passage from the most comprehensive article:
Assange had come to Sweden at Ardin’s invitation, or, rather, at the invitation of the “Brotherhood,” a Christian faction of Sweden’s Social Democratic party for which Ardin is the press secretary. He was staying at her home because she was supposedly going to be gone for a few days with her family, but Ardin returned early, for some reason, and they agreed to cohabit on a temporary basis. Ardin avers that she had agreed to consensual sex with Assange, and so, as the Daily Mail reported, “they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom – it had split. She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.” Ardin also claims Assange used the weight of his body to keep her immobilized.
However, she gave no indication of distress, either that day or the next: instead, she threw a party for Assange at her home. That evening Assange gave a seminar at the Stockholm headquarters of a trade union, and in the front row sat Sophia Wilen, an employee of the local Social Democratic-controlled council in the northern town of Enkoping. Wilen later told police that she had seen Assange on television and had become “obsessed” by him. When she heard he was speaking in Sweden, she called the “Brotherhood” of Social Democratic Christians to volunteer to help at the event, but was turned down: she came anyway, of course, and was soon glomming on to Assange with all the persistence of a blond and very leggy tick – the kind that give you Lyme Disease.
Loitering outside the venue in her shocking pink jumper, she approached Assange and two others who were going to a local café, and managed to get herself invited to join. One of the participants in the ensuing conversation describes her as “certainly an odd character,” who seemed out of place. Aggressively pursuing Assange, she sat there looking at him adoringly, and there was – say witnesses – what seemed to be a mutual attraction. After lunch, the two went out to a movie, and later on, when Assange said he had to go – Ardin was planning a crayfish party for him, a traditional Swedish-style event – she asked if she could see him again. He readily agreed. Later, at the party, Ardin would Tweet to her friends that she was “’Sitting outside … nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!” She later tried to erase this record of her short-lived joy, but the internet knows all, sees all, now doesn’t it?
The honey-trap was nearly sprung, but there were a few more details to take care of. As Ardin was stuffing her face with crayfish and getting drunk, Assange was on the phone with Sophia. They arranged to meet in Stockholm. As the Daily Mail reported:
“When they did meet they agreed to go to her home in Enkoping, but he had no money for a train ticket and said he didn’t want to use a credit card because he would be ‘tracked’ (presumably, as he saw it, by the CIA or other agencies).”
Little did he suspect that was already being tracked. Sophia generously offered to buy him a ticket. When they got to her Enkoping digs, they had sex: he used a condom. The next morning, they again had sex, this time without a condom. They went out for breakfast, with no sign of displeasure or even the barest hint of “rape” coming from her side of the fence: she told him to stay in touch, and he said he would. She then bought him a return ticket to Stockholm, and he was gone – but hardly forgotten.
Here is where the story gets murky: for some reason not readily apparent to me, Sophia called Anna, and the two got to talking: the former confided she had been sleeping with Assange. Anna was furious: here is a woman who had earlier posted on her personal blog a rather scary “Seven Steps to Legal Revenge,” which reads like it might have been written by Valerie Solanis.
Sitting alone in Enkoping, wondering why Assange didn’t call, Sophia had been simmering in her own resentments, and Ardin was more than happy to give her the opportunity to vent. Together they concocted a plan to go to the police: initially the focus was on Sophia’s obsession with the possibility she might have contracted AIDS from the unprotected sex. The two of them went to a police station and asked if it was possible to force Assange to undergo a test for STDs.
It was the weekend, and the regular prosecutor was off duty: a substitute prosecutor listened to their story and decided, on her own authority, to go after Assange. The police combed the entertainment district of Stockholm, looking for him: to no avail. This indictment was later rescinded, however, by the regular prosecutor, due to the fact that, as the office put it, there was “no evidence” a crime had been committed.
The two had leaked the story to the Swedish tabloid Expressen, which relentlessly blared it on their front pages. Pretty professional work for a couple of alleged groupies. Indeed, Ardin is a former Swedish embassy official who served in Buenos Aires, and Havana: she was reportedly asked to leave Cuba after her interactions with Cuban exile groups linked to the CIA.
With those kinds of connections, Ardin was not easily deterred by the dropping of the charges. In order to construct a legal case against Assange, she recruited Claes Borgström, a lawyer and the former “Equal Opportunities Ombudsman” for “gender equity issues.” He has been working assiduously to expand the legislative reach of high feminist theory, including by extending the legal definition of rape. According to this new manifestation of extreme political correctness – which is only possible, one hopes, in dreary, suicide-prone Sweden – rape need not necessarily involve physical coercion. There is also, these professional victimologists believe, a form of “psychological” coercion enforced by the unequal “power relations” between the sexes.
Wow, that really was detailed. I'll summarize the sexual assault issue for those who haven't taken the time to do research on Assange outside of what they've seen on mainstream media, which of course would like nothing more than to have WikiLeaks and online reporting in general wiped off the planet.
Assange's "rape" charges both stem from what the two women claim was misuse of a condom. Before anyone thinks that two separate random occurrences of this nature is improbable, consider the fact that the women colluded before mentioning rape to ANYONE and they admit to this.
The first woman claims that Assange wore a condom but intentionally broke it. The second woman claims that Assange first had sex with her with a condom, and then later had sex with her again, this time forcing his way into not using a condom.
The first woman has almost certain ties to the CIA, who have been fastidiously involved in trying to extradite Assange to the US ever since the "rape" incident (although this is merely circumstantial and I believe that the first woman's motives are entirely personal). The second woman was fanatical in her opinions of Assange, and those opinions didn't change until she contacted the first woman.
In MY opinion, regardless of the truth behind the condom allegations, the media's willingness to call Assange's actions "rape" is extremely insensitive to the many people who have actually had that scarring violent crime happen to them.
By far the most detailed and documented coverage of that episode is by Justin Raimondo.Raimondo's a nutcase.
I'll ignore your ad hominem because getting this story accurate is more important than your insults.
Go find the original article. Everything in it is linked to verified reports.
No insult...unless you're nutty ole Justin himself.
The man has zero credibility outside the Lyndon Larouche/Alex Jones circle.
By "most comprehensive article", you mean feeding the most into your misogynistic bias?
shareI just don't understand people who readily applaud sites like.um..wikileaks, where people can go and read the orginal files and informations, and then prefer to use as a "prove" a summary by the daily mail instead of, well reading the available informations and transcripts themselves..to build their own opinion.
shareTo your first point about misogyny: I don't think anyone claims that, if what these women are saying is true, Assange is the type of person you want marrying your daughter. He's just not guilty of rape...legally or colloquially. As I said in my previous post, the women only claim he did not use a condom. They did not tell him to stop and they did not ever tell him they didn't want to have sex.
To your second point about sources: WikiLeaks has no information regarding the rape allegations, and even if it did, why would anyone ever trust it? As for other topics covered by WikiLeaks...the documents are typically incredibly long (for instance, a single release in 2010 had 400,000 documents) and contain mostly trivial information. Most summaries of WikiLeaks uh...leaks...include citations of where to find that information on the WikiLeaks site.
If you want to insult me, sign your own name and state a time and place to do it in person.
Go find the original article. EVERYTHING in it is linked to verified sources.
Oh perfect! I wrote one before I read this but it's nowhere near as detailed or well informed.
share"..in dreary, suicide-prone Sweden". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate The suicde rate is higher in the US than in Sweden. What the copy-paster above is referring to is a myth made up by an american "journalist". Background: Sweden has been known (in a very distant past...) as a sort of halfwaypoint between socialism and capitalism with a big social security net coupled with high taxes. One way to smear Sweden therefore has been to claim that: well, they do have a free education, healthcare etc. but that leads to people feeling cramped, controlled and miserable, thus the high suicide rate.
I'm not one to either defend nor denounce Julian Assange. I simply don't know what happened in Sweden. (and I'm swedish btw.) My gut feeling however is that Anna Ardin is trustworthy. A much better movie (and also very critical of Assange) is We steal secrets. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1824254/?ref_=nv_sr_1
What this movie is all about is to gloss over the warcrimes of the USA.
Well I'm Australian and I think Julian is trustworthy! :P
Silliness aside, I've seen that movie and it's really good. What I find suspicious about the sexual assault case was that it was closed by one prosecutor, Assange was allowed to leave the country, and then the case was later reopened by a different prosecutor. You've got to admit that's a bit suspicious.
Didn't they mention there was evidence in that movie (We Steal Secrets) of a used condom that had broken? I just think it's a bit ludicrous and suspicious that they're extraditing him for a condom breaking. >.<
Anyway, Sweden is a great country, probably one of the best to live in in the world. Then again anywhere in Scandinavia is amazing; you guys really have your social welfare, public education, etc well and truly together (I wish I spoke a Scandinavian language because I would totally move there). I don't know where the guy got "dreary" and "suicide prone" from either (but the rest I agree with). :P
Hi Blocks50!
If your avatar is really you then I'd love for you to come and visit me. ;)
I actually had no intention of defending the reputation of Sweden since our welfare system is being dismantled and income inequality is rising faster in Sweden than in any other OECD nation (apart from Israel). Sweden is basically not what it used to be. http://www.thelocal.se/20130515/47904
What I dislike is how every internet forum and comment section is filled with people claiming to know stuff they have no idea is true or not. People pick a side and stick to it. This is not only true about right-wingers -- one article written on this topic is from well-known leftist John Pilger. He called Claes Borgström a "right-wing politician" http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2011/03/pilger-assange-sweden. Well, if Claes is leaning to the right he sure is hiding it carefully:
"In 2013, citing his dissatisfaction with what he refers to as the right-leaning changes in the Social Democratic Party, Borgström changed his party membership to the Swedish Left Party."
Re-read this garbage. *beep* you charlesheld, you will burn in hell. The blond and very leggy hell of the "brotherhood".
shareHaving reviewed the replies to this, it appears everyone went flying off on the did he/didn't he do this/that...
In answer to your question, only at the end in overlying text does it mention the assaults and even in the context used it isn't relying on the incidents having occurred or not. It instead is used to convey Assange's statements being initially false and later being reversed. My take is it was done to bring thought/question to Assange's alleged championing of Truth and transparency when he clearly lied to the press/public.
[deleted]
The reference to his supposed assaults are mentioned, I think, as the picture draws to a close. I think I read director Condon say somewhere that the charges are so serious that they would have cast too overwhelming a shadow over the story Condon wishes to tell and, therefore, and particularly because the charges haven't even reached the level of "charges", Condon elected to not give them emphasis.
By the way, whatever trailer you watched does not represent the reality of this film which is not an "Assange is so great film" and whatever reality this film represents is not a reality of real life because this film misrepresents Assange most dramatically in the charge of recklessness it casts against his character. I try to unpack that charge here:
http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/the-fifth-estate/