MovieChat Forums > The Fifth Estate (2013) Discussion > Sexual Assault

Sexual Assault

posted 11 years ago by russell-m-emily
72 replies | jump to latest

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!"

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] paulatoohey 10 years ago

Assange in fact is a very ingenious liar.
One would assume any decent man in their right mind would defend these allegations at all costs if they thought they were innocent.
One could conceive with the matters that have occurred after the fact that Assange has something to hide in relations to the alleged sexual assaults. Interestingly enough Assange was sort by authorities for various reasons before the sexual assault allegations, which of course his legion of blind followers will cease on.
However stating the facts, Assange has been said to be by colleagues in various interviews an almost egotistical, arrogant, very proud man and a sexual assault charge would actually ruin his legend.
It is conceivable given the circumstance that Assange might use the immediate threat of foreign powers wanting to interrogate him to avoid the allegations.
The obvious reality too is that eventually he will have to leave the embassy he is hold up in and the authorities will catch him and the truth will come out.
Maybe then they will make a movie about him and call it:
"The truth will set you free".

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Fluffis 10 years ago

Assange has, time and time again, told the Swedish prosecutor that he is more than willing to come to Sweden and stand trial for the sexual assault charges, if he gets an assurance that he, at no point and for no reason, will be extradited to the U.S. So far nobody has been willing to give him that assurance. They steadfastly refuse to give that assurance.

Let me reiterate that: He has said, on many occasions, that he is ready to stand trial, in order to clear his name.

He has also offered to be interviewed by the prosecutor in London, since he doesn't get the aforementioned assurance. She has said that that is not the way it is done, and that's that. So his willingness to stand trial to clear his name, is being made to look like he is just hiding. But wait; it gets worse.

Now, in Sweden we have a legislation which says that we will not extradite people when they face the threat of execution. The prosecutor tells us and Assange that that should be enough.
However, since the U.S. just has to say "Hey, we just want to talk to him" and have Sweden extradite him... well, as long as he is extradited they would be free to do just about anything they wish to him. They just need to get him on American soil.

I wouldn't go to Sweden if I were Assange, let me tell you.

Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] andyd-1 10 years ago

sort of, you see female 'admirers' approaching him in Sweden, it doesn't give any indication of any other events until the end when there are bullet points.

[–] AimC 9 years ago

I say the following because charges have been dropped and it seems there was no coercion.

These women already clowned themselves for being linked to such a sickly looking man. To then announce it to the world by making accusations... digging even deeper.

But another version is that they now have nicely padded accounts somewhere. That is the most plausible explanation so far. What sucks is me and you likely contributed to those funds via taxes.

[–] rosebigham 9 years ago

I am finally watching this movie today and I also came here to see if the sexual assaults will be portrayed at all. I am horrified to see the comments here being so outdated and inaccurate. It is like people want Assange to be this great icon of truth and journalism so they will find any reason they can to discredit the victims of his assaults. That's right, I said it: his victims.

While it is true that the initial charges were dropped (they had not even taken the victim's statements yet when they filed, then retracted!) they were quickly re-instated. The charges are currently still active, and Assange is currently in hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. The victims were initially discredited by a completely inaccurate and slanted article published by that bastion of factual reporting, the Daily Mail. I have never seen the Daily Mail recant *anything*, but they did publish a later article detailing that new charges are filed and under investigation http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307960/Rape-investigation-Wik iLeaks-Julian-Assange-reopened-prosecutors.html. Oddly, instead of simply stating the new facts that the Swedish authorities were investigating the charges (FACTS! ZOMG!) instead they spent five paragraphs of the article talking about what data WikiLeaks had published recently.

Assange's victims were largely discredited by the first Daily Mail article, which was linked and circulated world-wide. Immediately tons of people spoke out about how it must have been a honey-trap, how Assange was set up, etc. etc. This is an elegant assessment about how a single inaccurate article wove a narrative to globally discredit two rape victims: http://www.salon.com/2010/12/07/julian_assange_rape_accuser_smeared/

Then the victim's depositions were made public. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Blah blah blah: each of the women said NO at some point. One of them - after making it clear that she was only comfortable if they used a condom and if no condom, then NO SEX - woke up to Assange having sex with her while she was UNCONSCIOUS and with no condom. Later, her long-time boyfriend testified that in their entire relationship they had never had sex without a condom. She said no, he had sex with her anyways = rape. Full stop.

As to the stories about extradition, and that being the only reason why Assange won't return to face the charges in Sweden: That's ridiculous on its face. So help me god it is a Gawker article which eloquently describes how extradition is likely MORE difficult in Sweden than it would be in the UK: http://gawker.com/5936600/julian-assanges-rape-case-has-nothing-to-do- with-free-speech

And finally, here is a piece which talks about the 'crazy misogynistic Swedish rape laws" and how they differ from the US. More specifically, it talks about how progressive Sweden is and how REGRESSIVE the U.S. is. It is actually frightening how sad the laws in the U.S. are about protecting rape victims. Apparently if someone says yes at all ever, she can never say no. Even if something hurts. Even if she's tired. Even if she does not like how the sex is progressing, even if things have turned violent. She (or he, for that matter) can never get justice if a consensual sex act turns into something horrific AND THEY SAY NO, STOP. :-(
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010 121002571.html

Certainly one cannot believe everything they read in the press; I have seen that firsthand. Hence: If you read that ONE account in the Daily Mail and find anything in it to be false or presumptuous of slut-shaming and then see how far that ONE article went to discredit the rape victims . . . then perhaps reconsider how that icon of truth and justice may treat women.

Also: Occam's razor: Which is more likely to be true? That this man treats women horridly when it comes to sex and that his bad deeds finally caught up with him, or that there is an international conspiracy involving spy agencies working against him which caused HIM to have sex with two women of HIS choosing who then immediately conspired to get him charged with sex crimes at a very specific time AFTER the major leak already happened? Come on, people.

[–] AimC 9 years ago

You missed the whole point of my post.

"making it clear that she was only comfortable if they used a condom"

^ this should've reminded you of the point?? No? You actually typed that and still managed to miss the point?

In any case, if he broke the law, he should face its consequences like any other criminal.

[–] mimosa_mirabella 9 years ago

RoseBigham, you are remarkably ignorant.

Those who assert the integrity of the Swedish government when it comes to extradition of journalists and/or whistleblowers targeted by the United States should look up 'journalist Lester Coleman' + 'Trail of the Octopus'.

http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory

[–] mimosa_mirabella 9 years ago

59 human rights organisations call upon the United Nations to ask Sweden to change its policy of allowing detention without criminal charges:
PDF at link:

https://wikileaks.org/59-International-Organizations.html

Excerpt:

59 International Organizations Call Upon UN to Remedy Human Rights Violations in Pre-Charge Detention of Wikileaks Publisher Julian Assange

Groups Submit Reports to UN Universal Periodic Review Citing Sweden’s Human Rights & Procedural Violations in Treatment of Julian Assange

**Report Details Linked Below**

Geneva, Switzerland - Before the United Nations this Sunday, 26 international human rights, fair trial, and jurist organizations, and 33 Latin American civil society organisations, condemned Sweden’s violation of the fundamental human rights of WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, who has experienced protracted pre-charge detention stemming from a Swedish investigation which has yet to charge him. Mr. Assange’s pre-charge detention has spanned nearly four years as US Federal Grand Jury prepares a criminal case against WikiLeaks and it’s officers.

Two Swedish organizations, as well as jurist organizations from around the world including the American Association of Jurists (AAJ), the National Lawyer’s Guild (NLG), the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), and the Indian Association of Lawyers submitted two reports —one in English and one in Spanish— each highlighting various procedural rights violations of Julian Assange, Sweden’s longest running case of pre-trial deprivation of liberty.

A third report, signed by 33 human rights groups, media and civil society organisations, and unions, including the Global Women’s March (Marcha Mundial das Mulheres, MMM), petitioned the Human Rights Commission in Geneva to intervene to free the ’political prisoner’, Julian Assange.

The reports were submitted to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the peak UN human rights review mechanism that investigates each country’s human rights record every four years. The submissions expose numerous systematic deficiencies in Swedish pre-trial procedures like the routine placement of persons who have not been charged with any crime in indefinite, isolated, or unexplained pre-charge detention.

According to the English report, signed by 16 organizations, "The methods employed by the prosecutor in Mr. Assange’s case are a clear violation of his fundamental human rights, yet they remain beyond the reach of judicial review.”

The second submission, signed by 10 international human rights, fair trial, and jurist organizations, says that “the Swedish Authorities’ demand that Mr. Assange be physically present in Sweden for questioning... would imply that Mr. Assange would have to renounce his inalienable right [to the protection afforded by his asylum in relation to the United States], but also means in practice that Mr. Assange would have to risk his life and physical integrity”.

The third submission, signed by 33 human rights groups, media and civil society organisations, and unions, from Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Ecuador, petitioned the UN Human Rights Commission to intervene with Sweden in order to secure the immediate release of Julian Assange:

"The entire international community has witnessed the opportunistic manipulation of the accusations against Mr. Assange, in an attempt to destroy his reputation and to prevent his freedom and his ability to act politically. It is obvious that this unprecedented situation has not come about as a result of the alleged acts committed in Sweden, but rather due to the clear political interference by powerful interests in response to Mr. Assange’s journalistic and political activities. This situation has turned Julian Assange into a political prisoner, who is effectively condemned to house arrest without any charges having been brought against him, without being able to exercise his right to due process."

On 19 June 2014, Julian Assange will have spent two years inside the Embassy of Ecuador in London (and a total of nearly four years in the UK under different forms of restrictions to his freedom of movement). He has been granted political asylum in relation to US attempts to prosecute him as the publisher of WikiLeaks. Sweden has refused to give assurances that Julian Assange will not be extradited to the United States. A Swedish prosecutor has kept a preliminary investigation open for nearly four years, but has not charged Julian Assange with any crime. The prosecutor refuses to question him in London, leading to a stalemate. At least four formal offers have been made to the prosecution to interview Mr. Assange in person, in writing, via telephone, or via video-link. All offers have been declined. The stalemate has cost over $10 million in the UK alone, where a costly police detail watches the Embassy and all of Mr. Assange’s visitors around the clock.

http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory

[–] eYeDEF 9 years ago

Also: Occam's razor: Which is more likely to be true? That this man treats women horridly when it comes to sex and that his bad deeds finally caught up with him, or that there is an international conspiracy involving spy agencies working against him which caused HIM to have sex with two women of HIS choosing who then immediately conspired to get him charged with sex crimes at a very specific time AFTER the major leak already happened? Come on, people.

This is simply a poor application of Occam's Razor because your proposed hypothetical are riddled with poor or discredited assumptions. That Wikileaks posed an embarrassment and a threat to the US government and their intel community is not a conspiracy, it's a fact. That they would try and discredit him and shut him down to prevent future embarrassments is not supposition, it's a fact. Just look at how they arm twisted the financial institutions to blacklist him to cut off his funding sources.

So what you call an 'international conspiracy' wasn't even a conspiracy because the dogged US pursuit of him played out in the open.

Your second hypothetical is even more problematic and a good application of Occam's Razor to these women's stories should clear things up for you. Your problem is you're taking their word at face value. What's more likely, that these two women who thought highly enough of Assange that one threw him a party after the supposed 'rape' happened, and the other who doggedly pursued and paid for his travel arrangements to come and have sex with her just happened to speak to each other and decide Assange raped them and go to police ...

OR

was it more likely these women already knew each other and were colluding as part of an attempt to take him down?

Well, it's not so inconceivable when you consider that one was already thrown out of Cuba for her link with anti-Cuban pro-US dissidents and links to CIA. And when you consider how she allegedly fished the used condom out of the trash 3 days later after she had thrown a party for him and after this alleged 'rape' occurred, her story just starts defying all credibility.

Occam's Razor requires you to consider all of the evidence, not just the cherry picked parts of their stories that fits into your narrative. That's where you fail in your application.

I don't see anyone here defending Assange's character, as he's clearly an egomaniacal ass from everything that can be learned about him. What I'm interested in is truth, if the evidence revealed culpability then you go to where the evidence leads you. The problem is that the allegations themselves are porously weak.