5 ms·

Any readers who hit this point in the discussion are invited to read the judgment themselves. The degree to which RMC is taking the ruling out of context speaks

Any readers who hit this point in the discussion are invited to read the judgment themselves. The degree to which RMC is taking the ruling out of context speaks adequately to his goals. > The UK legal system says... Section 153 is quoted out of context (it is a response to Section 129, not a finding of guilt). Sections 124 and 125 also state clearly that the only things being considered are whether the allegations may constitute parallel crimes. Objections on factual grounds (the woman was not asleep, provided consent, relationship context, etc.) "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125) > one of which is the charge that[1]: Note the sleight of hand. There have been no charges. > Is he guilty? I don't know, that's up to the Swedish courts to decide. The Swedish courts are not involved until Assange is charged. Until he is charged he will be imprisoned and face indefinite detention. This inconvenient point is of course ignored. If RMC was honest and believed Assange should face trial he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime. Instead, his defense of prosecution either makes him corrupt (for demanding prosecution without reasonable evidence of wrongdoing), an obvious fool (for believing Assange will incriminate himself) or an apologist for what is clearly an abuse of due process, basic human rights and the welfare of the British and Swedish taxpayers.

rmc 11y ago
> "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125) Yes, Assange hasn't been tried. The courts want to try him, but he's avoiding them. Yes, that High Court judgement is not a trial, but Assanges challenge to the Swedish extradition request. Which was upheld, and found to be valid and legal under UK law. > he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime He has been charged.
- trevelyan 11y ago
  > He has been charged. "Sweden has yet to formally charge Assange with any offense." - The Guardian "Sweden has yet to formally indict Assange." - New York Times "Mr Assange has not been formally charged with any offense." - BBC "Sweden does not have a time limit on how long the pre-trial stage will last or how long a person can be held in pre-trial detention.... only when an indictment is brought does the suspect acquire the formal rights of the accused." - United Nations UPR http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session29/Documents/A_HRC_29_13_ENG.doc http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session...
  - rmc 11y ago
    > 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange. It's almost like directly translating a word from one language and one country's legal system to a different language and a different legal system can be misleading. If only there were some sort of body of legal experts who decided this, some sort of "court" of people to "judge" meanings.
    - trevelyan 11y ago
      Wow, what a febrile argument. If there was "some sort of body of legal experts" that... wait a minute... there IS and they condemned Sweden for its routine indefinite detention of people who have yet to be formally charged IN SWEDEN. Truly baffling why you think a British ruling on the narrow validity of an extradition request translates into formal rights in a foreign criminal system where the defendant has not been charged and the prosecutor has stated there is not enough evidence to charge him.

rmc 11y ago

> "are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail." (Section 125) Yes, Assange hasn't been tried. The courts want to try him, but he's avoiding them. Yes, that High Court judgement is not a trial, but Assanges challenge to the Swedish extradition request. Which was upheld, and found to be valid and legal under UK law. > he should be demanding that Assange is actually charged with a crime He has been charged.

trevelyan 11y ago
> He has been charged. "Sweden has yet to formally charge Assange with any offense." - The Guardian "Sweden has yet to formally indict Assange." - New York Times "Mr Assange has not been formally charged with any offense." - BBC "Sweden does not have a time limit on how long the pre-trial stage will last or how long a person can be held in pre-trial detention.... only when an indictment is brought does the suspect acquire the formal rights of the accused." - United Nations UPR http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session29/Documents/A_HRC_29_13_ENG.doc http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session...
- rmc 11y ago
  > 153. ... there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange. It's almost like directly translating a word from one language and one country's legal system to a different language and a different legal system can be misleading. If only there were some sort of body of legal experts who decided this, some sort of "court" of people to "judge" meanings.
  - trevelyan 11y ago
    Wow, what a febrile argument. If there was "some sort of body of legal experts" that... wait a minute... there IS and they condemned Sweden for its routine indefinite detention of people who have yet to be formally charged IN SWEDEN. Truly baffling why you think a British ruling on the narrow validity of an extradition request translates into formal rights in a foreign criminal system where the defendant has not been charged and the prosecutor has stated there is not enough evidence to charge him.