We support Women Against Rape. We think Assange should be prosecuted, just that he should not be extradited to Sweden because it is likely he will then be extradited to the US and treated the same as Bradley Manning. We are not saying the women lied or that they should not get justice. But we think he should stand trial here. It is pretty clear the authorities are not pursuing Assange because of the rape allegations. Look at how the authorities treat rape victims – they don’t give a damn. 93 out of every 100 reported rapists go free. Also, look at how the UK acted when Spain requested that Pinochet be extradited. Pinochet (a Chilean dictator) was responsible for the death, rape and torture of thousands of people, crimes far greater than Assange’s. But the UK government denied Spain’s extradition request and let Pinochet go free – because they didn’t care about the people who died because of Pinochet just as they do not care about these women. The pursuit of Assange is not about protecting rape victims or anyone else. They want him to be extradited to the US to face trial and be imprisoned there so he can’t expose what the US government does anymore. We can’t let this happen because the things Wikileaks exposed will help stop wars and the rape and murder they bring happen in future. Let him stand trial here. http://tl.gd/je1eul
“93 out of every 100 reported rapists go free”Comment by John Gibbens on 27 September, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Beware of language slide. This is a false statement, extrapolated from a questionable statistic: that for every 100 reported rapes, there are only 7 convictions.
If by “rapist” we mean someone who has been convicted of rape (which is probably a good meaning to hold to, in the context of a legal discussion), the falseness is self-evident: those who “go free” are, by definition, not rapists.
There is also an assumption here that for every report there is a rapist: i.e. there are no false reports, and every individual accused of rape can be called a rapist. Assange, having been reported for rape, is a rapist.
The figure that is being referred to here is the “attrition rate” for rape – i.e. the number of convictions as a proportion of the number of reported crimes. The UK “conviction rate” for rape – i.e. the number of convictions as a proportion of the number of cases brought to trial – is much higher.
There were 3,334 reports of rape to the Metropolitan Police in 2011/12. There were 667 prosecutions brought, and there were 369 convictions. That gives an indication of the conviction rate (although this year’s convictions don’t necessarily relate to this year’s reports, given the time it can take to bring a case to trial).
A very reasonable proposition particularly coming from that source. However, the mechanisms of law produce an unfortunate language, it should read Assange should be INVESTIGATED over the issue. Prosocuted implies guilt. Discuss.Comment by Dave Tomlin on 29 September, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Isn’t it obvious by now that the so-called rapes attributed to Assange are most likely fiction ? And how then does one investigate what has not happened ? We create what has not (in truth) happened and propose it as evidence ? It is sinister to consider what judicial system can even make this possible.Comment by Jay Ramsay on 8 October, 2012 at 11:01 pm
It’s interesting that of the nine backers who now have been ordered by Judge Riddle to cough up their bail money, one of them is an ex-girlfriend of Assange’s, Sarah Harrison, who has contributed £3500 and who still visits him regularly at the Ecuador Embassy.Comment by Niall McDevitt on 10 October, 2012 at 8:47 am