Now we recognize who that the ssebnile one is here. Great post!

Sweden is a fully vassalised sub-territory of USA . It has no real independence and always does as it is told.

I was consulted by Assange's team on issues of sexual politics, comparing Swedish and British rape legislation. I published an analysis of why Swedish rape statistics are different from other European countries' in The Local as Is rape rampant in gender-equal Sweden? http://www.thelocal.se/19376/20090511/

My question for legal experts concerns the accusations about no bail, closed doors and other characteristics of Swedish legal proceedings (at least for some sexual crimes). Europe includes many countries with non-identical legal systems and penal codes, so must we assume that only the British is best and fairest? Or what do we do when different senses of justice have evolved based on local histories?

Laura Agustin
http://www.lauraagustin.com

Usually I dismiss your ramblings as a pile of tripe but on this subject I find them very informative and interesting to read. Obviously spending time in Sweden helps you understand the case in more depth. I think you'll find this website needs someone like yourself to present a more knowledgeable understanding.
http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/02/24/assange-again/

In the evidence I have read, the case relies totally on the word of the complainants. There is no independent evidence. Courts would need to be very clever to convict on such evidence with any pretence of reliability.

writeon: "Finally, how does one prove that a rape has taken place without any concrete evidence or witnesses, and in the absence of a confession from the accused?" As you said earlier, and this bears endless repeating, in Sweden you can be found guilty of rape based solely on the testimony of your accuser(s). No further evidence is required. See for example the case of Tito Beltran: http://www.thelocal.se/9960/20080212/, and also analysis of the case here: http://www.thelocal.se/9995/20080215/

Surely this system of trying rape cases is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Why isn’t the media reporting on this issue? Why the complete silence?

John, many I follow are strong supporters of wikileaks and popular tweeters & bloggers. For them to go silent speaks volumes to me.

Phillip independent evidence? So rape/sex assaults now require an independent witness otherwise its not true?

Your comments worry me as someone who knows a rape victim where the rapist was a close family friend. Based on your comment the friend shouldn't have been imprisoned as there was only the 2 of them.

Sorry but when people start spouting rape myths in the Assange case to prove his innocence, it simply shows to me a desperation to find him innocent.

If he was innocent, then why didn't he talk to the authorities, even on his own terms, last year. Why do everything possible to avoid them?

Good article. I agree Assange should have talked to Swedish prosecutors, even if only to say no comment. That would not have stopped the Swedes from trying to extradite him though. They don't appear to be looking for anyone else in relation to these accusations.

Still needs to be pointed out that no one, not the Swedish prosecutors, not the Swedish government nor the American Department of Justice has given any binding or unequivocal assurances to anyone that Assange will not be extradited and all these parties have evaded every single attempt by everyone representing Assange to get such assurances.That failure is in itself grounds for fighting extradition to Sweden.

The main thing we still need to know is how the Swedes and the Americans together will arrange Assange's rendition to the US if he is held and/or tried, convicted and/or imprisoned in Sweden.

DAG's article is... well-argued, in relation to the law surrounding the events described. The EAW is... what it is, and incredibly powerful and useful warrant in the hands of the state, some would describe it a truly draconian.

Once it's lawfully issued in one member state of the EU, it is virtually, in practice, impossible to overturn, or successfully defend oneself against extradition. Extradition becomes a mere formality, often, and increasingly for minor offences, as the EAW net spreads out wider and wider from the original purpose of fighting serious, cross-border, organized crime.

I felt from the beginning, that once the EAW was issued, and recognised as valid in the UK, that Assange didn't have a legal leg to stand on, that is, if he was going to be treated in the same fashion as thousands of other EU residents that have been extradited under the provisions of the EAW. That he is the highest profile person to feel the full weight of the EAW,wasn't, I felt, going to save him from extradition to Sweden.

Obviously having studied the provisions of the EAW his legal team realized quickly that they were facing an extraordinarily difficult task in law, so they made a decision to primarily appeal to the 'court of public opinion' by pointing out the differences between the Swedish and UK legal systems. I don't think they had much choice in this as the EAW made his extradition close to a formality.

Having live in Sweden for a number of years, and being able to speak Swedish gives me a slightly different perspective compared to many of the commentators here, who clearly don't really know very much about Swedish society at all, and especially the minefield of sexual/gender politics, which is a 'platform issue' full of rhetoric, and... Politics.

Gender politics in Sweden is almost comparable to the 'platform issue' of Muslim immigration, in relation to the political opportunities provided for creating a higher profile for ambitious politicians, pundits, journalists, and others. Often women who've been raped beome little more than disposable pawns in far wider and larger political game about Power.

It would be nice, and very bourgeois, to think that the Law and the courts are somehow outside of politics and the rest of society. That they are somehow neutral, and that nobody is above the law and everyone is equal before the Law. This is a comforting idea, in theory, unfortunately it isn't an accurate description of reality. People are not equal before the law. Basically one buys 'equality' before the law in a market society, but that's another story, sorry.

Sweden isn't the country most foreigners think it is. The glossy public image doesn't compare favourably to reality.

Will Assange get a 'fair' trial? Well, that all depends on what one means by 'fair' in this context. And this is the colossal flaw in DAG's article. His emphsis on the Law and the EAW, which is reasonable and well-argued... within its self-imposed limitations, but which refuses to see the case and the events in their very political context. To deny that a case like this, involving this particular defendent, is somehow occuring in a legal vacuum, totally removed and outside of a political/social/cultural context is, I would argue, patently absurd. Of course, one can make an ideological decision to ignore the political context and pretend that the Law is above politics, but surely no one actually believes this is how the world functions in practice, do they?

Many people in the UK are surprised to learn that Assange will be held in isolation in Sweden, perhaps for months, as is common practice, while awaiting trial. This is used casually in Sweden as a way of 'softening up' prisoners before trial, and often as a form of punishment before, or extra punishment, by the authorities.

Also Assange will be at a distinct disadvantage during the trial as it will proceed using a foreign language he doesn't understand. Already the two women and the prosecution are at an advantage here because, being Swedish, they will naturally appear more articulate and realiable than Assange, for obvious reasons.

Neither will an eventual trial be held in front of a jury of Assange's peers, but will probably be held in front of single judge, and much of the 'evidence' will be examined in camera.

Assange will have great diffulty proving his innocence, which is effectively what he is being asked to do. As there is no physical evidence in this case, the judge, sitting alone, listening to the three people involved in disputed sexaul acts, will have to decide who appears to be telling the truth about what happened, and who is lying. What does any of that have to do with concepts of Justice or the Law?

One also has to think about the sexual/cultural context here. A famous foreigner fucks, or rapes, not one, but two, respectable, middle-class, Swedish women, treating them like mere groupies, and expects to just walk off to his next conquest/victim? Not in Swenden he doesn't!

There's also a lot of pressure on the Swedish authorities to find Assange guilty of something, especially after all the trouble they've gone to to get their hands on him. To not have a trial after all this would make them look rather foolish, and if there is one thing the Swedes, who are extremely proud and nationalistic, don't appreciate, it's looking foolish in the eyes of the world.

So, for these, and many other reasons, I don't believe Assange will get a 'fair' trial in Sweden, though he might possibly, if he was lucky, and one or both women realised that they were being used in an attempt to 'get' Assange.

Once in Sweden and in solitary confinement, Assange is clearly in a very vulnerable position indeed. His influential and powerful supporters are not in anywhere near as capable of defending him as they are in the UK. The Americans will step forward and try to extradite him from Sweden to face trial in the US along with Manning. Sweden's rightwing government is determined to establish the closest ties possible with the United States, after the shame of the Palme years, and delivering Assange would be proof of where their loyalties lay.

Once in the United States Assange would of course receive another 'fair' trial under the American legal system which is also totally unresponsive to political pressure, before being transported to some ghastly jail for the next thirty to forty years, if they don't decide to execute him as an example to others.

Dear Hans Castrop,

The "theatrical sigh" was not what you think it was, Sigh is the name of someone who is posting here. I was responding to her/him.

You write that I have “little regard for evidence," yet you have failed to produce a single quote from any of his books or any substantive evidence that makes your case.

I'm interested in what John Pilger has to say as a journalist, I would not care if he was a Tory or a Communist his journalism, unlike your ad hominine attacks actually provide facts, quotes, evidence, links and sources, standard practice if you want to be taken seriously.

It is a pity that you feel comfortable operating without facts, quotes, evidence, links and sources whilst using words such as rancid to describe John Pilgers work.

Here are a list of some of the awards and honours that John Pilger has received for his “rancid” work.

• Descriptive Writer of the Year (1966)
• Reporter of the Year (1967)
• Journalist of the Year (1967)
• International Reporter of the Year (1970)
• News Reporter of the Year (1974)
• Campaigning Journalist of the Year (1977)
• Journalist of the Year(1979)
• UN Media Peace Prize, Australia (1979 – 80)
• UN Media Peace Prize and Gold Medal, Australia (1980 – 81)
• TV Times Readers' Award (1979)
• United Kingdom Academy Award (1990)
• The George Foster Peabody Award, USA (1990)
• American Television Academy Award ('Emmy') (1991)
• British Academy of Film and Television Arts – The Richard Dimbleby Award (1991)
• Reporters Sans Frontiers Award, France (1990)
• International de Television Geneve Award (1995)
• The Monismanien Prize, Sweden (2001)
• The Sophie Prize for Human Rights, Norway (2003)
• EMMA Media Personality of the Year (2003)
• Royal Television Society – Best British Documentary for Stealing a Nation (2004)
• One World Media Awards - TV Documentary Award for his ITV1 film The War on Democracy, on the role of Washington in Latin American politics. (2008)[23]
• Sydney Peace Prize, Australia (2009)[24]
Honorary degrees and academic appointments:
• Hon. D. Litt. (Staffordshire)
• D. Phil. (Dublin City)
• D. Arts (Oxford Brooks and Kingston)
• D. Arts (University of Lincoln)
• D. Arts (Rhodes University, South Africa)
• Hon. LL.D. (St Andrews)
• DUniv (Open University, UK)
• Edward Wilson Fellow, Deakin University (Australia)
• Visiting Professor, Cornell University, USA

I'm not a "moribund trot" or a "weirdo" But after your last post I'm thinking of becoming one.

Best wishes

John Gregory

Laura Agustín: Thanks for your response. Interesting article and website – I’ll definitely keep checking out your site.

And yes, I understand your point. Sweden’s jails aren’t full to the brim of convicted rapists. At the same time, on the face of it, the laws and the way they are prosecuted in Sweden make it look as though it would be difficult to defend in a rape case.

I wonder why there is such a lack of success in convicting in Sweden. Maybe the authorities in many places are reluctant to act, or don’t understand the law all that well. Or maybe my understanding of Sweden’s laws is missing something. It would be helpful to understand this more.

Still, the fact is, the Swedish prosecutors are pursuing the case against Assange with considerable zeal. They must believe there is a possibility of achieving a conviction. But, as much of the police file has now been leaked online, it doesn’t look as though there’s any evidence against Assange, apart from the testimony of the two women. This makes it look as though the authorities might try him solely on the basis of this testimony, which implies he could be convicted solely on the word of his two accusers.

Assange could have avoided all this by simply talking to the Swedish authorities back in August.

Even many of his once followers are asking the.question many of us asked when EWA raised. Why didn't he just talk to them?

writeon:

"Assange will have great diffulty proving his innocence, which is effectively what he is being asked to do. As there is no physical evidence in this case, the judge, sitting alone, listening to the three people involved in disputed sexaul acts, will have to decide who appears to be telling the truth about what happened, and who is lying. What does any of that have to do with concepts of Justice or the Law?"

I don't agree with all the points you raise in your post, but the above is the crux of it for me. There doesn't seem to be the same concept of burden in proof in Swedish law as there is in British. At least, not when it comes to sexual offences.

My understanding is that the court can just decide that Assange's accusers are "believable", particularly as they are telling stories that to some degree back each other up. And if the two accusers are "believable", then Assange must be lying.

Case closed, he's going down.

It's complex, but one of the reasons there appear to be so many rape, or sexual crimes, committed in Sweden, compared to neighbouring countries; far more than in Denmark for example, isn't because Swedish men are especially beastial with an explosive desire to rape women; but has more to do with the way the Swedish authorities define and collect the statistics relating to sexaul crimes. So what appears to be a Swedish anomaly in regard to rape, is actually, merely a statistical anomaly. Simply put, the more one looks for something, the more one finds.

In both Sweden and Denmark there is a debate about why so many rape cases end in the accused being found not guilty and what one can do about this. It looks odd. Therefore, many people in Sweden have worked hard politically to tip the balance in favour of more guilty verdicts and thereby protect women for attack, at least in theory. And many want to go even further in tipping the balance of proof in favour of women.

A high-profile case like Assange's is a political platform to assert one's credentials and profile in Swedish gender politics, and appeal to women voters, and others. To deny the political context in affair like this shows that one knows nothing about Sweden, even less than one knows about Swedish law.

Can't these overpaid and overactive Swedish prosecutors interview him in the UK since he's under mansion arrest?
Why all the media and court theatre antics? I'm sure a low cost flight from Stockholm to London and a couple of hours chatting would resolve whether he should be charged or not...seems a lot to be doing to get a 'suspect' in for interviewing when he's sitting around with so much time on his hands...ever heard or video conferencing also? Why the EAW? Suspect indeed...!

@John Gregory

By cockup I meant a simple misjudgement that has unforseen consequences. In this case I suspect that was when Assange, disliking being forced into a corner, agreed to an HIV test too late - though we will only know for sure when those 100 contemporaneous texts from the claimants are placed in the public domain. If, being Sweden, they ever are.

For other examples, read Bernard Ingham.

By saying I doubted a political conspiracy, I meant the CIA angle. Sexual politics, as writeon depicts, is much more plausible.

Laura Agustín's point "must we assume that only the British is best and fairest?" is valid, and was acknowledged by Riddle. But one can still understand why in a rape context Assange prefers to avoid Sweden.

Much as I admire what Wikileaks has done, if Assange is guilty of these crimes he deserves to go to prison. It's really that simple.

Umm... I'm not an expert in Swedish law, especially the minefield relating to sexcrimes, which is incredibly complex and controversial.

Hardly anybody understands it, and that includes most Swedish lawyers, it's always changing and being re-enterpreted and the gender politcal debate sways one way and then another.

A Swedish lawyer friend of mine said recently that, only half joking, that soon, given the trend in Sweden, men and women would need to exchange a form of contract, or one could possible do this with a digital implant, that specified what kind of sexual practices they were open for, and where and when, if they wanted to be sure that they wouldn't be accused of 'rape' at some point in sexual relations with strangers, especially if alcohol or drugs were involved.

The courts are that bad in Sweden, though they are under a great deal of political pressure to find more men guilty of rape, which the courts are resisting because these cases are so complex and by their nature often come down to one persons word against anothers. Especially were there are no witneses or physical evidence of violence. Which is why so many get off who are obviously guilty, because one can't prove it.

This is unsatisfactory and unjust, yet it happens frequently, which is why many powerful feminist groups in Sweden want the balance tipped even further in favour of women. This is understandable, but highly problematic.

In practice, in Sweden, it's virtually impossible, or extremely unlikely that a man will be found guilty of rape, without physical evidence, or witnesses, or a confession of guilt. But is does happen that a man is found guilty based solely on the testimony of the victim, but rarely. The pendulum swings backwards and forwards, as in most things. I don't know how much of comfort that is though.

writeon:

"It might be as simple as the Judge liking the women more than Assange, as they is no evidence in the case and it's all down to the impression the judge gets in relation to the different stories he's going to hear. Whether there's much Justice involved in all this is debatable."

Yes, this is what bothers me. There doesn't seem to be the idea that the prosecution have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. They just have to present a "believable" story. The defendant can be convicted just on that, even if the defence also presents a credible story.

If that's true, it's not right.

The thing is, as I said above, the prosecutors are pursuing a case which looks unwinnable in Britain, but in Sweden it looks as though it could be winnable. This in itself is disturbing.

writeon:

"Assange could, in theory, and in practice, under Swedish law, risk being found guilty of 'rape' based soley on the testimony of his two accusers, without any physical evidence or impartial witnesses to prove that a crime had been committed."

Thanks - that's what I'd begun to suspect. It is hardly a surprise Assange doesn't want to go back! Who would?

I'm glad the whole EAW scheme here in Britain is under review. It's fine for Sweden to have any justice system it wants, of course, and I'm not claiming the British legal system is perfect (it certainly isn't!), but I'm coming around to the view Britain needs to be more cautious about extradition even within the EU.

What you seem to miss Arbed, is that "the evidence itself" is both incomplete - no Assange interview - and irrelevant for the purposes of a EAW.

DAG rightly describes the EAW as (for better or worse) largely administrative.

Assange's lawyers played a duff hand: EAWs are the way they are.

If the evidence is as duff as you say, Assange's legal team should be in Sweden defeating it, because that is the only forum in which the evidence can be judged and the matter dispensed with.

John Gregory - thanks for an example of the conflation I mentioned. It simply does not follow from the facts that Assange's EAW case and the Wikileaks extradition efforts are in any way intertwined due to the efforts of an overarching agency of any kind. None of your videos prove, or could be capable of proving, that.

Yet still we have the unretracted "honey-trap" and "dark forces" nonsense from officers of the court acting for Assange. Wise up: these were cynical scraps thrown to the rubes as part of the media campaign. Mark Stevens clearly knows very little about EAWs, but he knows about the media, and that's where he put a lot of the chips.

And we get silly quibbles and non-arguments here when the fact is Assange's lawyers adduced evidence from someone who knowlingly misled the court, and staked a large part of their rather shaky case on it. I can think of another apparently similar situation where this sort of thing does not wash with the left...

So lets not confuse co-incidence (in the strict sense) with correlation, or euphemise what has been an ignoble disaster for Assange and the team acting for him.

The ever-present questions are: why doesn't Assange now go to Sweden? Why did he not take the greatest pains to co-operate with the police and clear his name before leaving Sweden?

Another lucid and flawless ('cepting the "to/too" typo) explanation for the non-legal-eagles amongst us, David. Thank you.

In essence: is there a prima facie case for Assange to answer? Yes.

Have those seeking his extradition followed all proper legal procedures, such as they are (and we can argue the pros and cons of EAWs until the cows come home at a later date)? Yes.

In which case, assuming his appeal is not successful and there are no new extraneous or mitigating circumstances introduced to proceedings, why should he not then be extradited to answer questions and any subsequent charges which may follow as a result?

Or is this where we sit back and wait for all the stock conspiracy theory wallahs who've managed (in their own mind, at least) to concoct a scenario where English Jurisprudence is somehow in league with the CIA...?

maltrack: 'Laura Agustín's point "must we assume that only the British is best and fairest?" is valid, and was acknowledged by Riddle. But one can still understand why in a rape context Assange prefers to avoid Sweden.'

Of course we can understand why Assange would want to avoid Sweden. He might very well be found guilty purely on the basis of the testimony of his two accusers. Who in their right mind would go back to Sweden if you were facing that kind of trial?

Laura Agustín's point is certainly valid, however I suspect there is a human rights issue here. An accuser is not an impartial witness and cannot be the sole source of the evidence against the accused. This does not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Britain should not extradite someone to face this kind of trial.

For anyone doubting the points writeon has raised above, see the case of Tito Beltran: http://www.thelocal.se/9960/20080212/, and also analysis of the case here: http://www.thelocal.se/9995/20080215/

I can't wait till this little twerp is at Gitmo squealing like a stuck pig.

While millions think Assange is their hero for taking on the evil govts of the world, keep this in mind.

That doesn't make him above the law. Yes, you can say it's rubbish. You can have a go at everything from Swedish law to Abba to the govt. However, he's subject to the law like everyone else. At one time, Assange applied for Swedish residency. If he's as smart as everyone says he is, I can't believe he didn't at least check out many aspects of the country prior to that (economy, legal and others).

Now, how will the MSM keep this alive?