On Assange

Margaret Pirrie writes: Re. “Assange offline as Ecuador bows to pressure” (yesterday). Bernard Keane would do well to incorporate some of the following ingredients into his ‘confected’ defense of Julian Assange:

  • Sofie Wilen consented to protected sex with Assange. She did NOT consent to unprotected sex. That Assange entered her against her express wish concerning condom use would be also considered an offence under British laws which is why the UK enacted the EAW.
  • the oft-repeated canard that there are no charges against Assange  simply fudges the fact that there ARE legal proceedings and that the laying of charges under Swedish law happens at the END of the formal questioning, something  Assange has tried desperately to manipulate.
  • If Sofie Wilen was initially reluctant to lay charges against Assange (and what woman isn’t in light of the vindictive abuse which comes her way) she has since found greater resolve, sacking Claes  Borgstrom as her legal representative and hiring formidable Counsel Elizabeth Massi Fitz.

The thread connecting all the examples offered of Swedish obstruction and delay could perhaps be more accurately characterised as a stiff necked Sweden refusing to let an arrogant chancer who thinks he is a player on the world stage set the terms of their legal procedures. It was not wise for Geoffrey Robinson to argue that Assange could not receive a fair trial in Sweden. A challenge to make it happen in fact!

Literally baby

Ian Franklin writes: Re. “Brandisese catching on: it’s literally an existential threat” (yesterday). I want to join the fighting group which creates the “… list of words that gamely but futilely fight to retain the actual meaning of …” and offer the word ‘misogynist’. Can we expect to see a book in time for Christmas?