Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Rape is More than Rape in Sweden
In some cases, neither Bill Clinton nor the rest of us would even call it sex at all.
The reason for the widened legal use of the word rape is claimed to be a care for the victims, ensuring that the crime is taken seriously in courts and leads to significant punishment. This seems like a good reason, but in reality the effect tends to be the opposite.
Instead of minor sexual offenses being regarded with more sincerity, the major ones, like real rape, tend to be seen as less serious. Of course, when the meaning of the term rape is widened it gets diluted. Not in the legal system just yet, but in the minds of the general public.
Soon, the courts will need to do the same, especially since there is an increasing number of cases that are little or no more than expressions of disappointment or jealousy, and similar subjective emotional issues of no real legal baring.
newspeak, in George Orwell's novel 1984, where an oppressive government uses language to brainwash its citizens and confuse their understanding of democracy and justice. When the Swedish parliament is doing the same, it's terrible evidence of their poor respect for basic civil principles.
A Matter of Condoms Only
So, in the case of Julian Assange, he is not – yet – the victim of a great interstate conspiracy to sabotage Wikileaks and its recent revelations. He is the victim of the term rape expanded in Swedish law to apply to things that are hardly crimes at all, but because of this can be treated as such.
In a way, this is even worse. Instead of a conspiracy, which would be illegal, the persecution and harassment of Assange is legal, stripping him of his human rights completely.
Behind the accusations against Assange are two Swedish women who discovered that he had made love to them both, and probably was not interested in a longtime commitment to either one of them. They went to the police together, as an alliance of two women spurned.
They both admit that the sex with him was consensual, but one claims that Assange deliberately made the condom break (what man in the world would?) and the other claims that they had sex without a condom against her will (although she didn't in any way oppose it at the time). Obviously, they were just searching desperately for some offense of which to accuse him.
Here are the circumstances regarding the events and the two women's charges, according to the police reports: Daily Mail report
The Guilty Ones
The Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny insists on the charges and on arresting Assange in his absence. According to her it's just for questioning, since Assange has not yet been able to give his version of the matter, although he stayed in Sweden for several weeks before going to England.
She refuses to say if there will be a trial, or to state the specifics of the alleged crimes. But it doesn't stop her from demolishing his reputation throughout the world, and putting him at great personal risk in so many ways. He is already punished, although there has been no trial.
The attorney of the two women, Claes Borgström, is a cynical opportunist who cashes in on this, all that he can, and participates gladly in the slander of Assange, blaming him for just about everything and then some. Both he and the prosecutor seem not at all displeased with the media attention this brings them.
What if the charges against Assange are dropped, or the court finds him innocent? How can his honor be restored? Will those who maltreated him be charged?
In both Swedish and European law, the judicial treatment of an accused may not be out of proportion to the charges. This has definitely happened here. Will the prosecutor be punished for this? Also, it is illegal to make false charges against someone. Will the two women be accused of this?
The Swedish legal system is Orwellian in so many ways, for example in the diminished rights of the accused, who is treated as guilty before the trial – a major mockery of the principles of justice. The accusers are rarely, if ever, at risk of anything at all, no matter how absurd their accusations are, which makes for a paranoid system of insecurity, again very Orwellian, or for that matter a reminder of extreme fascist and communist states.
So much wrong is exposed in the case against Julian Assange. The Wikileaks ingredient, and what it might have to do with this, is not even on the top of the list. From the Swedish perspective I would say that the worst is how justice deteriorates when moral panic and political correctness are allowed to shape it, and how quickly civil rights die when the legal system is free to act without the risk of being punished for its misuse of power.