Disclaimer dt. 18.04.2019
The judgment as downloaded in re to comment dt. 03.11.2011 has been lost/misplaced by me, and the judgment downloaded from UK court website today is not corresponding to the comment dt. 03.11.2011. I am looking into it.
First published on 03.12.2010
In one of the TV debates I saw a flashing note, “Canada PM (ex)Aide : Kill Assange”. I am sure he is not the only one who wants to kill Assange. But, unfortunately, this time their task is a bit difficult. Let me help them.
Assange is a comprehensive, new-age rebel. The lines have been drawn, and the distinction is clear. This time there are no armies, no weapons, no suicide bombers, but just “RAW DATA” facing the might of the most powerful states. Assanga is good to nobody and has cared less to hide the derogatory information against the most powerful leaders of the world; that’s why his data is “RAW DATA”. I wonder is there anybody really supporting him! And, for that, he can’t be killed so easily: If killed just like that, he will end up becoming the most daring individual ever and, of course, an inspiration for the rebels world over. I feel pity for the Canadian PM ex-Aide; he just doesn’t understand politics. Let’s see how Assange can be killed:
Step 1: Project the information leaked by Assange as non-sensational, unproductive and irrelevant, and Assange himself as a money and publicity greedy wreck, so that the interest of people die down in Assange — well, this step has already been taken.
Step 2: Catch Assange, put him in Jail, and torture him to death –BTW, as per the UK authorities, Assange is hiding in the UK, but they can’t catch him because warrant has not been filed properly by Sweden.
Step 3: Display the fabricated moments of remorse, desperation, helplessness of Assange, so as to make him look like a very weak person pleading for his life — and, the weak spineless people of this world would feel happy about their existence.
Step 4: Declare Assange mentally unstable, suicidal, depressed, schizophrenic, and whatever else; of course, create/fabricate evidence and show it to the world — people will pity an idiot, who rebelled without a cause, and ended up becoming a lunatic.
Step 5: Now, kill Assange and call it suicide — WOW…so easy to kill a rebel; somebody give some prudence to this Canadian PM ex-Aide
Comment dt. 03.11.2011
I read the judgment of the UK Court on the extradition of Assange. I must say his lawyers have done a great work, but, I think, they shouldn’t have withdrawn the allegations of abuse of process/collateral purpose because abuse by the Swedish authorities is apparent on the face of the record. Nonetheless, the UK Court’s judgment is inconsistent: In the same judgment, a rupture of condom and the consequent ejaculation inside the vagina has been admitted to be rape in the UK (though not in Sweden), but, while actually dealing with the rape charges, the UK court looked from a “cosmopolitan eye”, which was neither the UK eye nor the Swedish eye. If I am not wrong, the presence of coercion is necessary for the charge of rape in Sweden; so, actually, the charge made out in the EAW was not that of rape as per the Swedish law. It was not rape as per the UK law either as in the UK only ejaculation, not penetration, is construed as rape; whereas, in the charge, though there was lack of consent for penetration, there was presence of consent for ejaculation. The UK court applied the “lack of consent” and found the EAW to be appropriate looking from the “cosmopolitan eye”. Even then, I think the argument of Assange’s lawyers has been wrongly rejected. The UK court has differentiated between the stage when the penetration takes place and the stage when the ejaculation takes place — though I wonder can they be separated. In this case, the consent, though found present in the second stage, was found absent in the first stage as the girl had not consented for penetration without condom, and, therefore, the EAW was found appropriate. This is same as saying that when a girl agrees for ejaculation inside her vagina, you need to pump up and excite your penis without touching her vagina because you never know when she will turn around and say, “I never agreed to penetration”; and just somehow shoot the semen inside her vagina at the time of ejaculation. Basically, only superheros can ejaculate inside vaginas in Sweden, the rest can only masturbate. The reasoning of the UK Court is ridiculous and devoid of common sense: Unless strictly latex condom (which nobody wears now), the only purpose of a condom is to avoid ejaculation inside the vagina; whether the penetration is with or without a condom is irrelevant.
I think the best ground before the lawyers now is their third ground; that is, Assange is not an “accused.” It seems the UK court has completely erred in the reasoning with respect to this allegation of the lawyers. If I am not mistaken, the Svea Court of Appeal in Sweden was only looking whether, from the allegations made, there were any grounds made out for investigation, as is also evident from para 52 of the judgement. This is similar to the aspects which the Indian High Courts look into while deciding whether an FIR should be quashed by using inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC. As per the 2003 Act, an “accused” is definitely distinct from a mere suspect, who is being or is about to be investigated. I fail to understand how could the UK court apply the UK law to term the mere suspect under the Swedish law as an “accused” when the question in consideration was EAW issued by the Swedish authorities, that too after looking at the extrinsic evidence! How?
©2010-2011 Ankur Mutreja