Julian Assange demonstration today in London 1330h Westminster Magistrate's Court

A group calling itself "Justice for Assange" has called for a public protest at the Westminster Magistrate's Court in London at 1330h, in time for Julian Assange's hearing on the Swedish arrest warrant that may see him extradited.

PROTEST Today Westminster Magistrate's Court meet 13:30


  1. It would make more sense to demand justice for Bradley Manning since he is a true hero of the people.

  2. Justice is precisely the process he’s being put through, right? Accused rapist, gets a chance to clear his name. What’s the problem?

    1. Yeah, I agree. Given that the judicial process is transparent and verifiable, it would be good for Wikileaks if the matter is resolved no matter the outcome. It is a problem that the calls for support for Wikileaks have intertwined with support for Assange in his sexual assault case. Even if it is a huge conspiracy, these his personal matters should be kept separated from the activities of Wikileaks.

    2. Rather the reverse: Innocence is presumed untikl guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
      The ACCUSERS are getting the chance TO PROVE THEIR CASE.

      Assange need only stand in silence: he bears no burden of proving anything whatsoever in connection to these allegations…which is what they remain, mere allegations…of misconduct – not violent crime.

      Wikileaks itself goes on, and as ever are worthy of suspicion, and of our attention, too.

      The specific editing of the cables by Wkileaks and their “partners” is what interests me most…


      Thanx as ever to Cryptome for the link!


    3. The problem is that the charges were fabricated by the government.
      The women dropped the charges but the government decided to reopen to case anyway.

  3. He’s just got the wrong friends…if he was friends with Hollywood he could drug and rape a child and walk around free for years and years like Polanski…

    Be friends with the film industry= rape a child and walk around free for a LONG time

    Not being friends= have consensual sex with an adult and an international manhunt is set in action for you immediately because a condom broke?!…makes a ton of sense in an insane world.

    Oh wait he’s made some enemies as well…maybe that has something to do with this brand of “justice” that’s chasing him around ^ ^

    1. Well there’s a disagreement in facts. His accusers believe that not everything he did was consensual. They want to prove that in court. I think it unlikely he’ll be convicted, but their right to justice shouldn’t be infringed just because Julien Assange is a high profile figure.

        1. From Wikipedia:

          On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm.

          Seems to me that the charges were filed pretty soon after the alleged event occurred. Which was when he was already ‘famous’.

  4. @Birdseed #1 Well, yes, and if he’s innocent, that presumably was his reasoning behind turning himself in. But given the number of very powerful people he’s pissed off, it’s reasonable to be concerned that he might not actually get justice, so presumably the message behind the protest is not “we all think Assange is innocent, let him go”, but “we will be watching very very closely, so no monkey business!”

  5. The big guys who are trying to shut him down should do some analysis on “the law of unintended consequences”

  6. Birdseed,

    Assange did not commit a crime of rape and is not an accused rapist.

    He is charged of sexual misconduct for having a consensual sex, without a condom, which in Sweden is a punishable crime.

    But, with his Wikileaks background and the whole legal mess: first, the charges are dismissed, then Cablegate happens, the prosecutor calles him in, he volunteers to come in, and finally she rejects him and instead issues an international arrest warrant – isn’t it a strange judicial case?

    THAT is the problem.

    1. Yes he’s innocent until proven guilty. But if Sweden wants to try and prosecute him for rape then they have every right to. They probably won’t succeed, but there’s no reason they shouldn’t try him if they believe they have sufficient evidence. What does George Bush’s innocence or guilt have to do with Julien Assange?

  7. If Americans are really that justice loving creatures then go get Bin-laden not this journalist who done nothing wrong but bringing truth to light…

  8. Rape is a serious crime! I think it’s fantastic that the Swedish authorities are putting interpol arrest warrants on ALL suspected rapists!

    Oh… wait a second, they are after just ONE suspect.

    1. If you actually point your web browser (rather than trolling the comments) at Interpol and search for “sex crimes” and Sweden you will see that Sweden has international arrest warrants for many persons.

        1. “My bad. By many, do you mean three? lol! MANY!!! hahaha”

          Well, to satisfy you, mr troll, I will answer that. You have to use a sense of scale here. Yes, THREE are wanted ONLY for SEX CRIMES, some more are wanted for that AND other crimes. It is definitely many when compared to how many wanted (suspected) sex criminals that have fled Sweden. Remember that Sweden is such a small country that its population just barely larger than the total number of incarcerated people in the US.

          1. Here’s a fact from the interwebs:

            Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe.

            I think it has over 2000 reported rapes a year… Seems to be a big difference between 3 and 2000 arrest warrants to me.

          2. Most people who (allegedly) commit rape do not subsequently leave the country. So they do not need to issue an international arrest warrant.

          3. Well, apparently you can be accused of rape for doing -anything- sexual in sweden, so the 2000 figure doesn’t surprise me.

            Don’t break a condom, and don’t put any weight on her, and don’t get morning booty, and don’t attempt to have sex without a condom either.

            Really, it’s just safest to always have the swedish girl on top, with a video camera streaming the feed live to a safe online video storage site, ONLY after signing consensual sex waivers that release you of any liability if the condom does in fact have a malfunction.

            That’s how I roll.

  9. Let’s review some facts.

    1) The charges against Assange are highly suspicious.
    2) How much we may or may not like the guy is not admissible evidence.
    3) This is not about Assange, it’s about WikiLeaks.
    4) There have been leaks before WikiLeaks and there will continue to be leaks after.

    If Assange’s group is really serious about this they should let him go to trial and that’ll play out as it will. Meanwhile the other members shut WikiLeaks down and open up a new site next door doing exactly the same thing. Force the governments of the world to do all their legwork all over again.

    If this was about truth, Assange wouldn’t matter.

  10. Why hasn’t this been given more play:

    Arrest Warrant for “Sex Crimes” Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is for “Sex Without a Condom”, NOT Non-Consensual Rape Using Force

    “A Swedish lawyer representing two women whose allegations triggered a sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has given [Newsweek column] Declassified the first on-the-record confirmation of the allegations that led to the issuance—and then rapid cancellation—of a warrant on a rape charge and to a parallel investigation into alleged “molestation.” Claes Borgstrom of the Stockholm law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom, who is representing two women who said they had sexual relationships with Assange, said his clients complained to the police of Assange’s reluctance to use condoms and unwillingness to be tested for sexually transmitted disease.”

    So… They had consensual sex. But the women had issues when he didn’t use a condom so, they reported him even tho they still had sex with him?


  11. Actually, this does remind me a lot of the Polanski case, but in reverse. Here you’ve got people coming out from all over defending him, assuming he’s not guilty merely because he’s a jerk with a big website publishing secret documents. With Polanski, some of Hollywood stood behind him, but had to immediately retreat when it turned out most people were interested in seeing rapists punished, even if they happened to be Hollywood hotshots.

    Now, admittedly, Polanski was known to be guilty, and Assange is only accused, but still, it seems like the treatment of Assange is a bit silly. I mean, he’s GETTING justice, as an earlier poster suggested. He’s accused of a crime. He’ll get a trial, and if innocent will hopefully be able to show that. Simply letting him off the hook because he SAYS that the trial is only due to his other arguably illegal actions seems like exactly the opposite of justice.

  12. if the wikileaks cables have shown us anything it is that the governments and their intelligence agencies will do whatever they deem needed to further their agendas, regardless of whether it is legal, moral or ethical..I support this guy and his efforts to the hilt and hope if he is in fact incarcerated for whatever the us military industrial complex wantes to do him for, that people around the world pick up the wikileaks torch and continue to create sites and mirror sites and in fact that julian becomes a martyr for their cause

  13. I cannot believe I even have to say this, but:

    1) Secretly not using a condom when your partner has only consented to sex with a condom is rape.

    2) Not stopping when your partner says stop after a condom has broken is rape.

    Assange is innocent until proven guilty. His accusers are telling the truth until proven otherwise. Believe what you want about the man, but it frightens me to the core that people can read what he is accused of and think that those are situations of consensual sex.

    1. Yes, THANK YOU. I’m astonished at how many people don’t get this. You can support WikiLeaks, sure, but there’s no need to be immediately suspicious of the women who accused him. This is such a liberal blog, too, so it’s always upsetting to see comments like some of the ones in this post.

      (This also happened in the pubic hair thread awhile ago, when someone claimed that he always made women shave off all their hair before sleeping with him, but this is worse.)

  14. Actually, this is quite different from the Polanski case.

    First, Polanski was not engaged in an information war with the US. Aside from his slightly snarky recent film, he was not looked at as a public enemy, merely a rapist. There was no widespread political motivation to convict him.

    Second, the number one thing the people implicated in the Wikileaks cables are likely to do is try to discredit their accuser. The best way to do that is with a sexual charge. Rape charges make for a perfect character assassination technique. They have done it before.

    Third, no one has argued that Polanski didn’t rape the girl. They just argued that he shouldn’t be extradited for it. In Assange’s case, there are a number of reasons to suspect the motivations of the girls: http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml

    Fourth, drugging and rape of a 13 year-old girl is a bit different than consensual sex with adult women.

    For the record, I think Polanski should have been put in jail for rape of that girl. This case is not remotely the same, and it is an injustice to all parties to casually equate them.

    1. “This case is not remotely the same, and it is an injustice to all parties to casually equate them.”

      On that point we are in full agreement.

  15. One other thing. There is a legitimate concern in this case that allowing an extradite to Sweden will mean handing him directly to the US government. The USAG has said this is their goal. That’s another reason for people to have an issue.

    The US is, unfortunately, not a place where a fair trial can happen in this case. Congresspeople are calling for him to be killed, or tried under laws that don’t make sense. Other congressmembers, with ties weapons manufacturers, are calling for new legislation to outlaw what Wikileaks is doing. The government has put pressure on companies to stop serving Wikileaks, citing “illegal” behavior that has not been proved in any court. This is what our country has become, and this is not where we can expect a fair trial to take place.

    1. How could his extradition to Sweden possibly lead to his extradition to the US? He’s not been charged with anything in the US, and anything he could be charged with would seem to carry the death penalty as a possible sentence, making his extradition illegal under European and Swedish law.

      1. How about this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-cables-founder-julian-assange

        How about this: http://politicalnews.me/?id=6931&keys=Senator-Dianne-Feinstein-WikiLeaks

        Espionage does not necessarily carry a death sentence. That will not be an issue.

        And the fact that he, and Wikileaks, have not been charged with any crime has not stopped Visa and Mastercard from preventing funds from reaching them due to “illegal” activity. If what they are doing isn’t illegal now, they will work to make it illegal, and then charge him for it. That’s the stated position of our government right now. It sounds crazy, but it’s reality.

        1. I doubt that any European court would allow deportation over a retroactively applied charge. If they already had something to charge him over, they’d have done it. The USA charging him with something won’t automatically lead to deportation.

          1. The concern is that Sweden is one of the countries which supported the CIA rendition flights.

            Also, if they make it illegal for any global citizen to disseminate US classified documents, it won’t require a retroactive charge. Wikileaks, so long as it is still in operation, would immediately be guilty. As would a number of other media outlets. They would presumably try to frame the law to avoid the latter.

          2. The UK also supported CIA rendition. So I still don’t see how transporting to Sweden is any worse for him. And you can’t just make things illegal and then have anyone in any country who does them get extradited to your country. Could the US make a law saying that having the first name Julien is illegal and have him extradited for that?

  16. Well I hope Julian hands himself in soon… We have all seen how far the USA will go to find a person they want dead.

    I for one welcome our new overlords.

    1. We have all seen how far the USA will go to find a person they want dead.

      I guess that means the U.S. is about to begin a decade-long occupation of Australia while invading Micronesia on trumped-up evidence.

  17. I was thinking, by analogy with the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, the hunted one isn’t even in-country any more.

Comments are closed.