Michael Moore calls out Sweden's hypocritical "rape" accusations against Julian Assange

[backscatter712]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/17/929634/-Dear-Government-of-Sweden-...

Dear Government of Sweden ...
There's just one thing that bothers me -- why has Amnesty International, in a special report (described in detail here by Naomi Wolf), declared that Sweden refuses to deal with the very real tragedy of rape? In fact, they say that all over Scandinavia, including in your country, rapists "enjoy impunity." And the United Nations, the EU and Swedish human rights groups have come to the same conclusion: Sweden just doesn't take sexual assault against women seriously. How else do you explain these statistics from Katrin Axelsson of Women Against Rape:

** Sweden has the HIGHEST per capita number of reported rapes in Europe.

** This number of rapes has quadrupled in the last 20 years.

** The conviction rates? They have steadily DECREASED.

Axelsson says: "On April 23rd of this year, Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs that 'up to 90% of all reported rapes never get to court.'"

Message to rapists? Sweden loves you!

So imagine our surprise when all of a sudden you decided to go after one Julian Assange on sexual assault charges. Well, sort of: first you charged him. Then after investigating it, you dropped the most serious charges and rescinded the arrest warrant.

Then a conservative MP put pressure on you and, lo and behold, you did a 180 and reopened the Assange investigation. Except you still didn't charge him with anything. You just wanted him for "questioning." So you -- you who have sat by and let thousands of Swedish women be raped while letting their rapists go scott-free -- you decided it was now time to crack down on one man -- the one man the American government wants arrested, jailed or (depending on which politician or pundit you listen to) executed. You just happened to go after him, on one possible "count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape (third degree)." And while thousands of Swedish rapists roam free,
you instigated a huge international manhunt on Interpol for this Julian Assange!

There you have it. Thousands of rapists, real rapists, not just guys with broken condoms, get to skate every year in Sweden, but somehow, Julian Assange gets to have his balls busted over a broken-condom "rape" case, to the point where Sweden calls up Interpol for an international manhunt, gets Assange arrested, thrown into solitary confinement, and only after weeks of legal wrangling, gets bail, set at six figures. Do real rapists in Sweden get that sort of treatment?

[provis99]

1. except its rather obvious now that he did in fact commit rape.

[Jazzgirl]

2. Link?

[provis99]

6. read the news.

He had sex with a woman who was asleep and couldn't consent, and the other one asked him to stop when he broke the condom, but he didn't, held her down until he was finished.

Rape in both cases.

[backscatter712]

8. I did. Where's the evidence? n/t

[provis99]

9. do you believe Bush committed war crimes?

He hasn't been convicted of anything, either.

[backscatter712]

10. The difference is that there's actual evidence of Bush's war crimes.

The only evidence in the Assange case is the girls' stories. And they're not credible enough for conviction.

[unblock]

3. hmm, i must have missed the video and/or trial.

[provis99]

7. oh, well by your standard then, Bush is ok because he hasn't been convicted of anything.

any why should you believe anything in the Michael Moore article then, since he is clearly convicting thousands of Swedish men of rape, who have not been charged with rape or appeared in the court. Your hypocrisy boggles the mind.

[unblock]

12. this is utterly ridiculous

assange is accused of some specific legal charges, for which society calls for courtroom and jury judgement, not hearsay and speculation in by third parties. in this case, the only known purported evidence is some complaints by two women who didn't want to press charges. perhaps he's guilty, perhaps not, but the USUAL treatment is to presume innocence until proven guilty. it doesn't sound like there's enough evidence to convict even if it gets to that stage.

shrub, on the other hand, has done a whole lot of things that are thoroughly documented and witnessed, many of which are official acts of record and are not in dispute. in fact, his name is on a book detailing some of the things he did. history will judge him based on his overall good or bad done for the country and the world, not so much based on specific legal problems. the standards are completely different; bush SHOULD be judged by popular opinion and laypersons views of his accomplishments and failures, he should NOT be considered "ok" until proven to suck in a court of law.

my hypocrisy?
you're trying to say that too completely different things should be treated the same.

a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

[pacalo]

4. How did you come to that conclusion?!

[backscatter712]

5. Citation needed.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. Surprise!

nt

[hlthe2b]

13. Based on what? Your allegation is without basis & libelous