Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Plans Modeling Debut At London Fashion Show
An anonymous reader writes with news about a possible new direction for Julian Assange. Julian Assange is expected to make his London Fashion Week debut this September. The Australian WikiLeaks founder will reportedly model for Vivienne Westwood’s son, Ben Westwood, at a fashion show staged at the Ecuadorean Embassy, where he has been seeking refuge for the past two years. He is avoiding extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over claims of sex offences. “Julian’s been in the embassy for two years and it’s important that he doesn’t slip into obscurity,” said Ben Westwood. “I want to highlight Julian Assange’s plight. What happened to him is totally unfair.”
... he will bare it all?
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
This is now at level of E!.
Modeling debut? Good grief.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Had he just taken the damn HIV test, he'd be at home leaking more stuff.
Can things possibly get any more bizarre with Assange? I have an idea. Let's lock Julian Assange, John McAfee and Edward Snowden in a room for a week and see who is left surviving at the end. We can call it Hunger Games - Nerd Edition (my bet's on McAfee).
Better known as 318230.
Julian Assange is expected to make his London Fashion Week debut this September.
What begins as tragedy ends as farce.
Because it's not that simple. You can't just declare your citizens diplomats. The UK would have to accept his diplomatic credentials.
“I want to highlight Julian Assange’s plight. What happened to him is totally unfair.”
He's in self-imposed exile and he made it worse on himself by running into the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place. Somebody needs to tell this twit that life is unfair, get used to it.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Haha... because "On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity" (charge #4 on the EAW, the one with the checkbox ticked for rape) is best summed up as "sex without a condom". Such a frivolity!
Come on, girls, stop this nonsense, don't you know that Assange is the awesomeest awesome that ever awesomed? So what if he waits until you're asleep to f*** you for a bit in a way that you explicitly and repeatedly prohibited while you were awake, it's not something to ruin a great man's life over - just lie back and take it!
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
Oh come on now... the guy may be a tea party-aligned rape fugitive who overrode his political party to caucus with the Neo-Nazis, gave the dictator of Belarus an advance on leaks to be used in purges against his enemies, attempted to blackmail aid agencies by threatening to release information that could get their sources killed (including Amnesty International, to the tune of $700k), makes his volunteers sign 7-figure ultra-repressive NDAs, caused the defection of most of Wikileaks's staff due to complaints from authoritarianism to diverting the organization's money to himself, writes on his blog about how he's a god to women and women's brains can't do math, made a fake op-ed in the name of one of his opponents supposedly supporting him and promoted it with a fake twitter account in his name, wanted his book to be called "Ban This Book: From Swedish Whores to Pentagon Bores", wanted it to be full of his sex stories and at one point interrupted his ghostwriter to leer at a couple of 14-year-olds before remarking that one was "fine until I saw the teeth", cyberstalked a 17 year old before he got famous, and so on down the line ad nauseum... ....that's still no reason to wish him ill.
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
Not disagreeing with the other facts you stated, but the girls did not press charges, nor did the swedish gov't - the got an extradition warrant so that they could question him. The fact that the refuse to do this via webcam, phone, letter etc and that they are doing this even though the women don't want to press charges shows that the extradition is political.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
1. "The government" does not press charges. That's the judicial branch's job, not the executive. Every figure involved in the investigation at each step, from the initial investigating officiers to the two prosecutors to each of the three Swedish courts involved and the three British courts involved, have all ruled against Assange in some way. The most pro-Assange action of all was from Eva Finne, who first after issuing a warrant way too early, cancelled the rape charges to revoke the warrant, but still left open the molestation and unlawful sexual coersion investigation (and that was before SW's victim statement was even in the computer). All other figures involved have either supported charges of (2x molestation, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x rape) or (2x molestation, 1x unlawful sexual coersion 1x rape). The latter is what currently stands against Assange on the EAW.
2. There is no "extradition warrant". There is an EAW (European Arrest Warrant). The EAW process is about surrender, not extradition. There's actually a big difference, it's more like a prisoner being passed of from one state to another in the US; EAWs also take precidence over extradition, and there's no government involvement in an EAW like there is with extradition.
3. No, the purpose of the EAW is not to question him. From the sworn statement of the prosecutor to the lower court: "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries." Under Swedish law, a person is "anklagad" to get them into custody and then "åtalad" after a question on all charges in order to begin the trial process (which must commence after being åtalad within a fixed period of time). Hence Assange must surrender in order to be åtalad, and pointing out that he hasn't been åtalad as defense of his run from the law is totally circular logic. The concept of remote questioning is a red herring; as per the sworn statement, the goal is to indict him.
4. The concept that "the women don't want to press charges" is totally unsupported by any of the evidence. First off, the women have been almost completely silent since the event. We've only heard from one of them (AA) twice, and the other not at all. The most recent of said statements by AA was a comment on a blog on an unrelated topic where she remarked that a year prior (the time of the Assange case) she was the victim of a sexual assault and her assailant never faced justice, and instead he is just praised and she gets attacked for reporting it.
From the leaked police report (leaked by someone on Assange's team, by the way - the un-trimmed version shows a hand-written letter from Ny to Björn Hurtig, Assange's attorney, telling him that this is what he requested but that it's not to be made public), we know the following additional information. 1) AA did not say she was raped, but that she was a victim of lesser crimes (this matches up with the current charges, where there are no rape charges concerning her, but three lesser charges). 2) SW told several people that she'd been raped, before she had decided to go to the police - at a minimum, at least one family member, her ex boyfriend, and AA all say that SW told them she had been raped by Assange, and there are several other people to which she described the event but it's not known whether she used the word rape. 3) SW wanted to report the rape charge but was very upset how it developed into a media circus; she mainly hoped it would end with Assange submitting to a STD test and then would be dropped (she had a long history attested to of being very paranoid about STDs, to the point that in 2 1/2 years with her ex she had never allowed unprotected sex, and even that was after doing STD tests). 4) AA went with to support SW with additional evidence from her case. 5) SW
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
It'll take way too long to go into all of the evidence that's been leaked thusfar, and it should be pointed out that there's even more that's since been collected but which hasn't leaked. But it should be enough to point out that there was a judicial hearing by the Svea Court of Appeals, brought about by appeal from Assange, which involved a full court review of all of the evidence, including testimony from Assange's attorneys, and they ruled against him on all but one charge and found probable cause of rape. And then the Swedish Supreme Court refused Assange's appeal.
If you want I can go into what's out there, but really, that right there should be enough. It's anything but a "he said / she said" case, Assange and his defense team have really painted themselves into a corner on the SW case (the rape charge). They've admitted that she was refusing unprotected sex all night, but have tried to argue that the fact that she didn't push him out when it did happen counts as consent (see his lawyer, Ben Emmerson's testimony, where he goes on that "She may not have enjoyed the experience, but she clearly consented to it" because she froze and didn't push him out). Of course, that's nonsense; a person can't get "retroactive consent"; he had no consent at the time of insertion because the only answer he had previously gotten then was "no"; also, it's flatly illegal to F* a sleeping person in Sweden anyway (they tried to counter this by arguing that she was only "half asleep" at the time of insertion, due to one statement from one of SW's friends, ignoring SW's own testimony and even that the same friend contined on that "she woke up" to him having sex with her). Nor can one treat a person going into shock and thinking (accurately) that it's already too late to present disease as "consent".
Of course, I understand why his legal team got to that point, she had a very well documented paranoia of unprotected sex (lots of testimony to it, including from her previous boyfriend) and they have testimony from friends and SMS records sent that morning when Assange sent her out to buy him food (they later ate before she went to sleep) where she's talking about how mad she is at him for keeping on trying despite her saying no all night and for bossing her around. So it would have been a real stretch for them to argue, "Nah, what are you talking about, she loves unprotected sex!"
That's just for the SW case, there's also the AA case, but that's lesser.
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!