no. okay? no.

[harborshore]

I'm ostensibly studying for a phonetics exam tomorrow. I mean I am. I just keep getting angrier in the meantime, because look, look, as a couple of smart people have said, the following three things can all be true

1. Wikileaks is doing important work (about which I am alternatingly ambivalent and appreciative, but that's neither here nor there)

2. The international warrant for this particular sexual assault case is politicized (how seriously do they usually take sexual assault crimes in my country? NOT VERY.)

3. Julian Assange raped someone.

All of these things can be true.




The rape charge that was suspiciously inserted into the case when it was reopened? Is for having sex with woman no. 1 while she was asleep. This is a rape according to Swedish law, and the fact that a DA who specializes in sexual assault cases labeled it as such is potentially related to the fact that she knows her shit. Potentially.

And the fact that people keep arguing that they're not traumatized enough, oh my fucking god, seriously? Rape and similar crimes are not required to cause trauma, that is not fucking part of their legal definition. Also, I can't tell you how many times I've met women who were raped or assaulted by an acquaintance who said "well, he's a good guy, really" and weren't ostensibly scared of the perpetrator even as the stories they told were of sex against their consent. Holy fucking victim-blaming, please cut it out.

Similarly, what's with everyone being suspicious of them only reporting it when they found each other? "Obviously they are women scorned"? Really? What about "It's not just me" and "I'm not crazy, there was something weird about that, what happened was not okay"?

Comments

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

ahahahahaha YES. infinitely more likely, in fact. and the fact that one DA (male) dismissed the case and then the female DA who specializes in sexual assault picked it up--surely that is also a sign of conspiracy? no?