Lost in translation? … Assange not just ‘wanted for questioning’, but charged

2 Comments »

• Göran Rudling says:

  20 September 2012 at 9:04 am

  Much more is coming. So stay tuned.

  Göran Rudling

• Peter Aranyi says:

  20 September 2012 at 9:28 am

  OK. thanks, I will.

  At heart, your argument is:
  (1)

  There is no doubt that in Sweden Julian Assange is arrested in absentia and charged (accused of rape, unlawful coercion and two counts of sexual molestation). Julian Assange has not yet been asked to enter a plea. Saying anything else is incorrect based on an error in translation.

  (2)

  I fully understand that it is difficult for English speaking people to understand that Swedes say suspected and mean charged. The worst part is that Swedish people don’t understand it themselves.

  I’m curious to understand how your explanation of the Swedish system works in with this:

  The rape allegation was dismissed by Stockholm’s senior prosecutor Eva Finne on 25th August and Mr. Assange voluntarily attended a police station on 30th August to answer questions about these lesser charges. The dismissal of the rape allegation was appealed to Ms. Ny, a prosecutor for gender crimes in Gothenberg, and Ms. Ny upheld the appeal and reinstated it on the 1st September, appointing her the new prosecutor.

  There were offers by JA, through his lawyer Mr. Hurtig, to attend for interviews prior to his leaving Sweden on 27th September, and he offered to return on 10th October but that was not acceptable.

  from the defence documents quoted here: http://www.thepaepae.com/julian-assange-extradition-case-defence-documents/14222/

  I know you’ve made your opinion known about the defence at this point:

  The English Judges have had an intuitive understanding of the legal situation even if they were fed rubbish translations from the defence. I am very surprised that no one yet has pointed out this simple but very important error in translation. It is beyond my imagination that no one at Åklagarmyndigheten (Prosecutors’ Office) have not been able to sort this out in the two years of legal wrangling that has been going in in front of an astonished international audience.

  It is surprising, I agree.

  So… ‘suspected’ means ‘arrested’, you say, and he was ‘charged’ but not detained?

  The handling/escalation of the Julian Assange case has always struck me as less-than-straightforward. Issuing a EU arrest warrant with such haste for such charges also seem disproportionate, and implies a political agenda.

  Do you agree? If so/if not, why do you think that is?

  – P