Julian Assange, wikileaks and these rape claims

[sherby]

I have just read the basis of the two rape claims against him.

How is it possible to issue a warrant for rape charges against him? Even going by the womens statements it isn't rape, there is no 'non-consensual' sex.

Am I missing something here or does it stink to high heaven?

Kitty - lol @ the bubble wrap!!!!

Claig- lawyers queue up to get involved because it's a bit of an unknown quantity and test cases are how you make your name as a lawyer .......oh and also they get paid!!

They are the political equivalent of ambulance chasers!

Bagged. If it was real, they wouldn't get involved, they're publicists but they aren't stupid. That is the myth they sell to lefties, that it is the State vs Assange, and that lefty lawyers are defenders of justice. People like Taleb tell lefties that we are now in a "bottom up" world, no longer a "top down" State controlled world. That is another myth that lefties want to believe, as lots of air time is given to it on BBC Newsnight and the earnest talking heads discuss the implications. It is theatre for the naive.

Interesting interview with Helena Kennedy on PM. She pointed out that he was questioned when the allegations first were made (in August?). He wasn't charged. Recently though a request was made to a prosecutor in another town which was granted for an arrest warrant.

nb: didn't realize before, but Helena Kennedy is representing him.

claig, what are you on about ? lefty this lefty that, lefties under the bed.

Update from the Guardian.

so he's a hacker who's leaking govt documents to inflate his rather large ego. Even though the documents aren't that interesting.

Like many males in history, he's using his position as leader of a cult organization to attract women, thus further inflating the ego.

He sounds like a bit of a boring, egotistical sexual predator. Interesting that all the articles proclaiming "honey trap" are written by men, with no insight into how women of sexual assault behave; particularly when assaulted by men in positions of power.

I'm a little confused by the allegations. From what I read in The Guardian, the sex was consensual but the grievance is that the women asked him to use condoms but he didn't. I think that's the case, isn't it? Also, it stated that the women asked Assange to get a HIV test and if he got one, they wouldn't report him to the police for not using a condom. He declined to get tested so they reported him.

Imagine being raped but trying to strike a deal with your rapist that if he gets an HIV test, you will not tell the police. It smacks of dodginess to me. Is it that under Swedish law, sex without a condom is classed as rape and I am missing the point?

look at it this way: you're desperate for him to get an HIV test because you're worried sick he might have given you HIV, as you know he sleeps around massively without condoms so there is a fair chance he might have it. You are going to be condemned to months of worrying if he refuses to take it. (It used to be that to be certain, you had to take another test a few months after exposure - don't know if this is still the case.) And threatening to go to the police is the only way you can think of to get him to go and have that test.

If you consent to sex with a condom and he shags you without a condom, I would not say the sex is still consensual; there has been an argument about this on another thread somewhere (or earlier on this one?). It's not that Swedish law specifically says anything about rape and condoms.

A lot of women who are raped take a while to come to the conclusion that that is what happened; they start off thinking of it as bad sex until someone says, or they think 'hang on a minute, I did actually tell him I didn't want to, and he did actually force me - shit, that's rape isn't it?'

so rape victims often don't behave in the way society expects them to.

I thought there was the ring of truth in their stories, personally; it seemed consistent with the way women in that situation often behave.

what I mean re the test is that you can take one yourself, but the only way you can be immediately certain you are have not contracted it is if he takes one.

I don't think that the two women are making it up, I'm just unclear about what the boundaries are wrt not using protection when it has been specifically requested that some is used actually qualifying as rape. It would piss most women off no end if a man deceived them about using a condom, for obvious reasons. I was just a bit iffy about the rape word being bandied about as if it's more of a case of blurred boundaries, the rape thing is hard to shake off for an accused attacker.

Totally agree with what you say about it taking a while for some women to conclude that that is what happened, sethstar. I've never, ever spoken about this before but it happened to me when I was 15. But because it wasn't rape like you would see in a film or on tv, I didn't consider it to be. But I said "no". I even went out with the person for a few weeks afterwards but I felt weird about it the whole time. I told my "best friend" at the time who fell out with me because she thought I was falsely crying rape, just because I didn't fight him off, or have bruises afterwards and because I didn't avoid the person afterwards.

I saw an article the other day that had lenghty detail of the charges. It said IIRC that with the not using a condom thing, he had held her down. And that the other woman he had sex with her while she was asleep, when she woke she asked him to stop etc, and that they had had consensual sex with a condom but while she was asleep he penetrated her without one.

I will try and find the link. The defence team are putting about a lot of rape myths (they had had consensual sex before so it couldn't be rape, they didn't go to the police immediately etc) and these things do a lot of damage as women do not behave in the way "people" might expect when they are raped.

I think if you're making it clear that you do not want the sex-without-a-condom but they force you to do it anyway, the fact that you have already consented to sex-with-a-condom is irrelevant.

In the statements in the Guardian the women say 1. he used physical force in the case of Miss A (pinning legs, holding arms) and 2. he started to shag Miss W when she was asleep, without a condom, even though she had made it clear the night before that she would not consent to sex without a condom.

So there is plenty to justify rape charges.

So sorry to hear what happened to you Bupcakes. I am constantly shocked by how many women have had this done to them. What is wrong with these men ffs?

x-posts ISNT.

full details here

What brilliant posts from SGB.

I was utterly staggered by his arrogant posturing when released on bail.

What an utter tool that man is.

And this wikileaks scandal will, in years to come, seem as important as the Matrix Churchill affair in the 80s. As in, not impirtant at all, but makes a lot of noise at the time.

Yes that's the one. The asleep woman didn't say no according to that (before anyone jumps on me!) but she was asleep and he knew that she wouldn't have sex without a condom so that's not good.

Not good at all. He claims the women were going to the police for advice. WTF? And "they got into a tizzy".

He was on R4 this morning. He seemed to suggest the women went to the police for STD advice (to see if they could force him to take a test).

Based on the Guardian article, and on what I heard this morning - he seems a total creep, and the two women appear a bit dim, with esteem issues.

Bless him - he's very into leaks and more than happy with his high profile but not so keen on people giving information on him.

What's good for the goose etc.....

He's now threatening that he can bring down a bank. For some reason he thinks that no-one should be able to bring him down in a court of law and that Sweden is a banana state.

I don't know what happened with Assange and the two women in question but all can see that Sweden is pursuing him with singular zeal. Without any charges. After having dismissed the idea of prosecution back in August. On the back of allegations of rough sex and Assange having not used a condom when told to use one. (There must be hundreds of allegations of such "gravity". How many of them are searched by Interpol? )

Does that make Sweden a "banana state"? Or just one that has something to lose if it pisses off the world's only superpower?

Similarly, are VISA and MASTERCARD "banana" corporations?

No - and the entire thing - what are they fighting about now?

Transparency? All very well and good but it also applies to Assange.

The accusations and the progress of them do sound bizzare but if I were him I'd go and clear my name. If he's hiding out and just hurling accusations at the rest of the world it does him no favours.

When I heard about Assange's exploits in Sweden ) I was reminded of other men I've met who campaign on human rights.

IMO:
These men find themselves surrounded by bright young idealistic women who are attracted by the human rights work and the men take advantage of this. (Like power HR seems to be quite an aphrodisiac).

I knew someone who was always going on about his work in the US civil rights movement and his impeccable HR record. Yet he kept an Excel spreadsheet listing potential girlfriends and their attributes and childbearing ability.

Another one I knew would get all the young women to organise HR conferences for him (he got the glory) and sleep with all of them (unbeknown) to them all.

House arrest is hardly "hiding out".

And he has already been to Sweden "to clear his name" when Swedish authorities decided not to prosecute. Then some months pass and he is on Interpol fugitives list

Again, I don't know what he did and didn't do with those girls, but that fact is that this is a relatively minor "crime", for which he is not even charged, hardly meriting the international resources committed to keeping him under lock and key.

There is something very fishy here and it would be a mistake to see it just as a normal man being persecuted for a usual crime in the usual way.