How on earth has Julian assange been arbitrarily held??

[StealthPolarBear]

Surely if you choose to resist arrest in this way then it is your choice?
Glad rhe police continue to say he will be arrested.

I'm 100% against rape and will fight for any woman who has been raped but this isn't what I would call rape, sorry.

What you would call rape is entirely irrelevant. The Swedish and English legal systems call this rape and Julian Assange is not above the law.

Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night.

Miss A made a series of calls to him asking him to persuade Assange to take an STD test to reassure Miss W, and that Assange refused. Miss A then warned if Assange did not take a test, Miss W would go to the police.

From The Guardian.

As I said - Consensual sex where she has not once said "no" to him and she went to the police because he didn't go for an STD test.

He does sound like a jerk and an asshole but calling this 'rape' makes a mockery of the horror that rape is, imho.

The comments from the judges that I posted are 5 years old. There are no 'new claims'. It has always been about lack of consent.

I may be totally wrong, but I was under the impression that the women have never actually accused him of rape; they went to the police because they wanted him to tested for STDs.

Can someone confirm that the women accused him of rape as opposed to Swedish prosecutors charging him independently of what the women have said?

"I was under the impression that the women have never actually accused him of rape; they went to the police because they wanted him to tested for STDs"

Yes, exactly. See my Guardian link below.

It has somehow turned into it being called rape and I don't quite understand how that happened.

The women went to the police and the police investigated.

The prosecutors accused JA of rape because they believe his alleged actions constitute the offence of rape in Swedish (and English) law.

Homeriliad they can't be charged 'independently' of what the women have said They can take statements and judge that those statements describe incidents that constitute an offence.

Anyway I'm happy for JA and the woman involved to answer all those questions through due legal process, and for the legal system to make a decision on what happened. In the meantime, I'm also happy to trust the judgement of the three UK judges that I quoted above.

Oh, and if you are interested in reading the process of how the case progressed then there are lots of articles online. I'm not going to link to them here because tbh some of the descriptions of what allegedly occured between the women and JA may be triggering.

Cote - there were two charges originally. The sexual assault charge has been too long now, he's hidden long enough for that to go away. There was also a rape case, which has a longer time limit for a prosecution of 2020, so if he hides for another 4 years, that goes away too. I think the condom/lack there of was the sexual assault charge, but the actual rape charge related to having sex with a woman who was asleep.

"the actual rape charge related to having sex with a woman who was asleep."

He has started touching her while she was asleep. Obviously she woke up as things progressed and was an active and willing participant in the whole thing thereafter. She could have said 'no' at any point. She didn't. She also says in her sworn statement that she woke up early on and was awake during the sex and that she did not say 'no' and/or push him away.

If this is rape, then all of my past partners and DH are rapists. I am an incorrigible rapist too, since I am a repeat offender of having initiated sex while various sexual partners were sleeping and enjoyed it thoroughly, if I may say so myself.

I would like to understand this rape charge but frankly don't, especially since the girls themselves have said the sex was consensual.

A conspiracy theorist than might believe the escalation to rape charges were orchestrated to discredit JA, if not to lure him back to Sweden where he can be extradited or manage to kill 'himself' in mysterious circumstances. (The story has managed to discredit him, though (just look at this thread) so offing him would probably not be necessary but anyway.)

She had awoken to find him having sex with her

In UK law if she was asleep or unconscious at the time of penetration it is assumed that she did not consent and he did not reasonably believe she consented. It is then up to him to prove that, despite being asleep, she consented or he reasonably believed she did. Also he knew her consent was conditional on wearing a condom but chose not to wear one.

So at the time of penetration she was asleep and he was not using a condom despite being aware that she would only consent to sex if he was wearing one. I do not know how you define that as consensual sex. It isn't. It is rape.

Cote - Ched Evans' victim went to the police to report her phone stolen, it's perfectly normal for woman who have been victim of rape to not always view what happened to them as rape until someone points out it wasn't just a crap sexual experience but non-consentual, and therefore rape. It may well be the case that in many countries, what Assange did wouldn't be classed as rape, if it's the case in Sweden, then unfortunately, it could be yet another a case of a foreigner expecting local laws to mirror their own country's so accidentally breaking the law.

If it isn't the case that his behaviour would be classed as rape in Sweden, then he'll be found not guilty. It's not a given he would be, and as others said up thread, if the US wanted to extridite him, it would have to go via the UK anyway (getting him send back here from Sweden then on to the US) given the type of warret Sweden have, so he'd be no more likely of extridition to the US than he would have been if this case was never brought. (plus, let's be honest, the UK was always more likely to say yes to sending him to the US for trial re Wikileaks than any other European country, it's insane that he felt safer here than anywhere else in Europe given our willingness to say yes to America)

Reading what you have posted from the Guardian Cote, of course he raped her.

She repeatedly told him not to have sex with her without a condom, the previous evening. He knew this but penetrated her, while she was asleep, without a condom.

He knew he did not have consent to have sex with her without a condom! If that isn't rape I don't know what is!

The story has managed to discredit him
I can safely say that the rape allegation hasn't managed to discredit him. I didn't ever 'credit' JA as a person - admiring his work is different from crediting him. What has discredited him as an honourable and just human being in my eyes is:

1. the extreme lengths he has gone to, to avoid answering questions on the allegations and facing justice
2. the incredible delusion of asking a country to pay him compensation because they have the temerity to follow their legal system and the extradition agreements in place
3. his willingness to encourage a nationwide 'doubt' of alleged rape victims to further his own ego - his supporters are quite often rape apologists
4. the dissemination of complete nonsense about the charges, about the legal system in Sweden and the UK; and about the extradition process in the hope of mobilising public opinion in his favour
5. the fact that he was perfectly happy for Wikileaks' sources to be hounded, for them to be imprisoned but that he isn't willing to stand up for his principles - he's only willing to cash in on them
6. that he let his friends stand bail for him and then he absconded knowing they would be left out of pocket

I have no idea what happened between Assange and the women involved. I have no idea if he would be found guilty if it ever went to court and I also have no idea if he will ever be extradited to the US. But Assange's actions have shown him to be at least a vainglorious coward with no respect for women, friendship, principles or the law.

plus, let's be honest, the UK was always more likely to say yes to sending him to the US for trial re Wikileaks than any other European country, it's insane that he felt safer here than anywhere else in Europe given our willingness to say yes to America

Not a given, as Gary McKinnon can testify. Even the Home Secretary has to abide by the Supreme Court, and if Assange were to face extradition to the US, you can bet your life he'd take it that far.

Of course, given the current Home Secretaries deep dislike of courts and rulings, what might happen in the future is less certain.

However, an objective look at the situation suggests that Assanges best chance of avoiding this hypothetical extradition to the US would be to engage with the legal system, rather than placing himself outside it.

Given that he has fled a real charge with some spurious fear of an entirely hypothetical extradition, it's hard not to draw the conclusion he's more afraid of the concrete than the abstract. I don't care what he says. His actions speak volumes.

As I said upthread, regardless of the nature of the Swedish charges - even if they are dropped because of limitations - the UK has no such concept. Asssange will forever be guilty of failing to surrender (which is I believe the correct offence) and will always face 2 years in jail for that.

Those of us with long enough memories will remember the sickening sight of the Libyans filing out of their embassy in the 1980s after the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. Anyone who thinks Assange will be afforded the same "privilege" is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Cote, I'm quite surprised at your stance on this.

Correct judicial process has been followed with respect to the rape and sexual assault charges, in that Sweden sought and obtained a European arrest warrant and the UK then tested and upheld that in its court. Therefore both jurisdictions are satisfied that there is sufficient case for an arrest. It's not up to us to judge that point.

Whether the arrest would lead ultimately to a court case or a conviction is unknown as yet, but that everyone is conspiring to get JA to Sweden on behalf of the US makes no sense, as noted above.

If I mention to a police officer that my boyfriend started having sex with me whilst I was asleep without prior agreement, the police might decide that it wasn't in the public interest to proceed. But it wouldn't negate the point that I was penetrated when I did not have the capacity to consent, which meets the legal definition of rape.

Additionally, the woman had made it clear that a condition of her consent was condom use. Again, this condition was breached without her knowledge.

"If I mention to a police officer that my boyfriend started having sex with me whilst I was asleep without prior agreement, the police might decide that it wasn't in the public interest to proceed. But it wouldn't negate the point that I was penetrated when I did not have the capacity to consent, which meets the legal definition of rape."

'Started having sex' does not mean 'penis in vagina' though. My understanding is that sex starts a long time before that in most cases.

I didn't get the impression that she was sound asleep when he entered her. 'Started having sex' can mean caressing, kissing, rubbing etc. How deep does her sleep have to be to not notice it when someone moves her body into position, opens her legs, mounts her (?), finds the vaginal opening, moves apart the lips and enters penis into vagina?

If a man manages to do all of the above (for example, if the victim has passed out and only comes to her senses with a man actually inside her) then yes, that is rape. I didn't read anything in her testimony to suggest that she had passed out, though.

If she woke up during the initial preludes of kissing & touching, and went along with it, then no, it's not rape imho.

To me, "started having sex" means penetration. No doubt the police officer would clarify what I meant though in my hypothetical scenario, hmm?

However, from your post, Cote:

"She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "

As she asked re condom, I think it's safe to assume he was inside her! However, this is exactly the sort of thing that should be tested in court rather than drawing conclusions from a guardian article.

And there have been plenty of women who have posted on MN who have slept through their DP achieving penetration, whatever your own opinion about "deep slept"

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this. I sincerely believe that saying rape = not wearing a condom when you previously said you wanted one trivialises the brutal torture (physical and mental) on rape victims.

A link to a French article about gang rape? Wow, Cote. This isn't like you.

Here's another woman who woke up to find a man on top of her (and presumably inside her, given the charge was rape)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360801/Haydor-Khan-cleared-rape-climbing-wrong-bed.html

"To me, "started having sex" means penetration"

Yeah, well, that's too bad for you

More seriously, I am very reluctant to cry 'rape' in the case of two people who have had sex the night before and were sleeping in the same bed, where one initiated sex and the other went along with it, not saying 'no' or pushing away at any point.

It doesn't trivialise rape, cote. The rape you have linked to would have many aggravating factors as well, probably Bodily harm, unwanted detainment, conspiracy to rape etc.

So you're with George Galloway - it's bad sexual etiquette?