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 was just reading that article on Facebook, where a friend posted it. What seems to be the problem Seuss?

"I told him to wear a condom and he didn't during our consensual sex" is not quite what I understand from rape. Bakeoff said if that's not rape she doesn't know what is, and I thought I'd provide an example.

Please stop saying "I'm surprised", "this isn't like you", etc as if you know me well. Thank you.

I think it's fuckwittery. He sounds like a complete asshole.

But no, it's not what I would call rape. That is not when two people who have had consensual sex the night before and slept in the same bed have sex again in the morning and she doesn't say "no" at any point.

We've both posted on here a lot, Cote. Hence surprise. Happy to cease saying it as you've requested, though.

We get it, Cote. Your definition of rape and the definition used in English (and Swedish) law are different. Fortunately, what you personally consider to be rape is not relevant to this case.

I agree with your last post NotDavid

Cote - perhaps it would be easier for you to stop thinking about the name of the crime? Because you seem to have a strong view of what is meant by rape and consent. Perhaps view it as this - he has commited an act that while in many countries wouldn't be illegal, and many people wouldn't consider to be wrong, in the country he was in at the time, was against the law.

Assanges alledged action do constitute rape in UK law, the five judges who heard his appeal made a point of saying so but it really doesn't have any relevance to, well anything, really. When you're in Sweden, Swedish law applies.

I'm horrified that so many people are happy to state with absolute conviction what happened, particularly those who don't read a word of Swedish so don't have any chance whatsoever of having read the complaint themselves. I don't understand why a man who claims to have such a watertight case isn't falling over himself to get court to prove his innocence.

I don't understand why a man who claims to have such a watertight case isn't falling over himself to get court to prove his innocence.

This. We can infer much from his actions.

I'm horrified that so many people are happy to state with absolute conviction what happened,

Just for the record I'm not in that camp. Furthermore, at the time, I was posting on forums, stating my belief that Assange would find a way not to appear in court, and that he would skip bail (although, obviously I didn't know how). (Google is a wonderful thing). I wasn't alone, but in a quiet minority, who were SHOUTED DOWN by the all caps brigade who were convinced of his "innocence" and insisted he had been granted bail because* he was trustworthy.

Well, sorry UK law, but the fact that a sizeable proportion of internet posters warned you Assange would abscond, when pitted against your insistence that the bail conditions were satisfactory look a little bit ... crap ... when you reflect that he did skip bail, and we are having this discussion in 2016.

*"innocent" in dog-ears, as anyone who behaves as Assange has done has also lost the presumption of innocence. This is real life in the UK, not a Alexander Dumas novel.

Why? Possibly because he believes the US is out to get him and that he might end up in Guantanamo.

Is US out to get him? Yes, most certainly.

Is that why Sweden is going for him? Probably not?

Would I take that chance in his place? Probably not.

How many people in the history of the world have been prosecuted for initiating sex with a sleeping person they had consensual sex with some hours before? Has there even been 1?

Would I find that suspicious if my life depended on it? Probably.

Is US out to get him? Yes, most certainly.

Proof ? Have they issued a valid arrest warrant ? Have they taken any legal steps to prosecute him in the US.

You may refer to Gary McKinnon in your answer.

if my life depended on it?

UK/EU law would not allow Assange to be extradited for a capital offence, and if the charges were serious enough that the death penalty applied, then the US would be required to give an undertaking that it would not be available to the court that tried Assange.

If there is a reluctance on the part of the US to formally prosecute Assange, this may be a factor. There have been a few high-profile (in the US) cases where criminals have fled to Canada which (like the UK) cannot extradite in capital cases. This has led to some ill-will, as the US argues it's criminal justice system should not be restrained by foreign interference.

There was a paedophile arrested in the UK under an extradition request from the US. The extradition was denied, as the court held detention in a US supermax prison was contrary to the defendants rights under the ECHR.

"You may refer to Gary McKinnon in your answer."

I may? Thanks, that's generous of you

I'm happy to oblige: Gary McKinnon's extradition to the US was blocked in the end because he was considered "seriously ill" (with Asperger's Syndrome). Without that very flimsy excuse, he would have been handed over by UK authorities, and that despite the fact that he is a British citizen.

Asange doesn't have British citizenship, any health excuse, or any sympathy à la McKinnon from UK government. It is understandable that he feels there is a notable chance UK might extradite him to the UK.

My point still stands. The fiction that any US request for extradition is a slam-dunk is bunk.

And Assanges "defence" is still marred by the stubbornness of the US authorities to issue any form of extradition request. Despite their alleged desire to "get Assange" (© Julian Assange 2011-2016) the US has shown remarkable restraint or disinterest in actually trying.

It's hilarious seeing the Assange bandwagon trying to portray his self-imposed detention as a blow for freedom. I am reminded of Stewart Lees comments* about protesting about poor hotel service by shitting the bed. Yes, you will have made a protest. But you still have to sleep in a shitted bed.

*In SLCVS3 "Shilbottle" there's one of the best Assange putdowns I have ever heard :

Stewart: "It's very easy to use words and logic to make someone look like they're selfish, simply because they've expressed a position that could be interpreted as that."

Chris: "That's what Julian Assange says."

Stewart: "I bet he does."

If he feels under threat from the UK, going to Sweden would surely be a shrewd move. If arrested, questioned and released, he wouldn't then be obliged to return to the UK, I don't think (unless the skipping bail charge justifies a reverse EU warrant)

If he feels under threat from the UK, going to Sweden would surely be a shrewd move. If arrested, questioned and released, he wouldn't then be obliged to return to the UK, I don't think (unless the skipping bail charge justifies a reverse EU warrant)

The problem with that is he has to answer the bail-skipping first. That's 2 years thank you very much. Then it's onto Sweden. Unless the UK has a reciprocal arrangement with Sweden that JA could serve his time there. While being interviewed under arrest by Swedish police.

Honestly, you can't polish a turd. JA is a turd. No matter what spin his fan club put on his situation (I dislike the word "predicament", it dilutes JAs actions) he has behaved like a prize knob, not the saviour of the free world.

The whole sorry story has acted like a loon-magnet, with all sorts of tinfoil hat conspiracists emerging from the internet woodwork.

How many people in the history of the world have been prosecuted for initiating sex with a sleeping person they had consensual sex with some hours before? Has there even been 1?

You could start with Magnus Meyer Hustveit. He was not just prosecuted. He was convicted. This particular case was in Ireland but he is not the only person convicted in this way.

Consenting to sex with someone on one occasion does not mean you consent to sex with them again, even if it is only a few hours later. And you keep glossing over the fact that he knew her consent was conditional on him using a condom but he chose not to comply. He had sex with a woman who was asleep and hence unable to consent. He knew she did not consent to sex without a condom but nonetheless had sex with her without using a condom. Whether or not she said no when she woke up is irrelevant.

Regardless of whether or not you think it is rape the law is clear. Assange appears to agree that he had penetrated this woman while she was asleep and that he did not use a condom even though he knew her consent was conditional on condom usage. He does not appear to dispute any of this. He simply argues that this should not be regarded as rape. Unfortunately for him it is regarded as rape. In this instance I think the law is right and he is wrong.

• Just because I consented to sex with you last night does not mean I consent to sex with you this morning

• Just because I consented to sex with you last night does not mean I consent to being penetrated while I am asleep

• If I say that I consent provided condoms are used that means I do not consent to sex without condoms

Whereas your view seems to be:

• You consented to sex with me last night therefore you consent to sex with me this morning

• You consented to sex with me last night therefore you consent to being penetrated while you are asleep

• You consented providing condoms are used therefore you consent to sex without condoms

Speaking for myself I am pleased that the law does not agree with you.

Just to save people looking it up, Magnus Meyer Hustveit admitted repeatedly having sex with his then girlfriend while she was asleep, often while she was also under the influence of medication. Since they were living together at the time one assumes they also had consensual sex at other times. He was convicted of rape.

Personally, I am finding the repeated discussion of the merits of JAs indictment insulting to not only the UK and Swedish legal systems, but to all victims of sexual assault everywhere. I guess it's the price of freedom of speech.

No amount of discussing JAs situation - in however minute detail - will change some basic facts.

I agree with prh47 and find that this illustration by Alli Kirkham from Everyday Feminism is interesting. Why is sexual consent seen differently to consent to other things in our daily lives? I strongly feel that the discussion of consent needs to be had louder and clearer with men and women.

The JA situation gives me the rage.....his unfounded rhetoric about the US extradition is nothing but a smoke screen for evading the Swedish Judiciary.

He demonstrated last week he will only act when he knows what the outcome will be, he would not have said he would leave the embassy if he did not know the report outcome. By that logic this is why he will not surrender himself to Swedish extradition as he knows what the outcome will be. (I am guessing here that his legal team will advise him truthfully of his chances regardless of what they argue!)

JA comes across to me as having some kind of personality disorder. He doesn't seem to admit the possibility that he has made a mistake, even in the face of irrefutable evidence, and that the normal rules of due process do not apply to him. I don't think that he has many supporters left and the few he does have are disproportionately vocal on social media.

Thank you for that great summary prh

How many people in the history of the world have been prosecuted for initiating sex with a sleeping person they had consensual sex with some hours before? Has there even been 1?

Not nearly enough. There’s currently a thread elsewhere on MN about a women whose husband is initiating sexual contact while she is asleep. If you can manage to read that woman’s description of the way in which she is being violated without your toes curling and your stomach churning, you’re a harder woman than me. Anyone who thinks for a second that her personal integrity isn’t being violated has serious issues around respect and consent and would do well to absence themselves from all things sexual.

Many Assange apologists try to suggest that the Swedes are creating some crazy Orwellian nightmare where a poor man just wouldn’t know where to put his penis but actually it’s really easy to establish if a potential sexual partner is conscious or has changed their mind about condom usage.

Cote For someone who so vehemently protests profound and unwavering support for rape victims, you have a deeply disturbing way of going about it.

Your (presumably meant 'sardonically') retorts vis what you refer to as 'morning sex' along the lines of 'Well I'm a regular offender and a happy one to boot' very offensively trivialises the topic under discussion.

Worse, your retort determination to 'prove' that you are right about 'rape' to the point that you posted that deeply triggering article with no warning is just inexcusable. Quite literally, inexcusable. From anyone. But from someone who so assuredly asserts their support for all victims of rape, it is not just inexcusable but deeply deeply offensive. May I suggest that when your 'I say/you say' fest is over, you consider asking for your 'THIS IS RAPE' post to be deleted? And if you do not, then please cease the so so solid assertions of being behind every woman as for this woman as they do not stand up to scrutiny. And yes I know what rape is and what rape looks like and no, I do not appreciate the grandstanding gesture that has led to some quite vicious triggering. And no, you weren't 'behind me' or 'beside me' but culpable.

The above aside - although is a fucking enormous set-aside - I am another who is glad that whatever Cote may 'think', those views are irrelevant in the face of what the law says.

And I write the above in the context of the more serious discussions (in tone, contents, just everything) that are now on this thread vs. the more flippant nature of it previously (not that ANYONE was flippant about rape, but rather with incredulity at JA and the laughability of his actions vis the Ecuadorian Embassy - to precis, part B of this thread is very different to part A).

Heartbreakingly, I feel the need - based on the combative tone of your posts above - to overtly flag that before you refer to my own post & it's contents (vis his imposing himself on them/how was he behaving in the context of MN etiquette etc) and then somehow try to diminish the impact you have inflicted via the above or the inappropriateness of your 'sardonic' 'I am a serial rapist & proud of it' type response to another poster.

Victim blaming I think it's called - that is what I am trying to pre-emptively protect myself from.

LadyStoic - Thank you for pointing out that link may be a surprise trigger. I would not have thought that anyone likely to be triggered would click on a link titled "this is rape", but you may be right so I asked MNHQ to delete it.

The aggressive and nasty tone of your posts aside, you can see downtrend that I have said actual penetration during sleep would be rape, but that I had not understood that from "started having sex", since sex doesn't start with penetration ime but hands under shirts, kissing, etc. That was the context of the "I'm a repeat offender" post which you have found flippant and rage-worthy.

Anyway it's an emotive subject and I understand your angry posts but just wanted to clear a misunderstanding.