The argument is that it is a pretense to have him detained by US-controlled country to get him sent to US without proper judicial procedure.
Basically, both UK and Sweden said it can't rule out that he is sent over to US if he's detained for this unrelated "crime".
Here's my translation of the accusation (to the best of my ability):
They were sitting in bed talking and he took off her clothes. They had sex again and she realised that he had only put the condom over the tip of his penis, but she let it pass.
They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her. She immediately asked 'Are you wearing anything?' and he replied 'You'.
She told him 'You better not have HIV' and he replied 'Of course not'. She felt it was too late, he was already in her so she let him continue, she was too tired to tell him once more, she had been nagging him about using a condom all night.
She never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her, he did not say when he would but he did. A lot leaked out of her afterwards.
She told him 'What if I get pregnant?'. He answered that Sweden is a good place to have kids. She jokingly told him that if she became pregnant he would have to pay her student loans.
On the train to Enköping he had told her that he had slept in Anna Ardins bed after a party. She asked if he had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, that she was a lesbian.
Now she knows that he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him about how many he has had sex with, he responded that he didn't keep count. He said that he had HIV tested himself 3 months earlier and that he had sex with a woman after that and that she was tested and not positive.
She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone, she believes that she was trying to de-dramatize what had happened, he in turn did not seem to care. When he was told the size of her student loans he said that if he was to pay her loans then she would have to give birth to a baby.
They joked that the child would be named Afghanistan. He also said that he ought to keep abortion-pills with him that would in reality be sugar-pills.
His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet (swedish newspaper) on tuesday at 12. She explained that he would not make it to that meeting, so he pushed his whole schedule ahead by one hour.
After that he rode a bicycle with her on the back down to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they separated he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he was going to call and he said he would.
She took the bike home, showered and changed sheets. Since she didn't make it in time for work she called in sick and stayed home. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the sheets and she thought it was disgusting. She also went by the drugstore and bought 'dagenefterpiller' (abortion pills).
After she had discussed with her friends she realized that she had been the victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd hospital and from there to Södersjukhuset (another hospital). There she was examined and also tested using a so called 'rape-kit'.
edit: the old link s no longer working, here is a working one (again it's in swedish):
Abortion pills is used to trigger an abortion, or to use the other common term, induced miscarriage.
1. Unlawful coercion
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2. Sexual molestation
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3. Sexual molestation
On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."
Can you expect somebody to hand himself voluntarily to US "judicial" system when it is known that he has bleak chances of having proper case in US court, that US routinely ignores human rights in such cases?
Can the US President give a guarantee that the Supreme Court will decide a case in a certain manner? Can the UK Prime Minister guarantee that a court case in the UK will end a certain way? Because that's what that means.
Sweden is a country with laws, and an independent judiciary. Sweden has extradition treaty with the US (as do many countries). If the USA follows a procedure, then the Swedish courts must hand someone over (and vice versa). That's what the (Swedish) law says. You're asking the Swedish government to guarantee that the Swedish courts won't decide a particular case in a particular manner.
In Canada, for example, it is illegal to kiss your sleeping wife, because (a) a kiss is a sexual act, (b) there is no de minimis exception to sexual assault, and (c) even if your wife explicitly consented in advance to being kissed while asleep, that consent ended when she fell asleep (in spite of that being the precise circumstance to which she wished to consent). (R v JA)
As another example, a man who lies about using birth control is committing a sexual assault, while a woman who lies about using birth control is not; the supreme court took the view that the possibility of becoming a mother is harmful, while the possibility of becoming a father is not. (R. v. Hutchinson)
As far as I'm aware, no other legal jurisdiction has followed Canada's example in either of these contexts.
it is illegal to kiss your sleeping wife
a man who lies about using birth control
It might be interesting to reflect on the social conditions that must have prevailed for judges to believe that this is a defensible judgement. Legal decisions usually reflect the prevailing mores in the social milieu of judges (= upper middle class).
It may be worth noting here that child support is considered to be something to which the child is entitled, regardless of to whom the money is in fact paid; there have been cases where rapists have received court-ordered child support payments from their victims.
That's only half true. The truth is that the father is entitled to pay, in the "best interests of the child". But there is no requirement in law or in practice that the mother actually spends the money on the child. Or even that she's accountable to the the father (who typically has legal rights over the child), for how any of the money is spent.
Women have been known to take sperm from a used condom and impregnate themselves. If that happened to you, you would still be liable for child support.
... which applies only to one sex. Women can have an abortion, and choose to not be a parent. Men can't. That doesn't sound like equality to me.
Western courts have held that men have absolute liability for their sperm. This includes the following situations:
* your girlfriend lies about being on the pill
* your girlfriend fishes the condom out of the garbage and impregnates herself
* your girlfriends roommate fishes the condom out of the garbage and impregnates herself
* your girlfriend impregnates herself with the leavings after giving you oral sex
* as an underage boy, you are raped by an adult woman.
The last one is surprising.
The judge said "Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities."
The admitted and convicted pedophile has full custody of a minor child, and her victim is ordered to pay the criminal money... or go to jail for non-payment of support.
I support equality. I have a hard time finding equality in the court decisions in this area.
What exactly is the point of such a law?
There is no higher court than the Supreme Court of Canada.
We're not talking lawsuits here. We're talking about criminal law, where there is no requirement for the alleged victim to feel aggrieved or even to consent to the prosecution.
If you kiss your sleeping wife, then mention this fact in passing to a police officer, you could theoretically find yourself being arrested and thrown in jail, since you confessed to a serious crime.
Modern public opinion != legal opinion. It varies wildly between jurisdictions. And what's on the law books isn't necessarily what's effectively enforced. In some jurisdictions, there is no effective way to prosecute for rape within marriage.
Whereas where I am, it's apparently legally required to continually get positive verbal consent throughout the act (as told to me by a legal student ~2 years ago), though this hasn't been tested in courts, and seems to be written to a fantasy of how humans behave; it doesn't matter how enthusiastic you are about getting consent, if you're not verbalising it constantly, then technically a crime is going on. Tough for you if you are turned off by talking during the act. Of course, take this to court and you're faced with the usual he-said/she-said problem of rape cases.
Legal definitions of rape - the definitions that count - vary considerably.
Very few countries have such laws. In most Western countries sexual intercourse without objection between two adults that are capable of consenting/objecting (no abuse of authority, no threat, no force) will not be regarded as rape.
This would be a very extreme definition of rape, because when you think about it, who would actually commit the rape if both persons did not object? Did both persons rape each other?
Legally, yes. The same applies if both persons are too intoxicated to be able to consent; and in some states without "romeo and juliet" laws, if two underage persons have sex.
Of course, it's up to prosecutors in such circumstances to decide whether to prosecute none, one, or both parties...
>>One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”
>>This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.