> This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process.
Rather, it is instead a textbook example of how public figures that are supported by a group suddenly become incapable of fault.
Instead of letting the legal system of Sweden play out (you know, like Snowden had been trying to fight for with his leaks against the FISA Court), Assange's supporters simply declare that this is some vast world conspiracy against Assange, or that it wasn't really "rape" anyways, and even much more misogynistic things.
In addition all the contradictory evidence against that hypothesis simply gets glossed over. E.g. the extradition thing makes no sense, and never made any sense. Assange was being processed through courts in the U.K. while avoiding Swedish justice, and the U.K. is hardly knowing for making it difficult to extradite suspects to the U.S.!
If Assange was worried about extradition to the U.S. he should have fled from the U.K. ASAP. Given that wasn't what he did, he must have been more worried about something different (perhaps the veracity of the charges of which he was accused?). And either way, as mentioned in a sibling comment, the U.S. would actually have to charge him with something for extradition to apply, and those charges would have to come within the statute of limitations (and perhaps even within a shorter timeframe for whatever country Assange flees to).
> that it wasn't really "rape" anyways, and even much more misogynistic things
If I claim that I don't think that Assange raped anyone, I am now a misogynist? That seems like an extreme view, unless I'm missing something...
That said, I think that Assange's publicity seems like it plays a part into why this is being pursued. There doesn't even need to be nefarious pressure from the USA for that to be true.
I assume that he's referring to attack articles like this one:
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20111016,01.shtml
which is pretty indefensible even if you subscribe to the view that the allegations are (i) completely false or (ii) have some basis in truth but are in fact the result of a disagreement between adults that doesn't make him legally or morally guilty of rape.
I think Sweden has a general policy of pursuing alleged rapists even when they aren't public figures. The UK have undoubtedly spent far more time and effort pursuing him than they would for a non-public figure, but that's because non-public figures are unlikely to have the ability to claim asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy.
> I think Sweden has a general policy of pursuing alleged rapists even when they aren't public figures.
It doesn't even have to be at the government level. Maybe he did rape her, but she only came forward after seeing him in the media. This would still be his publicity playing into it. Also, his publicity make it easy for Swedish authorities to know where he is to pursue him.
> Maybe he did rape her, but she only came forward after seeing him in the media.
If the idea of an HN user saying that the charges are B.S. because a rape victim didn't file them until she found out he was a public figure doesn't fully demonstrate my point about misogyny, I can't imagine what would.
P.S. He was a public figure even before 2010, btw.
"AW", the one who claims' equal a rape offense (#4), says she was initially attracted to him through his being a public figure. From the most detailed account I've come across, including excepts of the summaries of the plaintiffs' statements from the London High Court (warning, they're fairly explicit and his alleged behavior is disgusting: http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-... ):
"In her statement SW said that she had been captivated by Mr Assange when she had seen him in a TV interview. She had attended a lunch with him and others on 14 August 2010. He had flirted with her over lunch...."
You seem to have misread what I posted. Let's break down what I said:
> That said, I think that Assange's publicity seems like it plays a part into why this is being pursued. There doesn't even need to be nefarious pressure from the USA for that to be true.
(I'm not heavily invested in the Assange situation, and I don't spend hours pouring over all publicly available material on the matter, so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here.)
I said this because it seemed like a few things could be true:
1. The woman could have come forward due to the extra publicity that Assange was getting at the time [ If I remember correctly, this happened around the time the Wikileaks was publishing the leaked diplomatic communications. ] Note, that this says nothing about whether or not he actually raped her, nor does it say anything about whether or not he should stand trial for said rape.
2. The Swedish government could have been pursuing the case extra hard because he was a public figure. [ Maybe I'm cynical, but I feel like authorities may not pursue a case that hard after the suspect has fled the country. Especially if it's "only rape" rather than something sexy like "terrorism" that will get them a promotion. ]
3. The publicity surrounding Assange makes him easier to find abroad, unlike someone with less of a profile, who might be more difficult to find for extradition.
> It doesn't even have to be at the government level. Maybe he did rape her, but she only came forward after seeing him in the media. This would still be his publicity playing into it. Also, his publicity make it easy for Swedish authorities to know where he is to pursue him.
In response to @notahacker saying:
> think Sweden has a general policy of pursuing alleged rapists even when they aren't public figures.
This plays back to those original 3 points.
How does any of this make me a mysogynist? At no point do I express an opinion on:
- The veracity of the woman's claims
- If Assange should go to Sweden to sort out this issue / stand trial.
Just because a woman doesn't come forward right away does not prove that she was not raped, nor does it prove that she has some nefarious purpose.
Processing him through UK courts is hardly evidence of US non-involvement. If the NSA and GCHQ have taught us nothing, it's that each will do the other's bidding in an effort to get around pesky restrictive laws.
I'm not commenting on the strength of the rape allegations, just that the US can easily get to someone via the UK without ever needing to formally start extradition proceedings.
As far as I know he's not staying in the UK. He's staying in Ecuador. He just can't leave Ecuador (actually its embassy) because he's surrounded by the UK, both at land and air.
As people have pointed out below, this is a myth. An embassy is not sovereign. It is on British soil and under British law. The reason embassies are not raided is diplomatic politeness. If it is was someone the US/UK really cared about they would be whisked away in the blink of an eye.
According to Wikipedia: "[...] the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) [...] and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country"
I'm not a lawyer so that's as far as I know :) Seems applicable to this situation.
But people suggest (as an alternative) that Assange could stand trial / answer questions in the UK, implying that it's Sweden he doesn't want to go to. Which doesn't make sense. Why would he stay in the UK while the appeals to the UK Supreme Court were going ahead?
AFAIK the more immediate concern is that on arrival in Sweden he may be held in solitary confinement (including no internet) for some significant time (months at least like the Pirate Bay guy was) without charge.
Given the crime he is accused of is, unless i am mistaken, having consensual sex but during the act the condom broke, there's not a lot of rationality in this entire thing.
IIRC, one of the accusations was having sex with no condom at all even though consent had been conditional on using a condom, but had nothing to do with a broken condom.
"[...] what is alleged here is that Mr Assange 'deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state'"
"It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did."
Here's the allegation in English:
"4. Rape
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."
I'll take another leap on a very thin branch and ask: did she consent to sex before she went to bed? "it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used" sure makes it sound like she did.
If so, I see two possible cases here:
1) He forced himself into her before she could even wake - a very aggressive thing to do to anyone whether or not they've consented. Then it's definitely rape without any doubt.
2) He cajoled her while she was half asleep and started having sex with her in a way that she would have consented to had he been wearing a condom.
If 2, the point where it becomes rape is when she realises he doesn't have a condom and yet he continues despite her protestations. If she never realised he didn't wear a condom, then it's not rape. It's an evil and possibly criminal thing to do, but it's not "forcing someone to have sex against their will".
For the record, I think either action makes Julian Assange a total asshole, and quite possibly someone who should go to jail. But unless he actually committed rape I don't see who it helps to call him a rapist.
Read all four of the offenses (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf). Your option 2) seems very unlikely for offense 4, of rape, when you look at the language of offense 2, which is very close to your option 2). Here are the first 3:
"1. On 13th – 14th 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. On 13th – 14th 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. On 18th 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."
You can also see why there were initially two allegations of rape....
Per Wikipedia, it would appear offenses 2 and 3 are "sexuellt ofredande", "which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation", "sexual assault", "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment"." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...)
"1. On 13th – 14th 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.
Well, that's very clearly rape (unless she had actually agreed to this kind of borderline BDSM sex, which he never said she did, afaik, so that likely means she didn't).
So why are we talking about condoms then? Seems largely irrelevant except in a legal context of bringing on as many charges as possible...
I'm willing to give the Swedes the benefit of the doubt that offense 2, the only one that depends on this condom condition, is a legitimate crime. It very possibly goes hand in hand with 1, in that if the two offenses were together, "AA" couldn't visually confirm he was wearing a condom.
For offense 4, it's explicitly "an aggravating circumstance".
I agree it's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing.
"I agree to have sex with you so long as you send that email tomorrow."
Next day: "You didn't send the email! That means you raped me yesterday!"
Er, no.
Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't. If you don't, that should always be respected entirely. If you withdraw your consent halfway through sex, that should also be respected entirely. However, you can't withdraw consent later when you find out that the other person wasn't using protection. Or rather, you can accuse them of being an asshole, but you can't accuse them of raping you.
I agree it's a lousy thing to do, but it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing.
A few questions for you:
If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier?
Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine?
Either you consent to have sexual relations with someone, or you don't
I hope my questions above illustrate that it's more complicated than the black-and-white views you're putting across here.
Edit: removed crappy BDSM question.
Edit II: I guess I'm just really confused that you agree with the principles of consent unless that consent involves a condom.
Personally, I find that strange, least of all over the increased STD and pregnancy risks involved.
If someone has an STD, both parties are aware of this, and only agree to sex with a condom, what should happen if the condom is purposefully removed by the STD carrier?
Then that person is an evil asshole who should go to jail for purposefully infecting others with a disease, just the same as if he were to purposefully put anthrax spores on your pillow. However, he's not a rapist. That's something completely different.
Can someone agree to a blow job, but not penetrative sex? And is taking off a condom without prior agreement also fine?
Sure, that's a fair point. But there some might argue that that's a different kind of sex. Don't oversimplify my point: obviously agreeing to a blow job is not the same as agreeing to penetrative sex or agreeing to anal sex or agreeing to be tied up in a harness and whipped. But once it is clear that there is agreement for that kind of sex, you can't go after the fact and say "oh actually that was conditional on X and therefore you raped me".
As I said, the person who betrayed the other person's trust may still be an asshole - but a rapist, they're not. Let's reserve "rape" for what it actually is: a violent and despicable act of "taking" a form of sex that was refused.
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
Now, it could be that it ends up being called rape under definition #3 - because the statutes say it is. To me, that is a perversion of the english language, though. Rape is clearly intended to imply some kind of forcing. It's not just "I didn't consent to have sex in this specific way", it's "I either gave no consent or I asked them to stop and they still did it".
I didn't have my library card with me at the time, and whilst I have no interest in dragging up a days-old argument (I was researching the word "Easter," of all things), I thought you might find this excerpt from the Oxford English Dictionary interesting:
(first usage c. 1350)
1. The act of taking something by force; esp. the seizure of property by violent means; robbery, plundering. Also as a count noun: an instance of this, a robbery, a raid. Now rare (chiefly arch. and literary).
...
(first usage c. 1425)
2. Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault.
Subnote:
The precise legal definition of rape has varied over time and between legal systems. Historically, rape was considered to be the act of a man forcing a woman other than his wife to have intercourse against her will, but recently the definition has broadened. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in the United Kingdom the crime of rape includes the penile penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person of either sex, where consent to the act has not been given. This includes marital rape: in 1992 the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, decided that the previous understanding (i.e. that a wife had given an irrevocable consent to intercourse) was no longer part of the law. Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13 also constitutes rape irrespective of whether consent is obtained. In the United States the precise criminal definition of rape varies from state to state.
As time moves on, so do definitions and the laws that go with them.
One bit of the subnote that really sounds out for the sheer number of horrible bits in it: "an act of a man forcing a woman other than his wife..."
Thankfully we've progressed quite a bit from those dark days.
Wow... I can't even even find the words to describe how wrong this is.
> it's not like sexual consent is a conditional thing.
Actually, that's exactly like it is. Sexual consent is not an on or off switch. I can't do things to another person they don't like simple because they agreed to get in the same bed with me.
Seriously, you need to give this way more thought.
Yes, it is more nuanced than an on/off switch, if you consider all the different varieties of "sex" out there. No, omitting to use a condom while having consensual sex is still not rape.
Omitting using a condom when your partner has established that they do not consent to sex without a condom is not consensual sex.
This is tremendously different than your email example, because this 1) happens in advance of any acts (we're not retroactively making anything rape), and 2) condom use has manifestly significant consequences as to the safety and consequences of the act (so is very much something that should be impacting whether someone consents).
Depending on the nature of the email, the circumstances, and intents at the time, I'm not sure that I would say that situation could never be rape, but there is oodles of room for that to not be rape and this to still be.
I don't think that's rape. That's like saying that if you don't pay the prostitute after sex, you raped her (retroactively). Fraud/lying/whatever maybe, but definitely not rape.
However, he is also accused of having sex with her while she was asleep. In that situation, I think it could very well be rape (if she felt violated). So, assuming that neither the girl nor the prosecution are lying, I consider the charges valid.
Sex with anyone who's unable to consent at the time (asleep, passed out, "too drunk") is tried under the title rape, the other case is "Sexual Molestation".
It is molestation because a safety protocol has not been used.
This is nothing like your example of sending an email. This is about ensuring personal health and safety. The charges are he deliberately deceived her over this.
Failing to ensure personal health and safety is not rape. It may still be a crime, but rape is "forcing someone to have sex against their will", not "increasing their risk of being infected with an STD or falling pregnant".
The latter, as I've said, may still be criminal. But it's not rape.
I think that maybe legal system has, at least conditionally, accepted that having sex under false pretenses may qualify as rape.
The logic being applied here is that she consented to protected sex, not unprotected sex. If we want to split hairs over whether that distinction is meaningful, let's look at a couple of example scenarios:
1. Someone convinces a blind woman that he/she is her partner and has consensual sex with her. Is this rape? Did she only consent to sex with her partner, making the sex non-consensual? Or did she consent to sex with the person in the room with her, making this consensual sex?
2. A woman consents to sex, thinking that she is talking about vaginal intercourse. Her partner penetrates her anally. Did she consent to 'sex' in a general sense, so the specifics (anal vs. vagina) are not really important?
That's interesting, I didn't know that. Seems a bit perverted to expand the definition of rape like that - they should perhaps come up with a different term.
Number one is tricky. I don't know what the answer is there. My gut tells me that should be rape. But if I think about it, I think that's because the consent was never given to that person.
On the second one, I think most people are capable of telling the difference between whether they're having anal or regular intercourse, and, forgive me for going into details, but unless you're having exceptionally vigorous and violent anal sex, it's not like it's going to just "go in" unnoticed. There will at least be a brief period of, erm "engaging".
At that point, the recipient can just say "no". If they say "no", and the other person continues anyway, it's rape. Otherwise, I would think that consent is implied...*
* unless the perpetrator has threatened violence if the other person says no, obviously, in which case it's a whole different kettle of fish.
He ties her up and blindfolds her (maybe she's
into bondage). She consents to only be penetrated
by a sex toy. He lies to her, and penetrates her
with himself instead. She doesn't notice until
later. Consent or non-consent?
Personally, I don't think that "as long as it's something un-noticable to her during sex[1], then it's not rape, just a lie," is the bar for deciding if it's rape or not. I don't think that it should be taken to the extreme (e.g. "he lied to her when he picked her up at the bar by saying he was a doctor making lots of money" shouldn't be rape), but with regards to the things specific to the action itself, I think that it matters.
[1] i.e. she doesn't realize that there is no condom
It's an interesting thought experiment. Here's my counter-scenario:
She agrees to have sex only if he doesn't come. Unfortunately, he gets over-excited and comes anyway. She obviously doesn't notice until it actually happens.
In this scenario, he obviously has breached the initial conditions. Is that rape though?
I'm certain that Swedish law does not use the term "rape", but some Swedish word. That may or may not have a slightly different meaning, or different connotations.
You are mistaken. Two girls reported that the condoms broke as if they were cut up, the night after each other. IIRC one of the girls also stated that the sex started out as consensual but she later wanted to stop.
It is perhaps not as irrational as some people make it sound. The police report was leaked and can be found online.
Assuming that this is the truth, it would be extremely odd behavior on Assange's part to cut up condoms prior to intercourse.
The only reasoning that I could come up with for it is that Assange has HIV/AIDS and is one of those "I'm angry at the world so I'll give the disease to others" characters, which doesn't seem likely.
The story from the girls side was that they found this so strange that they went to the local police station to ask if there was a possibility to get him HIV tested. The prosecutor on duty then wanted him for questioning. The legal system was disorganized and slow and two weeks later he left the country.
If Assange wanted to flee he would have done so straight away instead of hanging around two weeks more. But a set up makes even less sense, why leave him around for two weeks then? There is more than enough here to weave a conspiracy theory from, but please don't. It just doesn't make sense.
Who said that I was weaving a conspiracy? It seems like it could just be a misunderstanding, or even just a 'localized' plot (the girls didn't like him and wanted to get back at him for some real or imagined grievance).
Personally, I don't hero-worship Assange, nor have I researched the public knowledge on this case. I'm just mentioning that the action of 'cutting up condoms prior to intercourse' is really weird behavior, even if it's true.
Of course, if you happen to be a highly controversial public figure then becoming the subject of a couple of rape allegations that you genuinely can't understand the basis of could legitimately make you fearful of a conspiracy against you; sufficiently fearful to run for the sanctuary of the Ecuadorean embassy even.
It would be a lot easier to believe that was actually the case if Assange and his campaign team hadn't subsequently spent the next few years fighting on "not really an extraditable crime" technicalities in the UK courts whilst simultaneously asserting he's quite happy to answer prosecutors so long as Sweden rewrite their legal procedures to his design. And, in the case of some of the more lurid blogs from some of his supporters, claiming the women involved are CIA agents.
Not to mention the Ockham's razor angle: if US interests wanted to nab Assange on trumped up charges one would assume they have the ingenuity to come up with something a bit less flimsy.
>Not to mention the Ockham's razor angle: if US interests wanted to nab Assange on trumped up charges one would assume they have the ingenuity to come up with something a bit less flimsy.
Why? It's rape. All rationality goes out the window if someone's accused of rape. It makes a lot of sense.
I'm talking more about the details of the alleged rapes; the clumsy sequence of events which Assange supporters have picked apart all over the internet. You'd assume conspirators would at least want a story straight enough to make conviction straightforward.
Rather, it is instead a textbook example of how public figures that are supported by a group suddenly become incapable of fault.
Instead of letting the legal system of Sweden play out (you know, like Snowden had been trying to fight for with his leaks against the FISA Court), Assange's supporters simply declare that this is some vast world conspiracy against Assange, or that it wasn't really "rape" anyways, and even much more misogynistic things.
In addition all the contradictory evidence against that hypothesis simply gets glossed over. E.g. the extradition thing makes no sense, and never made any sense. Assange was being processed through courts in the U.K. while avoiding Swedish justice, and the U.K. is hardly knowing for making it difficult to extradite suspects to the U.S.!
If Assange was worried about extradition to the U.S. he should have fled from the U.K. ASAP. Given that wasn't what he did, he must have been more worried about something different (perhaps the veracity of the charges of which he was accused?). And either way, as mentioned in a sibling comment, the U.S. would actually have to charge him with something for extradition to apply, and those charges would have to come within the statute of limitations (and perhaps even within a shorter timeframe for whatever country Assange flees to).