The Forum > Article Comments > Julian Assange and the (ab)use of 'rape' > Comments
Julian Assange and the (ab)use of 'rape' : Comments
By Samantha Stevenson, published 27/8/2012If Sweden is motivated purely to uphold the law in defence of the sexual agency of women, why is it treating this case very differently from others?
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 27 August 2012 11:21:54 AM
| |
I find it interesting that you see no legal basis for rape charges to be laid against Assange. While I am certainly no expert a quick Google search led me to a document that analyses Swedish rape law. Said document (found at http://erlinghellenas.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-swedish-rape-law/ ) says "This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state." Now if, as the statements by the women has stated, Assange had sexual intercourse with one of the women while she was asleep that was rape. No ifs, buts, or maybes.
The same would stand for the woman who stated that he continued with sexual intercourse after the condom broke and she told him to stop. Assange obviously exploited the situation (ie, he was already having intercourse with his victim and thus was in a position of physical power) to continue intercourse. Had he stopped and put on another condom then there would have been no problem. I find it interesting that some people want an iron clad guarantee that Sweden won't extradite Assange to the USA (slightly premature given that no charges have been laid by the USA) yet don't bother to point out that there are a range of measures in place in Swedish law under which Assange would be able to object and fight against extradition. Again, a simple Google search makes it easy to read the relevant Swedish laws. I also find it disturbing that although the crimes Assange is accused of in Sweden would meet the definition of rape here (lack of and/or withdrawn consent is rape. Force is NOT required) some people don't believe he has a case to answer. Posted by Carz, Monday, 27 August 2012 11:22:37 AM
| |
Any Australian overseas would expect help from our Foreign Affairs Department ; that this has not happened yet in Julian Assange's predicament is a disgrace. Obviously, judging by some contributor's comments they have already found him guilty of something!
I would suggest that before judging him, a look at the ABC's Four Corners program, Sex, Lies and Julian Assange, is very worth while. The fact that Wikileaks won Amnesty International's 2009 award for " work exposing hundreds of extra-judicial assassinations in Kenya" should also be noted. Posted by Noelreg, Monday, 27 August 2012 2:13:26 PM
| |
Even the accusers have not accused him of rape. What is alleged: one consensual sexual partner claims that on one occassion Assange began sex with her whilst she was alseep without a condom! Her objection is not to the act itself, which they had performed on other occassions but that on this one occassion he did not use a condom and that he fully knew that she would only consent if he was wearing a condom.
The veracity of the above can be easily found via google: police/prosecutor interrogation statements of Assange, the accusers and a number of witnesses which is all readily accessible if you care to inform yourself. Assange has denied all allegations. The other allegation is flimsier as it suggests Assange may have deliberately torn or damaged a condom he was using. In these circumstances who would not be suspicious of the good faith of the Swedish prosection. And for those determined that he face justice, please advise what would be the appropriate punishment if he were found entirely guilty of the charges Posted by YEBIGA, Monday, 27 August 2012 2:52:14 PM
| |
It is funny how some of these memes go around and around. As Carz has already pointed out, the accusations made by the women in Sweden would, if proved, be rape under Swedish law. They would also be rape under UK law. Hence why the UK couts agreed on the extradition request.
Assange was offerred consular assistance by the Australian Government, but declined the offer. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-18/carr-denies-us-seeking-assange-extradition/4207426 Yet we keep hearing that no offer has been made. Even Assnge's lawyer has now got in on the act. Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 27 August 2012 3:14:27 PM
| |
@YEBIGA, just because they didn't use the word rape doesn't mean that isn't what they are accusing him of. Many survivors of rape have huge issues using the word.
Posted by Carz, Monday, 27 August 2012 4:06:12 PM
|
[Enacted to prevent the spread of aids/STD's, among a liberated and very sexually active population.}
If Assange ever believed he was innocent, why then has he gone to such extreme lengths, to simply avoid his day in a Swedish court; and, hardly the actions of a genuinely innocent "MAN"?
[Criminal paranoia perhaps?]
[A completely impartial Swedish court could conceivably dismiss the case for lack of genuinely credible evidence or sound witnesses?]
His claim that he could be extradited from Sweden, I believe, is patently mendacious; given, the US authorities would have had far fewer legalistic problems, extraditing him from England!
[And possibly the real reason he jumped bail leaving former friends with a bail bill of many hundreds of thousands!] Hardly the action of a genuinely innocent "MAN"?
For my money the US would be almost as pleased with a now expected outcome? Assange gaining a self imposed exile in a hardly lawful, rights abusing Ecuador, for the term of his natural life.
For all he knows, the US, with tentacles that reach into every dark corner of the globe; could have a CIA initiated sleeper cell, already in place down there?
Who would simply bide their time; until he felt completely safe, then entrap him by befriending him; then repeatedly publishing/leaking in his name, [already known to them,] some of Ecuador's dirtiest little secrets?
Promulgation, which could see him tortured/disappeared; and or, brought to sudden rough justice, by his very "liberators"?