5 ms·

Sweden has hunted Assange for 6 years for the 'crime' of being promiscuous with the wrong women. Oh, and he did not use a condom, but the 'rape victim' still di

Sweden has hunted Assange for 6 years for the 'crime' of being promiscuous with the wrong women. Oh, and he did not use a condom, but the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards. Only later when those two women who thought they'd scored a celebrity found out he'd been rather generous in dealing out his celebrity amongst those who offered him hospitality did they come with a claim of rape. Should he have used a condom? Yes, if only to protect both himself as well as his partners from whatever they managed to share amongst them. Does this constitute rape? Given the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before during the same night I don't the claim would stick. Meanwhile 5 rape suspects were released without even being indicted because the rape victim - a 33yo physically handicapped (wheelchair-bound) Swedish woman - did not 'resist enough' for the allegations of rape to stick, according to the prosecutor [1]. Might it be so that a physically handicapped woman has problems 'resisting enough' due to her handicap and the position in which she was placed - in the toilet, out of reach of her wheelchair? So, Sweden, please define rape for us uninformed bystanders. If forcing a handicapped woman to have sexual intercourse with up to 6 men (5 of whom were arrested, the sixth was never taken) is NOT rape but having more sex with a willing partner who was fine with having sex before IS rape we do need some guidance to know what is right and what is wrong there. It would be good to know given that I live in Sweden, maybe I'm guilty of something I did not realise before? [1] https://www.google.se/search?q=rape+gotland+wheelchair https://www.google.se/search?q=rape+gotland+wheelchair (pick your source)

speeder 10y ago
You also forgot the part where Assange victims said they DON'T want him prosecuted, and only asked the government for help because they wanted a STD test. So basically Assange is prosecuted for rape against two women that claim they weren't actually raped, while doesn't prosecute rape of someone that DID complained of being raped. This cross outright into the non-sensical law land.
abjorn 10y ago
Not that I believe the rape allegations against him are necessarily true, but just because she consented before doesn't mean she consented then. That's a dangerous assumption to make in any situation.
imartin2k 10y ago
These cases are not related to each other, so skip the Whataboutism. While this Assange case for sure is controversial, Sweden has done more for the rights of women than most other countries. And that is a good thing, not a bad thing. Whether Assange is guilty of anything or not, I have no idea. But you don't have that, either.
- monocasa 10y ago
  Whataboutism is papering over your own deficiencies by claiming that others are the same or worse. It's not whataboutism to point out logical inconsistencies in the same legal system.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Whatever the outcome of the other case, it was at least fully investigated and allowed to go through the justice system. Something Assange has attempted to thwart at every step, blaming everybody but himself for his predicament.
    - phy6 10y ago
      *A justice system in a land that has an extradition treaty with the US.
    - Yetanfou 10y ago
      It was not fully investigated at all since the prosecutor decided by himself the case was not worth prosecuting. That prosecutor has now been dismissed from the case which leaves an opening for a new procedure to be started. As the suspects - which they still are, no matter what this prosecutor says - have not been prosecuted yet there is still an opportunity for justice to be served. I can only hope this will happen as this case has put a severe dent in the trust people have in the justice department - let alone the trust the rape victim has.
slg 10y ago
>the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards >the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before I don't care what you think about this specific case, but statements like these show a great deal of ignorance about how most sex crimes happen and the relationship between the abuser and the victim.
- lakmear 10y ago
  By that logic, a guy who had completely consensual sex may be unable prove it wasn't rape. There has to be a limit on what you can call rape or men will have no protection from false accusations.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Er, if you have a justice system that requires proof of innocence rather than proof of guilt, that is a bigger problem than any line-drawing around the boundaries of rape. If there is not consent (or capacity for consent) at the time of the act, it's rape. In any reasonable justice system, the proof problems that come up, in certain situations, with that clear definition weigh in favor of the accused, since they make it difficult to prove that sex occurred without consent.
- ghurtado 10y ago
  I don't see anything ignorant about expecting that the burden of proof in cases of rape requires more evidence than a statement from the victim, specially when all the circumstantial evidence goes directly against said statement. "Rape can happen under complex emotional mechanics, therefore the word of the victim is sufficient to prosecute and jail the accused, as this overrides any other objective evidence" isn't a position likely to be enshrined into law any time soon.
  - slg 10y ago
    You are disagreeing with an argument I didn't make. The burden of proof is always on the accuser/state. That is what makes sex crimes so hard to prosecute. I never made any statement regarding that or suggested anything should change with sex crimes compared to other crimes. I simply stated that the ideas someone can't be raped if they have previously had consensual sex with their rapist or that they must immediately end contact with their rapist are ignorant ideas.
sctb 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725653 and marked it off-topic.

speeder 10y ago

You also forgot the part where Assange victims said they DON'T want him prosecuted, and only asked the government for help because they wanted a STD test. So basically Assange is prosecuted for rape against two women that claim they weren't actually raped, while doesn't prosecute rape of someone that DID complained of being raped. This cross outright into the non-sensical law land.

abjorn 10y ago

Not that I believe the rape allegations against him are necessarily true, but just because she consented before doesn't mean she consented then. That's a dangerous assumption to make in any situation.

imartin2k 10y ago

These cases are not related to each other, so skip the Whataboutism. While this Assange case for sure is controversial, Sweden has done more for the rights of women than most other countries. And that is a good thing, not a bad thing. Whether Assange is guilty of anything or not, I have no idea. But you don't have that, either.

monocasa 10y ago
Whataboutism is papering over your own deficiencies by claiming that others are the same or worse. It's not whataboutism to point out logical inconsistencies in the same legal system.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Whatever the outcome of the other case, it was at least fully investigated and allowed to go through the justice system. Something Assange has attempted to thwart at every step, blaming everybody but himself for his predicament.
  - phy6 10y ago
    *A justice system in a land that has an extradition treaty with the US.
  - Yetanfou 10y ago
    It was not fully investigated at all since the prosecutor decided by himself the case was not worth prosecuting. That prosecutor has now been dismissed from the case which leaves an opening for a new procedure to be started. As the suspects - which they still are, no matter what this prosecutor says - have not been prosecuted yet there is still an opportunity for justice to be served. I can only hope this will happen as this case has put a severe dent in the trust people have in the justice department - let alone the trust the rape victim has.

slg 10y ago

>the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards >the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before I don't care what you think about this specific case, but statements like these show a great deal of ignorance about how most sex crimes happen and the relationship between the abuser and the victim.

lakmear 10y ago
By that logic, a guy who had completely consensual sex may be unable prove it wasn't rape. There has to be a limit on what you can call rape or men will have no protection from false accusations.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Er, if you have a justice system that requires proof of innocence rather than proof of guilt, that is a bigger problem than any line-drawing around the boundaries of rape. If there is not consent (or capacity for consent) at the time of the act, it's rape. In any reasonable justice system, the proof problems that come up, in certain situations, with that clear definition weigh in favor of the accused, since they make it difficult to prove that sex occurred without consent.
ghurtado 10y ago
I don't see anything ignorant about expecting that the burden of proof in cases of rape requires more evidence than a statement from the victim, specially when all the circumstantial evidence goes directly against said statement. "Rape can happen under complex emotional mechanics, therefore the word of the victim is sufficient to prosecute and jail the accused, as this overrides any other objective evidence" isn't a position likely to be enshrined into law any time soon.
- slg 10y ago
  You are disagreeing with an argument I didn't make. The burden of proof is always on the accuser/state. That is what makes sex crimes so hard to prosecute. I never made any statement regarding that or suggested anything should change with sex crimes compared to other crimes. I simply stated that the ideas someone can't be raped if they have previously had consensual sex with their rapist or that they must immediately end contact with their rapist are ignorant ideas.

sctb 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725653 and marked it off-topic.