4 ms·

How has this hurt his credibility? Also the type of rape in this case and the Roman Polanski case aren't even remotely similar. In the UK, USA, or most other W

How has this hurt his credibility? Also the type of rape in this case and the Roman Polanski case aren't even remotely similar. In the UK, USA, or most other Western countries what he did isn't even illegal. It is essentially the sex version of fraud: lying to get ahead.

gadders 14y ago
The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or sexual assault in the UK. Also, the crusader for freedom has fled to a regime that is demonstrably un-free.
- doe88 14y ago
  source?
  - gadders 14y ago
    Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [20111 EWHC 2849 (Admin) (02 November 2011) Paragraph 86: "..The allegation is clear and covers the alternatives; it not an allegation that the condom came off accidentally or was damaged accidentally. It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that, if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom without her consent. His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act." http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
    - doe88 14y ago
      I'm not competent at all on the subject but it doesn't seem to me the quote you present imply the comment you previously made The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or sexual assault in the UK. It seems to me that what he is saying here is that the allegation could be a sexual offense, thus it's one of his arguments to allow extradition to swede in order to permit further investigation on this plausible and relevant allegation.
      - gadders 14y ago
        If he did the same act(s) in the UK that he did in the Sweden, he would be guilty of a UK offence. It seems pretty clear to me. "His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act"
        vidarh 14y ago
        If he did the same acts in the UK that the prosecutor alleges that he did in Sweden. In no way is that conduct proven. In fact, it is not even demonstrated that the women in question have alleged he acted that way - at least one of them have stated she is refusing to sign the statements.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
gsnedders 14y ago
In England and Wales it is perfectly possible to say, "I consent to having sex to you if you use a condom". As such, if a condom has not been used, consent has not been given, and sex without consent is rape. One of the three charges is that he had sex while the girl was asleep — this is also illegal in England and Wales (as they cannot give consent — or withdraw it if they decide — as they are asleep).
meiji 14y ago
It doesn't matter whether in other places it's not illegal; it isn't legal where he did it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse either so what you have is a rape suspect fleeing. It's not the same as the Polanski case admittedly but it's not like he was overdue on a library book
objclxt 14y ago
Hurt his credibility? Well, I'd say a man who's modus operadi is exposing 'corruption' in government and then seeks asylum in a country with a terrible freedom of speech record does damage his credibility somewhat.
parfe 14y ago
Yes it is illegal. Consent does not give you free reign of a woman's body. If she consents to sex with a condom and you proceed without one then you have raped her. "I don't like condoms" isn't a defense for disregarding her autonomy. And neither is "She was still asleep and never said no".
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jeltz 14y ago
In Sweden it is probably not rape either. The boss of the original prosecutor (Eva Finné) reduced the suspicion from rape to "ofredande" (not sure how to translate that but it is a very minor crime which almost never results in jail, it is not a sex offense either). Then a third prosecutor (Marianne Ny) joined and brought the suspicion up to rape again since she want to have it tried in court of this is rape or not. So really this seems to me like Marianne Ny just wants to use this case to determine how Swedish law works in cases like this.

gadders 14y ago

The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or sexual assault in the UK. Also, the crusader for freedom has fled to a regime that is demonstrably un-free.

doe88 14y ago
source?
- gadders 14y ago
  Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [20111 EWHC 2849 (Admin) (02 November 2011) Paragraph 86: "..The allegation is clear and covers the alternatives; it not an allegation that the condom came off accidentally or was damaged accidentally. It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that, if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom without her consent. His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act." http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
  - doe88 14y ago
    I'm not competent at all on the subject but it doesn't seem to me the quote you present imply the comment you previously made The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or sexual assault in the UK. It seems to me that what he is saying here is that the allegation could be a sexual offense, thus it's one of his arguments to allow extradition to swede in order to permit further investigation on this plausible and relevant allegation.
    - gadders 14y ago
      If he did the same act(s) in the UK that he did in the Sweden, he would be guilty of a UK offence. It seems pretty clear to me. "His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act"
      - vidarh 14y ago
        If he did the same acts in the UK that the prosecutor alleges that he did in Sweden. In no way is that conduct proven. In fact, it is not even demonstrated that the women in question have alleged he acted that way - at least one of them have stated she is refusing to sign the statements.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

gsnedders 14y ago

In England and Wales it is perfectly possible to say, "I consent to having sex to you if you use a condom". As such, if a condom has not been used, consent has not been given, and sex without consent is rape. One of the three charges is that he had sex while the girl was asleep — this is also illegal in England and Wales (as they cannot give consent — or withdraw it if they decide — as they are asleep).

meiji 14y ago

It doesn't matter whether in other places it's not illegal; it isn't legal where he did it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse either so what you have is a rape suspect fleeing. It's not the same as the Polanski case admittedly but it's not like he was overdue on a library book

objclxt 14y ago

Hurt his credibility? Well, I'd say a man who's modus operadi is exposing 'corruption' in government and then seeks asylum in a country with a terrible freedom of speech record does damage his credibility somewhat.

parfe 14y ago

Yes it is illegal. Consent does not give you free reign of a woman's body. If she consents to sex with a condom and you proceed without one then you have raped her. "I don't like condoms" isn't a defense for disregarding her autonomy. And neither is "She was still asleep and never said no".

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jeltz 14y ago

In Sweden it is probably not rape either. The boss of the original prosecutor (Eva Finné) reduced the suspicion from rape to "ofredande" (not sure how to translate that but it is a very minor crime which almost never results in jail, it is not a sex offense either). Then a third prosecutor (Marianne Ny) joined and brought the suspicion up to rape again since she want to have it tried in court of this is rape or not. So really this seems to me like Marianne Ny just wants to use this case to determine how Swedish law works in cases like this.