George Galloway attacked over Assange 'rape' comments

[ananda]

Gee, I like Galloway and he pretty speaks for me here. I also think the charges against Assange have been trumped up and that he's guilty of no more than being stupid and sexist. Assange is not perfect, but he's no rapist; and he's a GREAT HERO for Wikileaks!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783

Mr Galloway, a frequent critic of the US and UK governments, said Mr Assange's "only crime was to expose, through Wikileaks, malfeasance by states including our own and the US on a truly gargantuan scale".

In a thirty minute podcast, the controversial anti-war MP said it was "an extraordinary coincidence that public enemy number one, Julian Assange, somehow gets inveigled with two women with incredibly complex political backgrounds who just, at the right time, come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against him".

"Let me tell you, I think that Julian Assange's personal sexual behaviour is sordid, disgusting, and I condemn it," he said.

"But even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape.

[HooptieWagon]

1. Well, there was no camera in the rooms,

And no witnesses other than Assange and the women. So we don't know exactly what happened except by their own actions and words, and they all stated no rape occurred. Now, Swedish law seems somewhat bizarre... where the government can step in and claim rape even when the participants say there wasn't. OK, its a simple matter for the Swedish govt to prosecute the case and justify their bizarre law. All they have to do is guarranttee not to hand over Assange to any third country, and he will go to Sweden to answer the anticipated charges. Once Swedens legal process is done, then he is free to leave for a country of his choice. If US has charges against him at that point, they can request extradition from that country. Simply a matter of the US waiting their turn. Simple, no? Yet US and Sweden won't agree to this condition. Of course, US and Sweden also have a history of cooperation in extraordinary rendition and torture. Hmmm, its pretty easy to read the handwriting on the wall.

[MADem]

28. I thought one woman said she was raped, and the other woman, who spoke to the police to

provide support for the woman's allegations, said he was an abusive molester with her.


If US really wanted the guy, why didn't they just ask UK for him WHILE he was going through the appeals process and flitting hither and yon as the nightclub hopping man about town for months at a time? He was in UK since 2010, and free to move about the city at will --why didn't USA make their move way back when? Maybe because they had no interest in grabbing the guy?

They could have done so, and UK could have flung him into jail while they sorted all that out, as he would have been a flight risk. They had him in jail before, they could have easily done it again.

This repeated insistence that USA wants to put this guy in Gitmo is just absurd, to my mind.

[HooptieWagon]

43. First, both women bragged to their friends and

Initially denied to police they were raped. Intial prosecutor wouldn't file charges. Second prosecutor refiled charges and apparently got one woman to change mind. I'm not sure how a potential rape case should be treated when a woman's words and actions are initially of no rape, then changes her mind several weeks later. Certainly makes.prosecution much more difficult.

Extridition - US has to have a prosecutable case in civilian court to legally extradite. This is difficult since Assange is not a US citizen subject to US law, and SCOTUS decision inre Pentagon Papers protects journalists who publish whistle-blower information. US may not have a case at all. Obviously, US wants to shut Assange/ Wikileaks up. Only way to do that is extra-legal. UK will not participate in rendition. Sweden will. Hence reason US is behind the scenes trying to get Assange on Swedish soil, where he can be turned over to US bypassing the legal system.

[MADem]

75. Who said they bragged? Their "friends?" Some friends!

None of us were there, most of us don't speak Swedish, and it's very clear that Swedish law and US/UK law are not the same at all--and words like "apparently" are of course subject to interpretation.

Assange will not be extradited--he's waving that flag because he's worried about doing time in a Swedish jail for sex offenses.

Here, read: http://opiniojuris.org/2012/08/22/klamberg-on-extraditing-assange-from-sweden-to-the-u-s/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=klamberg-on-extraditing-assange-from-sweden-to-the-u-s

[T_i_B]

2. Let's be clear about this

Here's what Galloway said

I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them.

It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, "do you mind if I do it again?". It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning.

The alleged facts of Assange's case notwithstanding, the situation Galloway has just described is absolutely, 100 per cent, no-ifs-or-buts definitely rape. A woman wakes up to find a man having sex with her. She was unconscious at the time. It was literally impossible for her to consent. Having sex with someone once does not give them carte blanche to have sex with you again; the woman is entitled to change her mind between "insertions", and what is more she is entitled to expect the man to wait until she is sufficiently conscious to state whether or not she has changed her mind. That is what consent involves. Giving it once is not a waiver of one's right to refuse it in future.

Really disappointed with the way that so many people on the left are defending rape.

[dogknob]

3. I can't hang with Galloway, I don't defend rape, and I support Assange anyway.

This opinion is not going to get me laid anytime soon, but there are some things in the world worse than rape.

One of them is the use of the word "rape" as a bargaining tool. Another is its use to create what will be remembered as the mother of all wedge issues.

There are no charges against Assange; there are allegations.

There is the refusal of the Swedes to conduct their questioning of Assange in London. They wouldn't even do it when Assange was under house arrest.

There are the texts the women sent before making the allegations bragging about having slept with Assange, which we haven't actually seen but which the Swedish prosecutors have acknowledged.

There are the British bringing up the possibility of wiping out the whole purpose of embassies in order to do the bidding of the United States while simultaneously insulting every single woman who has had the experience of being raped and watching in horror as nothing was done about it.

There is Daniel Ellsberg, another whistleblower the US government attempted (and failed) to destroy and the lessons the US government learned from that experience to prepare them for "next time," totally ignoring the fact that Ellsberg's actions saved innumerable lives.

There is the Obama Administration, which has already declared Assange guilty of... whatever it is they are going to end up charging him with.

There is the American media, which has pretty much succeeded in convincing we, the Three-Hundred-Million Stooges, that everything Assange has done in an effort to preserve freedom of speech and of the press should be totally swept under the rug because a couple of chicks who may or may not have ties to the CIA decided after mimosas and girl-talk to accuse him of rape.

There is the American legal system, which pretty much consistently argues that no woman ever "cries rape" unless the accused happens to be named Kobe Bryant, in whose case an exception must be made because his accuser was a "crazy woman" who bombed on American Idol.

There is more at stake here than a well-oiled media buzzword should be able to win. This is the biggest chess match of our generation and there are a lot more pieces being threatened than just Assange's turgid knight.

But if that knight goes...

[reorg]

4. there is such a thing as "reasonable expectation" that someone will consent

In the particular case, the expectation was confirmed by actions, even.

If you really believe it is rape when a few minutes after the last bout of huffing and puffing which exhausted the participants so much that they both "dozed off" for a few minutes, one of the participants awakes earlier and resumes the consensual sexual activity, then you cannot be helped.

If you really believe it, I feel in fact sorry for you. I won't even start to imagine what the sex life of people must be like if they feel they have to be asked permission after every break.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. What if she woke-up and belted him? Would you prosecute her for assault?

[reorg]

6. no

(and neither would Assange, I presume)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. That's not the point

If she's justified in hitting him then he was never justified in initiating sex.

[reorg]

9. You don't seem to have any

What do you mean by "justified", and what kind of kinky stuff are you into, anyway?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Condescending and deliberately obtuse doesn't strengthen your argument

If sex without consent were as legal and acceptable as you pretend then hitting someone to put an end to it would not be legal.

[reorg]

19. you seem terribly confused about the concept of consent

Consent can be expressed in various ways, hinted at, implied, reasonably assumed due to previous and following actions.

What has hitting someone got to do with anything discussed here? Did you mean to say it must be legal to hit somebody who touches you, or something? I'd say it depends on the situation.

[NCTraveler]

38. Consent can in no way be hinted at. nt.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. "Your lips say 'no' but your eyes say 'do me while I'm unconscious.'" n/t

[dogknob]

42. I have a date on Friday and I think we have found a way to avoid any misunderstandings:

We are both bringing our attorneys. Getting binding, written consent is really the only way to be sure. By the time we are done with that, we probably won't want to do it anyway.

Our attorneys, enjoying the evening and praising us for being responsible adults, will be busy finalizing our agreement in the back of a BMW outside. At least I think it's them; the windows are pretty fogged up.

[reorg]

44. Really. Get a grip.

Never in my entire life have I asked a woman whether she consents to sex. Reversely, I was also never asked if I would consent. Such information was ALWAYS transmitted non-verbally, through gestures, and yes, absolutely, through hints. Or the action was just started without waiting for any form of confirmation, unless and until someone was somehow indicating displeasure.

[msanthrope]

45. "Never in my entire life have I asked a woman whether she consents to sex."

That explains quite a bit.

[reorg]

46. LOL, indeed it does n/t

[msanthrope]

49. What, precisely, is funny? nt

[reorg]

50. This:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1174580

[mythology]

48. If the other person is asleep, by definition they can't consent.

They didn't give come hither eyes, they didn't nod their head, they didn't give any physical indication that they wanted it.

[tama]

61. You really are not familiar with any other physical indications of wanting it?

Eyes closed, no words uttered and head not moving, with my partner I do take getting moist, pelvic movements, little sounds (etc etc not to get too graphic) as a definite yes. No complaints so far, on the contrary, it's fun way to wake up for both.

[ZombieHorde]

73. Really? I have asked verbally many, many times.

"We should pause this movie, order some food, and fuck while we wait."

"I'm going to the store, do you want to fuck before I leave?"

"Let's go have sex!"

You've never said these things to anyone? It makes life so much easier.

[arely staircase]

59. it has every single time i have had sex in my life

i have never once been verbally asked if i wanted to have sex.

[ZombieHorde]

74. I have been verbally asked, and have verbally asked, countless times.

Almost weekly.

[arely staircase]

77. well what wonderful erotic spontaneity!

eom

[ZombieHorde]

79. I would guess about

2/3 of my encounters are "spontaneous," but I see no reason for all of them to be spontaneous.

I don't think every time has to be certain way.

[Xithras]

14. I disagree. It CAN BE rape, but it isn't automatically rape.

Sorry to venture so deeply into TMI territory here, but I've been with my wife for 20 years. In that time, I couldn't even hope to count the number of times she's woken me up by "doing things" to me because she came to bed horny and I was sleeping, and she decided to wake me up by having a little fun. I've certainly done the same to her many, many times.

In the terms of our relationship, we both understand that it's an acceptable thing to do. Neither of us has a problem with it. It's been that way pretty much since Day One.

According to the definition given by Sweden, and the definition provided by many people here on DU, sexual contact with a sleeping person can never be consensual because the person is sleeping. That position is farcical and blatantly ignores the realities of an ongoing romantic sexual relationship. If a partner has previously indicated receptivity to that sort of thing, then it's NOT rape.


In Assange's case, the victim herself stated that it wasn't forcible, wasn't resisted, and that she didn't consider it rape in any way. If she didn't consider it rape, and he didn't consider it rape, then what the hell gives the government (or anyone else) the right to call it rape? This opinion originates out of my stance on gay rights, but quite honestly, NO GOVERNMENT should have ANY input on consensual sexual activities between adults. If she considered it consensual and acceptable, that should be the end of the story. For the government to step in and call it "rape", when she clearly stated that it wasn't, is fascistic and is an ideological twin of the same sort of thinking that underpinned support for gay sex prosecutions in many US states.

The only thing Assange's victims wanted was an HIV test, and they were angry about him playing around with both of them at the same time. They said repeatedly that they didn't object to any other facet of their sexual relationships with him. The fact that a government would want to prosecute him AT ALL should be offensive to any liberal.

The fact that they want to prosecute him in a secret court without a jury or public oversight, and overseen by judges appointed by Swedish politicians, should be offensive to anybody.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Blatantly absurd

an ongoing relationship of many years' duration is NOT the first night you've gone to bed with someone (which this case is). Consent on the grounds that a condom be used is not consent to be penetrated without a condom while sleeping.

One of the accusers spoke to a Swedish newspaper; the word she used was "rape". The accuser has not said it was "not rape in any way".

The fact that the Swedish legal system is not the American legal system or indeed the British legal system is not particularly offensive to me; criminal prosecutions in Sweden follow different procedures. Sweden is a civil law country, not a common law country; there is no trial by jury under civil law procedures.

As to the "secret court" nonsense:

Claims Julian Assange would face a "secret trial" on sexual assault charges in Sweden are inaccurate, a UK extradition hearing has been told.

Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said evidence from a trial would be heard in private but the arguments would be made in public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12427839

[reorg]

27. Ardin was quoted in a tabloid as using the word "rape" (of the other girl)

Wilén, OTOH, reportedly was devastated and refused to continue with and sign the interview as soon as it transpired that they were going to arrest Assange and that the allegation was rape.

So, the "accuser" you mention is not the woman who was allegedly "raped". The "accuser" is the one who organized parties for Assange and twitterd how cool all of this was, after she had jumped into bed with him and he allegedly was using "violence" to stop her from reaching for a condom, another one of those absurd charges that can only hold water if this becomes a show trial in secret.

Wilén's police interview, OTOH, although it is probably a biased summary and was not approved and signed by Wilén, shows clearly that no rape took place.

As to the secrecy, yes, the judge can shut out the public at any time, if he feels it violates the privacy of any of the participants when the press or anybody else can listen. Which in rape cases is most of the time. As your own quote confirms: all evidence will be heard in private.

[tama]

33. Trials of sexual offences are secret for a good reason

for protection of both the accuser and accused from publicity. Needles to say that that principle has not been followed in this case and Swedish officials have been acting outside law, those who have leaked it to tabloids and the first prosecutor Finne who confirmed Assange's name to Media. The publicity of the case later led to also the two women's names becoming public.

[reorg]

34. slight correction

it was not Eva Finné who leaked and/or confirmed Assange's name to the press, it was a stand-in prosecutor who was responsible for the case over the weekend. The whole thing is very murky indeed and gave rise to some speculation about the connections of these women - Ardin, the police officer (reportedly acquainted and at least a political friend of Ardin's) and the stand-in prosecutor (married to some higher up in the ministry of justice).

As to the rest of what you say, I cannot agree more!

[tama]

41. Multiple events

The case was leaked to tabloids the very next day after the women went to police. When media contacted Finne or stand-in prosecutor (the Swedish legal expert that criticized the process said Finne to my recall, but can't be sure and does not really matter) and asked for confirmation of Assange's name she/he confirmed it. Also when Assange was interviewed he expressed his fear that the interview will be leaked to tabloids, the police officer assured that that won't happen, but of course it happened.

This and what you tell about the police officer raises the question, has it been the very same police officer in all cases, who:
- took the first interview of the two women (which was immediately leaked to tabloids)
- took the Assange interview (which was immediately leaked to tabloids)
- was on sick leave when Assange was available for second interview which is prosecutor Ny's excuse for not interviewing Assange for over two weeks after reopening the case.

And who was the stand-in prosecutor and how does she/he fit in the timeline?

[Xithras]

35. Nothing absurd about it.

First off, yes. that statement was made. The full police report was leaked. In it, at least one of the women did state to investigators that she wasn't raped. That, in my book, trumps any statement later made to the press. In fact, while the specific actions of their sexual encounters get discussed a lot, the investigation report also makes it fairly clear that neither woman was particularly offended by his acts. They were more concerned with his promiscuity and the possiblility that they might have picked something up from him.

Secondly, the fact that the Swedish system is "different" is the entire point. No society can be free when the government can arbitrarily detain you without a free trial. Trials in which one government employee is deciding your fate based upon the arguments of another government employee are inherently non-free. I have never, and will never, support any system of that type in any country. Sweden is no exception. My opinion of this predates the whole Assange thing by decades.

Finally, you and I apparently have a differing opinion on the definition of secret court. When a person can be convicted and imprisoned, while the evidence used to secure that conviction is hidden from the public and society, that court is CLOSED. I have no problem with hiding certain details from the public in rape and molestation cases (including the names of the victims, or sensitive evidentiary photos) but trials should otherwise be open. Government is an implementation of the will of the people, and the people cannot police their government if the government is hiding its activities from them. And YES, I include our own government in that statement.

The Swedish people certainly have the right to implement any court system they choose. I have the right to call that system unjust and unfair. Assange has every right to fight against any attempt to be injected into that system.


And as for the duration of the relationship.... Assange is clearly an idiot, but being an idiot doesn't make him a rapist. Whether it was the first time they were together, or the thousandth, is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether that kind of behavior was percieved to be acceptable. The translations of the police report that I've seen make it fairly clear that neither he or the victim considered the sleeping sex thing to be an offense, though there's clearly some debate about the use of the condom. The behavior and public statements of the victims afterward support the statements they made to police, and make it quite clear that the rape accusation came from the prosecutor, and not the victims.

[tama]

58. +1

And as for Assange being an idiot, he certainly is not first nor last male idiot who got into trouble because of his dick and male ego. Males are a sorry bunch.

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. More absurdity.

"At least one" is not both. There are two women involved; apparently you've forgotten. Rape is alleged in one instance. The investigation report makes nothing of the sort clear, in point of fact.

And regarding "secret trials", again:

The basic principle is that hearings in courts are public. This principle is protected in the constitution and is an important complement to the general freedom of information.

In some cases, though, a court may make decisions behind closed doors, also known as “in camera”. This means that the public is not admitted to all or parts of the trial. It is clearly stated in the law when a court may order a hearing in camera. Circumstances include trials of certain types of case where confidential information of various kinds is presented, such as sensitive information about individuals’ personal matters in sexual offence cases. Another example is court proceedings for the issue of a warrant, when there is a need to protect the interest of the investigation or the prosecution of criminal offences. A court’s judgements and decisions are generally public, however.

Sweden is a liberal democracy. The fact that it is not an Anglo-Saxon liberal democracy does not make it less of one. And while the Swedish legal system may hold some trials in camera, that does not make it something out of Kafka. Your American arrogance is showing, I'm afraid. Assange is accused of crimes in Sweden and it is under the Swedish legal system that he will be tried.

And that kind of behaviour is not only not acceptable, it is categorically rape, not only in Sweden but in the UK and the US. The granting of consent on condition of use of a condom is not consent to be penetrated without sleeping without one. Sleeping persons, legally, cannot consent. Letting him finish rather than fight doesn't mean there was "consent". And in any case whether or not it WAS in fact rape is an issue to be decided at trial. Which is why he should go back to Sweden.

[pnwmom]

53. He penetrated her while she was asleep. He didn't just touch her, or "play" with her.

And he penetrated her without using the condom that he KNEW she had insisted on. Those actions would constitute rape, pure and simple, even if she decided not to fight him once he was already inside her.

There were two victims by the way. One of them said he forcibly held her down, and the other said he penetrated her while she was sleeping. Both, according to their lawyer in a recent statement, DO want him investigated for rape, molestation, and assault.

The fact that they weren't thinking about the term "rape" immediately after the incidents is meaningless. When a woman has been sexually assaulted, a common first reaction is to blame herself. It can be very difficult to process what has happened. And the women didn't know the particulars of criminal law. But they did know what happened to them, and when the prosecutor heard the details, she decided it could constitute rape, even if the women were first blaming themselves.

[ZombieHorde]

76. I agree with your point if the sex partner is well established, and both are cool with

sleep sex. Sleep sex is cool with new partners only if agreed upon before hand. "If I fall asleep, and you're in mood, feel free to go for it." The key in both these examples is permission before the act.

However, this case did not involve permission before the act. Permission to have sex once is not permission to have sex again, especially with an unconscious partner.

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. K&R As usual reason and sanity are left behind in the pursuit of someone's agenda.

The fact that so many are anxious to ignore what is actually being done to frighten any people that might fight back against the people that matter, and instead focus entirely on a non-event, shows just how far down this particular rabbit hole we've fallen.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. x2. It's hard to believe that people would fall for the pretext. But some have.

[Egalitarian Thug]

37. Note who they are. The same names pop up time and again.

This is only the latest issue I've seen, and I've only been here a few months. There is a hard-right authoritarian contingent here that is allowed far too much control over the conversation, or more accurately, allowed to consistently divert the conversation away from the real issue.

[RZM]

65. Let me translate that

'Hard right authoritarian contingent' = People who happen to have a different opinion than you on this issue.

'Far too much control over the conversation' = The ability to express oneself freely.

[Egalitarian Thug]

66. Let me clarify for the less than astute (a group you obviously sympathize with).

Hard right authoritarian = People that believe people other than themselves of course, must be coerced or forced to comply with authority.

Far too much control over the conversation = promoting an unchallenged insinuation that, since everybody has an opinion, all opinions are equal, regardless of facts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. His party leader condemns the comments too

Let me be clear, as a politician and as a woman. Rape occurs when a woman has not consented to sex. George Galloway’s comments on what constitutes rape are deeply disappointing and wrong.

There are many political issues entwined in the case of Julian Assange. These issues cannot be used to diminish in any way the seriousness of any allegations against him. Any individual accused of a crime, sexual or otherwise, is innocent until proven guilty. By the same token, any individual who believes themselves to be a victim has a right to have their grievances heard in a fair manner and not have their allegations belittled or dismissed. This is the cornerstone of justice.

This turn of events may well act to undermine Assange's defence against those powerful forces keen to make an example of him for exposing the crimes of Empire. It has certainly taken the debate around violence against women a step backwards.

http://www.salmayaqoob.com/2012/08/good-news-and-bad.html

[reorg]

15. Ms Yaqoob seems happy to participate in the undermining

She compares the presumption of innocence of an accused to some sort of presumption of truth in any and all allegations.

Sure, the women should be heard and they have been heard. Where does anybody belittle or dismiss their allegations? They complained that a condom was (allegedly) not worn when they would have preferred that it was.

They should be supported and who on earth doesn't: everybody who jumps into bed the first day they meet their match should take precautions against the transmission of diseases.

What - not the women, but their lawyer, and the second prosecutor - is being criticised for is the preposterous attempt to twist their complaint into an allegation of rape.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Galloway belittles their allegations

He says that having sex with a woman (without a condom, after she had specifically said one should be used) while she's asleep is "just something that happens". It is, under English law, rape; under Swedish law, it is one of the crimes of rape.

And many, many DUers are belittling them as well, by saying "this is just about a split condom". I hope you're not one of them.

[reorg]

21. Surely you can provide proof for your claim

that "under English law" having sex without a condom with a woman who wants as much sex with you as she can get (but with a condom, except if it already slipped off, then she just lets go of her demand) is considered rape. Yes, it happens that a condom comes off. Personal experience. I'm probably a very lucky person since it didn't result in rape accusations.

Show us a sample case, it should not be hard to get by since you appear so well informed about the issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Having sex with a woman who is asleep is rape

http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

http://stretlaw.co.uk/2011/10/29/there-are-no-dream-lovers-for-%E2%80%98sleep-rape%E2%80%99-victims/

[reorg]

23. Don't wriggle your way out of this by pointing to some generic advice

I did not ask for discussion topics of counselling groups, I want to see

ONE

SINGLE

CASE

of a conviction, or at least prosecution, where the circumstances were similar as described by Sofia Wilén in the police interview, namely that consent to sex was clearly given but the condom somehow disappeared while she had dozed off.

I have asked this for days here (and elsewhere), nobody can come up with anything.

Could it be that nobody in their right mind would make up rape allegations based on such an incident?

Could it be that the senior prosecutor in Stockholm was right to dismiss this case immediately?

Could it be that the re-opening due to pressure from a well-connected politician had anything to do with the fact that Assange was considered a nuisance by certain circles in Sweden?

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. If you want your question to be that specific, it's not relevant

Fuck knows why you're wittering on about 'discussion groups'. I linked to two opinions on rape of a woman asleep, both written by practising UK lawyers. They are clear about what the law is. It's rape.

"the condom somehow disappeared while she had dozed off". This is rubbish. This is not what happened. In the alleged rape, there never was a condom. The act started while she was asleep - therefore, according to her version of events, she was incapable of giving consent. That it was without a condom when she had previously said she wanted to use one during sex aggravates the alleged offence.

[reorg]

30. I knew I would be handed another cop-out

And read the damned police interview. How is it even possible that someone so badly informed as you dares to make claims here?

These people had sex all night long and in the morning, after breakfast and following yet another bout of love-making both dozed off for a while, I can imagine their exhaustion. Then it continues and she never complains about the SEX, she nags him about AIDS very shortly, and then happily continues after he reassures her that there is no risk. The short absence of mind in no way implies here that she somehow withdrew her consent.

She was not incapable of consent, she had given it profusely, more than anybody can require. In the interview she complains she was very frustrated at first because he needed so much time for foreplay, and even after all that time he could not get himself to jump her.

So, after some sleep they proceed to the required action, several times, and in the morning again. He is active and able now, and she is supposed to suddenly have changed her mind? Utterly ridiculous. No sane partner would have assumed she did not consent, and her reaction clearly shows that she did.

Cite me a single case where the condom came off during a brief period of "dozing" and where the person accused of removing the "protection" was charged and convicted. Otherwise, no sale.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. And the interview says he started sex with her while she was asleep

They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again
and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his
penis; but she let it be. They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She
immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said
to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it
was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the
energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night
long. She has never had unprotected sex before.

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

It was the first time they had unprotected sex. They dozed off - ie the sex with the condom only on the head of his penis had finished. He initiated the next instance of sex while she was asleep. This is nothing to do with a condom coming off.

[reorg]

62. not sure what you are trying to say

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Instance? How is it not a condom coming off when it has been on before, if only hardly, and no longer is?

The activities in question are obviously not some isolated incident, this was a long night of love-making which even continued after breakfast, and the woman was certainly not completely surprised to be "woken up" at that point in a manner involving sexual advances, after a rest which presumably didn't last all that long: 5 seconds? 2 minutes? 10? She doesn't even say whether she thinks he noticed that she had "dozed off".

That's what the Swedish law says:

... (imprisonment for at most two years) shall apply to a person who engages in a sexual act with another person by improperly taking advantage of the fact that the latter is helpless or in some other state of incapacitation or is suffering from a mental disturbance.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/77/77/cb79a8a3.pdf

on edit: the above is from the penal code provided at the website of the Swedish government. However, it does not seem to include the latest update of the rape paragraphs, of which only an unofficial translation seems to exist:

... (imprisonment for at least two and at most six years) 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.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/04/74/55/ef2d4c50.pdf

The "improperly taking advantage"/"improperly exploiting" clearly refers to the means of achieving the "sexual act"/"sexual intercourse", not any health provisions or lack thereof.

Given the situation, it was reasonable for him to assume that yet another sexual approach was quite welcome, and that her "helpless" state, if this is even an appropriate characterization, would be short and in case she had any objections would be able to make them known, with no harm done, since what he did was just a repetition or continuation of what had been going on for quite a while.

If you want to speculate that she MIGHT have declined the sexual act had she noticed before it started that the condom was now missing completely, you need to explain why "she let him continue" as you yourself now have quoted. I doubt that she would have declined it, it sounds more like she might have insisted on a condom once more.

Or perhaps it really didn't matter all that much at that moment? Was experiencing yet another sexual act perhaps a more urgent desire for her than sticking to health provisions that were just a precaution, anyway, and in all likelihood not necessary at all (as he reassured her and as they hopefully turned out to be)?

But if you think that this qualifies as rape, you should have no problem to cite a sample case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. You continue to belittle her, and make up your own ideas about what happened

She said, and I have to repeat this even though I put it in bold last time, they dozed off. The time they were having sex with the condom on (his penis's head) had finished. We can presume he took that condom off at that point - that would not be unusual. Then they both dozed. He woke up, and started a new session of sex, with no condom at all. She did not just 'wake up to sexual advances' - she woke up with him having already penetrated her.

Your characterisation of this is insulting to her. It reeks of an acceptance of male entitlement, and your prejudices of what it's 'reasonable' for a man to assume. Since she had always insisted on a condom until that point, he could not assume that she would change her mind and consent to sex without protection. It was not "just a repetition or continuation". You cannot say "no harm done" - she was worried both about STIs and pregnancy (the police evidence note that she insisted on her boyfriend always using a condom for about two years that they were together, and she took the morning after pill after this).

You are the one speculating, and having to invent things about how long she was asleep, and what she felt, while ignoring that her evidence says he dozed off too. Her evidence was clear enough for the prosecutors, and the British courts, to class this as rape under their laws. I am not going to search Swedish language case files just because you are ignoring the evidence and descriptions of the law that I have linked to.

[reorg]

70. You are not concentrating

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I have not ignored that the BOTH of them dozed off, on the contrary I mentioned it before you.

I am not "speculating", I am pointing out some holes in the story and using some common sense here. You have no idea when the condom was taken off, it is not at all unusual to keep wearing it when you rest in between periods of corporal exertion. It is unclear how long the "dozing off" lasted, given the context and personal experience I doubt it was a very long time. Male entitlement? Entitled to what? Stop projecting, you don't know me.

If you forget about the condom for a moment and consider the situation described without the particular side issue, there is no doubt whatsoever that the continuation of the sexual encounter was welcome and consensual.

That there was no harm done is a simple statement of fact: no STD transmission. As to her worrying about getting pregnant, again, I already pointed it out: when she realized the condom was off she CONTINUED having unprotected sex. She could have stopped right then and there, but she didn't, which would appear to indicate she didn't really worry all that much about it. Perhaps she thought she could deal with a potential pregnancy in other ways, like taking a pill afterwards.

Nobody asked you to search Swedish language case files. I asked you to provide an example from anywhere, and it is you who insists that the scenario described is considered rape in Britain.

Please provide a single case example to show that taking the condom off during sex while the partner is unaware of that alleged act constitutes rape. You will not be able to, because such a claim is utterly ridiculous. Even in Sweden, with its culture of female entitlement.

[AngryAmish]

11. I think George needs to learn a thing or two about rape-rape

[randome]

12. Now we have Republicans and anti-war MPs deciding what is 'legitimate' rape.

And DUers falling right in line to decide for themselves, as well.

It's enough to make you go mad.

[pnwmom]

52. Exactly. Many DUers are as likely as Republicans

to think that a woman's consent isn't needed for every act of intercourse, or that if a woman puts a condition on sex, like using a condom, then ignoring that condition doesn't count as rape.

I've seen these statements over and over in discussions of Assange.

[SidDithers]

72. Just imagine if Assange had played lacrosse at Duke University...

heads would be exploding all over DU.

Sid

[MADem]

78. Indeed! nt

[AtomicKitten]

13. I cringe when ANYBODY parses the definition of rape. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Personally? I'm extremely disturbed...

by just how many people here are saying "well she consented to sex previously therefore his penetrating her while she was asleep can't possibly be rape".

[tama]

26. Well, anything is possible

but given all the now public info available about the events, the conclusion is that the rape accusation is extremely implausible.

[randome]

29. Not for you to decide. That's for a jury to decide.

No one should ever second-guess a rape and pretend that it isn't serious because someone you like might have been the perpetrator.

Rapes often occur by men who are trusted by their victims.

[tama]

31. I'm not deciding.

And there is no jury in Swedish legal system. Should this case ever end up in court - which I very much doubt - it will be decided by judge and (IIRC) four politically elected "commoners".

And there seem to be far too many DUers that think that because accusations contain the word "rape", the verdict is and should be "guilty until proven innocent". The basic principle is in fact the opposite: "innocent until proven guilty".

[randome]

56. No. The basic principle is: "Find out the facts."

Assange is preventing that by refusing to be interviewed. Yes, I know, you'll likely say he was already interviewed. But the consensus is that that the 2nd interview would have resulted in his arrest and that's why he fled.

[tama]

57. Contrary to your principle you are not presenting any facts

just your hostile conjecture. Which just proves that you don't give a dam about "reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty". That kind of attitude belongs to lynch mobs, not reasonable and responsible discussion about facts.

[randome]

63. I have no conjectures to make. But a man fleeing an arrest warrant usually invites suspicion.

If he's innocent, so be it. I have no dogs in this fight.

[SidDithers]

24. I guess Galloway and other Assange defenders...

don't think Assange committed "legitimate rape".

Sid

[ananda]

32. No, we don't think the accusations are legitimate.

Huge difference. We think Assange is being set up in order
to disappear him in the USA.

[msanthrope]

47. No, it seems that many DUers think having sex with a sleeping woman

unprotected, without her consent simply isn't rape.

So it isn't merely that there is a dispute over the truth of the allegations.....

Oh no...some prize Duers are actually debating that the acts, IF TRUE, are SIMPLY NOT RAPE.....

[Bonobo]

67. She wasn't asleep during the sex.

And they'd been fucking all weekend.

Just sayin'.

[pnwmom]

51. Galloway is the progressive's version of Akin.

"But even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape."

So, even if a sleeping woman woke up to find a man on top of her and inside her and not using a condom -- even though he knew from the previous night she'd insist he use one -- that wouldn't constitute rape.

Some of Assange's supporters are just as bad as Akin's, in their spurious distinctions between types of rape.

[gollygee]

54. I think Assange is very likely being railroaded and treated unfairly, but rape is rape

If he sexually penetrated someone who was sleeping, that was rape.

Now, it is possible that the women didn't want to press charges and they're being pressured to or something. It is possible they didn't consider it rape and were OK with it and their feelings are not being taken into consideration because it's a convenient excuse for authorities to go after him.

It's possible that he didn't sexually penetrate her while she was sleeping and therefore didn't rape her. (I am not an expert on he said/she said here. I'd have to sit in a jury and see all evidence to personally judge this.)

It's possible he did rape her but the authorities are interested in this rape case because of hte Wikileaks thing and don't care in the slightest about the rape charges, and the rape charges are just a convenient excuse.

But still, rape is rape, and I am truly sickened by people trying to say that penetrating a sleeping person is not rape. She could not have consented in any way if she were asleep - not with words, not with any kind of body language, not with actions. And consent is only for a specific action. If you consent to one thing, you only consent to that one thing. Having sex iwth someone and then sleeping in the same bed with them doesn't mean there is consent to any sexual contact after you're asleep. You don't have to "withdraw consent" as there is no time frame to it. You either consent to something, or there is no consent. If you don't consent (which you can't do when you are asleep) there is no consent. I don't even care about the whole condom issue. I think that just illustrates that he knew he was doing something she didn't want done.

That does not mean that I agree with what is happening or that I am anti-Assange. Just please don't sit her and complain about Republicans redefining rape to make it convenient for them, and then go and redefine rape to make it convenient for yourself and your issue. Rape is rape.

[LeftishBrit]

55. I think that there are several different issues that get confused:

(1) Is America trying to get their hands on Assange to punish him disproportionately for the leaks? Yes, certainly, and I wouldn't trust an American court to deal with him fairly under the circumstances. (This is not against American courts in general, but under these particular circumstances.)

(2) Could the rape allegations be a set-up? Yes, they could - and then again they could not. This needs to go to court -in Sweden, not America; and there needs to be an assurance that he won't be sent to America.

(3) Is rape not rape if he penetrated someone when she was asleep? No, it IS rape under those circumstances. However sympathetic we may be to aspects of Assange's situation, we should not act like Todd Akins of the left. Rape is rape.

[tama]

60. In regards to (3) there are also several different issues that get confused

I don't think anyone here would deny that penetrating a woman after sedating her unconscious would not be a rape, or sexually violating a male sedated unconscious (both sexes can be raped by both sexes). That is not what is discussed here - or that each and every morning shag after evening shag when words "May I penetrate you again Madam" are not uttered would be a rape -, but the case of Assange where any court or jury should take into consideration all available information and evidence linked to the case. Which all in all in this case is very weak.

[geek tragedy]

69. Rape-ologists supporting Galloway here prove

that the right has no monopoly on this misogynist garbage.

[99Forever]

71. READ THIS TWICE, corruption defenders:

""But even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape."

This is a case of dirty, filthy, lying government players trying to silence the exposure to We the People of the dirty, filthy, lying, evil things they do. Thank you Mr Galloway.

[fascisthunter]

80. Establishment trolls don't care... they defend corruption

everyday here on DU. It's disgusting.

[99Forever]

81. As I have become quite aware.

I want them to know we see them for what they are.




NGU

[Robb]

82. If you think Galloway gets to decide what "constitutes" rape, you're beyond help.

Oy.