Comment by hga | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hga | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

And it started while she was asleep, so that conditional consent was even less relevant: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat... From two relevant U.K. court decisions:

"[...] 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".

"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."

No, the point where it becomes rape is when he starts having sex with her without her consent!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com