Assange Back In Court For Sex Crimes Appeal

kaptink writes "Julian Assange is back in court today to appeal his extradition to Sweden. So far the court has heard more on the incompatibility between UK and Sweden sex crime laws and that the arrest warrant used was essentially flawed. — 'Ben Emmerson QC told Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ousely that the European arrest warrant under which Assange is being held was flawed because it failed to provide a "fair, accurate and proper" description of the alleged sexual misconduct.'"

Re:So it goes like this

[UnknowingFool]

My understanding of the charges is that Assange had sex with two women on separate occasions. Both times the condom broke. Under Swedish law, your partner can demand that you to get tested for STDs and other diseases in this case. Assange refused. Now this isn't a law in the UK. Is this malicious prosecution? I don't know. But let's not let details of what happened get in the way of your uninformed rant.

Re:So it goes like this

[LizardKing]

Under Swedish law, a large number of things are considered to be a sex crime. The beauty of this if there really is a smear campaign going on is that Assange will now forever be associated with a sex crime that would not be considered an offence in most, if not all, countries apart from Sweden. As for the title of the Slashdot article, it's misleading. He's not in court for a "sex crimes appeal", he is in court for an extradition appeal.

Re:So it goes like this

[LizardKing]

Based on the - undisputed - version of events that has come out in Sweden, Assange had consensual sex with the first woman who subsequently attended a social function accompanying him. Odd behaviour for a rape victim. He then had sex with another woman, and when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police. Also undisputed is the fact that the first woman had previously written an article suggesting such a course of action to get revenge on any man she felt had cheated her.

Re:So it goes like this

[cgeys]

That is exactly true. We have many great laws here, but this one is one that is fucked up.. It basically does give the right for girls to complain about the sex several days later, just because they did not like it. It's a dangerous situation for every men.

Re:So it goes like this

[Anonymous Coward]

In both cases the women insisted on the use of condoms, and the condom "accidently" broke in both cases...
Wikileaks indeed...

The revelation and feeling of being raped was when the two women accidentally discovered that it happened to both of them.

All other details are just details, that either bend the story in either direction.
The question is if he did something to the condoms or not.

Imagine he has HIV.
Would it count as rape then?

Re:farking bastiges!

[Canazza]

It's not deportation, it's extradition, there's a difference.

Re:So it goes like this

[l-ascorbic]

OK, fanboy: excuse this one. This is the description of what happened *according to Assange's own lawyer*:

The appellant [Assange]'s physical advances were initially welcomed but then it felt awkward since he was "rough and impatient" They lay down in bed. AA was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her AA felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom She did not articulate this. Instead she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration AA tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.

Source [guardian.co.uk]

Re:So it goes like this

[hedwards]

No, it wouldn't count as rape then. Rape is purely about consent. Consent was given and provided that he wasn't knowingly spreading the disease there's nothing that can or should be done about it.

While we're at it, what about all the women that trick men into getting them pregnant by claiming to be on the pill? Following your logic that's rape as well, which is just absurd. If you have sex without a condom, STIs and pregnancy are real risks. Claiming that it's different if the risk turns out to be high isn't really legitimate.

Re:So it goes like this

[DavidTC]

No, having sex with a person and deliberately giving them HIV is assault (Just like deliberately giving any other infection), not 'rape'.

Rape is a specific crime. Failure to get tested for STD might be illegal, but is not rape. Failure to inform someone of STD status might be illegal, but is again not rape.

Rape is the specific crime of having sex without consent.

Re:So it goes like this

[SleazyRidr]

Continuing with the next paragraph from that same source:

But crucially, Emmerson said, there was no lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation, because "after a while Assange asked what AA was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. AA told him that she wanted him to put a condom on before he entered her. Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found her."

Women have always expected men to be mind-readers, but that doesn't constitute rape.