Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Courts

Assange Back In Court For Sex Crimes Appeal 197

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Back In Court For Sex Crimes Appeal

Comments Filter:
  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:12AM (#36734426) Homepage Journal
    The girl that we had willing sex with, decides days LATER that she may or may not be so willing after all, and goes and asks for advice.

    a conservative (swedish) politician (with ties to u.s. backed companies) intervenes, and a prosecutor in a DIFFERENT area takes up the case that the other prosecutor has DROPPED, and conjures up a new sex crime by stating 'continuing after a condom broke constitutes rape'.

    with that fantastic, politically-driven propped-up legal interpretation, probably 30% or more of the world's male population are now classified as rapists. yes. if your condom popped out in the last moments before your ejaculation, you are a rapist.

    how could you stop, you ask ? well, thats not the prosecutor's problem apparently. you may need to go to tibet and train 10 years in a mountain temple to be able to control your dick, in last stages of pre-ejaculation maybe. prosecutor doesnt care. he had to invent a sex crime, and he did.

    well done sweden. good for you. you were one of the few countries in which corporate backed conservative politicians didnt start to screw the basic human rights over. now, you are one.
    • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:21AM (#36734600)
      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.
      • by LizardKing ( 5245 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:30AM (#36734780)
        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.
        • by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:42AM (#36734990)
          (I have no knowledge of the actual facts and am only responding to the facts as stated here. I take no position on the accuracy of the factual foundation to my comment.) It sounds as if Assange's real mistake was one we all make at one time or another: Failure to properly review a woman's published materials prior to engaging in a sexual relationship with her.
          • by cgeys ( 2240696 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:46AM (#36735058)
            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.
            • How is this flamebait? Responding in thread as I haven't had any mod points for months.

            • explain to me. why it is flamebait.

              is there someone in their right mind justifying people complaining about sex, DAYS later it happened in a consentual fashion ? have sex today willingly, decide its rape tomorrow.

              im anxiously awaiting justification of the moron who downmodded the parent as flamebait. not that it is possible to RATIONALLY justify what i have posed though.
              • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

                by Anonymous Coward

                is there someone in their right mind justifying people complaining about sex, DAYS later it happened in a consentual fashion ? have sex today willingly, decide its rape tomorrow.

                Yes, this is the politically correct stance in Sweden today. ALL High-ranking politicians call them selves feminist and will -at least in public - subscribe to the view that a woman never lies about being raped, and that the woman was raped if she at any point in time decides that she was raped.

                I am posting anonymous because I was

        • by emt377 ( 610337 )

          When in Sweden he should ask the police for advice himself. Tell them he was asked to provide sexual services in return for lodging, that this wasn't discussed in advance, and at 3am he didn't feel he had too many options other than put up with it. He was tired and not familiar with the area or country even. He should ask the police if he was sexually exploited or the victim of any other crime.

        • Odd behaviour for a rape victim.

          Possibly a different definition of one as well. This isnt "gun to the head violent rape", this is "Swedish-law-consent-was-withdrawn" rape, if the accusations are correct.

          Undisputed....Assange had consensual sex with the first woman.....when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police.

          Its not undisputed, it is in fact the primary dispute of the case-- whether the sex was consensual, or simply started that way and consent was withdrawn during the act.

          • by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @12:29PM (#36735696)

            You can withdraw consent at any point during sex, but you can't withdraw consent afterwards. Which is really the crux of the matter, the women didn't consider it to be rape until after consulting with police, which makes it really fishy that there was anything that Assange did that was criminal. Sure it was stupid to sleep with a radical feminist, but nothing that could reasonably be foreseen as criminal.

            • Which can be easily explained to police. Unless the accused tries to turn it into a media event by claiming it's a US based conspiracy.

          • Odd behaviour for a rape victim.

            Possibly a different definition of one as well. This isnt "gun to the head violent rape", this is "Swedish-law-consent-was-withdrawn" rape, if the accusations are correct.

            You know, basically all industrialized Western nations consider it rape when somebody continues having sex with a partner who's withdrawn consent. This isn't some Sweden-only thing.

            And "gun to the head" is a very rare rape scenario. Stuff like The Implication [] is a lot more common than that.

            Undisputed....Assange had consensual sex with the first woman.....when the first woman became aware of this she approached the police.

            Its not undisputed, it is in fact the primary dispute of the case-- whether the sex was consensual, or simply started that way and consent was withdrawn during the act.

            Yup. There's a large number of morons who will tell you the "facts" of this case—which upon examination, turn out to be the defense lawyers' version! And then there was the time back in November or so when some

      • by Teron ( 817947 )
        No, under Swedish law you can't even force a convicted rapist to get tested for STDs. The only ones who can be tested against their will are pregnant women.
      • Under Swedish law, doodski, one cannot bring charges against another until the discovery process has been finished and a proper charge been levied against the supposed culprit --- something which has yet been done as the Svensk prosecutor has yet to pass on all the ICQ messages from Ardin to Assange's defense attorneys, along with other legally pertinent information.

        Obama loves you.....and Goldman Sachs!

    • by LizardKing ( 5245 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:26AM (#36734704)
      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.
      • by kaptink ( 699820 )

        My bad. In retrospect I probably didnt do him any favours wording it like that cause your right, three of the four 'possible' charges arent really sex crimes in any rational society. And the forth is dubious at best. Better than 'Rape Appeal' though.

      • Under Swedish law, the discovery process must first be finished before any charges can be brought -- which has yet to be accomplished by the Svensk prosecutors.

        Your comments are excellent, LizardKing, but that must be added. More importantly, they Brits should be far more concerned with the total compromising of their government and police forces by the Rupert Murdoch crime machine, and begin using all their resources to extradite Murdoch and his co-conspirators.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

      Don't be silly. He is every bit as guilty as Dominique Strauss Kahn. Just because Julian Assange, Dominique Strauss Kahn, Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar, Moamarr Quadaffi, and many other enemies of the U.S. became accused rapists shortly after crossing the U.S. government doesn't mean these are obvious CIA setups to publicly discredit them in the interests of the U.S. That's just a coincidence.

      The CIA doesn't do bad stuff like that. And if you say otherwise, you're obviously nuts. So stop talking crazy and just a

      • by Arancaytar ( 966377 ) <> on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:54AM (#36735202) Homepage

        Moamarr Quadaffi

        You're saying the US falsely accused him of rape? I guess he's not such a bad guy after all then.

        You know, apart from the whole assassinating-dissidents and murdering-millions-of-people thing.

        • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

          Don't be silly. It's just a coincidence. Accusing someone of rape isn't one of the fastest and easiest ways to publicly discredit them and destroy their reputation in the press and among their supporters. No one would ever think of using that to their own political ends. Stop all this crazy talk.

      • Yes, and the CIA is doing a bang-up job with Strauss Kahn. Whats that? Their defense and primary witness' credibility is heavily in question? Wow, wonder how the CIA screwed that up.

        All the information is pointing to a maid who was trying to extort a ton of money out of Strauss Kahn, and he has already been released from house arrest. Theyre currently trying to figure out whether they even have a case left. CIA secret op, indeed.

        • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

          The CIA didn't screw up Strauss Kahn. It was actually a rather masterful piece of work. The accomplished both their goals with flying colors. Today a pro-American puppet is in charge of the IMF and Sarkozy is likely to win the presidency. The CIA has screwed up plenty of operations in the past, but this most certainly wasn't one of them.

          It was never about convicting Strauss Kahn. It was about discrediting him.

          • So, if Strauss Kahn wins the presidency, and this discussion resurfaces, will you then claim that its even more brilliant, because he will be an ineffective president?

            The way you are arguing, no matter what reality and all evidence shows, you can continue to claim that its a conspiracy.

            And Im not trying to claim the CIA couldnt do something like that (despite it being incredibly illegal, and not something the CIA would do inside of our country); but when you have no evidence whatsoever, and reality in fact

            • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

              He won't even get nominated to run. He's finished. That was one of the two goals.

              As for evidence, as I told another poster, I'll try to get the CIA to send you a signed confession. Because barring that, you're either going to have to wait 60 years for them to declassify the details, or accept that there are just too many coincidences here to dismiss it all as pure chance.

      • Of course, we must all agree with you, especially since (and this is no joke!) the recently reappointed director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, also happens to be the grandnepher of Richard Bissell, the chief of the CIA's Directorate of Plans who was fired by President Kennedy, who was later to be murdered in Dallas in 1963.
    • by l-ascorbic ( 200822 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @12:21PM (#36735580)

      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 []

      • by SleazyRidr ( 1563649 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @12:59PM (#36736126)

        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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It's very sad that bullshit like this gets voted up on slashdot. I suppose in this boys club wimmin are not someone you bother to empathize with.

      This story is not about women who willingly sleep with a man, and afterwards claim he made them. It's a about a man who gets women into his bed, willingly, and then does things to them they don't consent to.

      In one case, a condom broke, she tried to grab a new condom but couldn't because he held her down. For this, he may be charged with some sort of sexual assault.

      • wimmin

        Way to go.

      • by surgen ( 1145449 )

        I suppose in this boys club wimmin are not someone you bother to empathize with.

        What's a "wimmin" and why would I empathize it?

        Unless its a cool new lingo for swimmin', in that case I take offense to your remarks. I am in a boys club _dedicated_ to swimming. I still don't understand how to empathize with it though.

      • She never said "Stop" or "Don't", and had previously said "Yeah, let's do it." That is consent. You can withdraw consent during sex, but only if you SAY YOU DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE - which she never did.

        It's malicious prosecution, and the fact that it came to light about a day after the WikiLeaks fiasco should be all you need to know in order to figure out it was staged and coerced prosecution of a man who has committed no crime.

      • He enjoys it, she endures it.

        What kind of nonsense is this? People don't endure rapes and sexual assualts; they suffer them. Enduring someone who is poor in bed, and not articulating what you do/do not want them to do, does not constitute a sexual assault.

        This case is groundless unless the alleged victim had a serious reason for "not articulating" herself properly, that is, fear for her safety if she did so. That would make the case a sexual assault, and that is a common feature of assaults. Being "badgered" into sex is not grounds enough.

        Rape laws are for victims who did not consent to sex with another individual before or during the act. They are not for people who afterwards decided that they shouldn't have consented. It's unfortunate that a case of the latter kind should become so prominent, to the detriment of victims in the former, far more serious cases.

      • so, she didnt enjoy it, but she endured it, because HE ENJOYED it. and you are, along with the morons who modded your idiotic post up, are actually jus tifying the charges against the man on those grounds. not only that, you uttered out another idiotic bullshit saying 'if swedes have laws agains that, good for them'.

        no. good for you. well done. as of this moment, you basically practically classified 50% or more of sexual relations in between 1 or more participants as rape.

        totally leaving out the fact
        • So you don't see any difference between having bad sex and being held down and having bad sex forced on you. Or being asleep while bad sex is forced on you.


          PS: To the best of my knowledge, both women didn't have sex with him again after those incidents.

      • In one case, a condom broke, she tried to grab a new condom but couldn't because he held her down.

        Please cite your source for this. I have never read anywhere that this occurred but in your statement. The issue with Anna according to the article is:

        This alleged victim is "convinced Assange broke the condom by the glans and then continued to ejaculation", Emmerson says of AA's statement.

        Now tell me this, how many people have had the bad luck of a broken condom during sex and didn't know it until after everyone was done? I know I have.

    • While I cannot improve upon your most excellent comments, outstanding unity100, please allow me to add that all those perps and crooks going after Wikileaks' Julian Assange are connected, financially, in one way or another with the Swedish publishing people, the Bonnier family (Ardin, their shysters, Borgstrom and the other clown, as well as all the original publication rags involved --- basically the Swedish equivalent to the Rupert Murdoch machine).

      The same Bonnier business which received funds from the

  • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@world3.nBLUEet minus berry> on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:17AM (#36734534) Homepage Journal

    For some reason the UK seems to roll over when it comes to extradition warrants. Someone will probably try to blame the EU (as TFA seems to) but it does not affect other EU countries. For example there was a case last week where some German men were found guilty of various war crimes while they were stationed at concentration camps in Italy, but none of them will be extradited. Germany only extradites people with their consent.

    Assange has a long hard battle ahead I think.

    • You can't say long and hard when talking about rape cases, it's a no-no.

    • Assange has a long hard battle ahead I think.

      You had to fit "long" and "hard" in there, didn't you?

    • Germany only extradites people with their consent.

      Wrong: Germany just can't extradite its own citizens without passing a law specifically for this purpose.

      • by yacc143 ( 975862 )

        And the law would probably not pass constitutional review. E.g. Austria does not extradite it's own citizens, nor does it extradite if there is the risk of the capital punishment. Btw, if I got that right, the most stringent view has Portugal that does not recognize life sentences and does not extradite if there is a risk of such a sentence.


        • There's a specific provision in German constitution that permits that a German citizen is extradited, through very strict processes, but it's possible. It's indeed unlike just about every European country. It's a legacy of post WWII, to allow for German war criminals to be extraded and judged.

          Most other European countries simply don't extradite their citizens (I'm not sure about the UK, actually: does it extradite its subjects or does it just wait for the CIA to kidnap them?) AND they don't extradite anyone

  • Ford SUV - see [] Indeed this trial is a circus.
  • the only thing that I suspect in all of this is that Assange is an asshole, and rips condoms on purpose. Beyond that I don't care about him, but his work with the Wikileaks is very important regardless and the materials they publish are excellent and need to be revealed.

Air is water with holes in it.