| sapphi_snake said: Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for "sex crimes". Everyone assumed it was for rape. But it turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom. As Newsweek wrote in August: A Swedish lawyer representing two women whose allegations triggered a sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has given [Newsweek column] Declassified the first on-the-record confirmation of the allegations that led to the issuance—and then rapid cancellation—of a warrant on a rape charge and to a parallel investigation into alleged “molestation." Claes Borgstrom of the Stockholm law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom, who is representing two women who said they had sexual relationships with Assange, said his clients complained to the police of Assange's reluctance to use condoms and unwillingness to be tested for sexually transmitted disease.
***
Borgstrom said that specific details about the the allegations had not yet appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the principal concern the women had about Assange’s behavior—which they reported to police in person—related to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women’s request, for sexually transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of the women’s alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn’t use a condom—was published on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assange’s declining to submit to medical tests. Similarly, the Daily Mail reported in August: 'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split.
'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
***
The [second] woman admitted trying to engage her hero in conversation.
Assange seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over him and, she said, would look at her ‘now and then’. Eventually he took a closer interest.
***
What he did not tell her was that the party was being hosted by the woman he had slept with two nights before and whose bed he would probably be sleeping in that night.
***
‘The passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,’ she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.’
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one. This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.And today, a former attorney for Assange has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom. He notes that: The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.He also accuses the prosecutors of "making it up as they go along", and said that Sweden's justice system is destined to become "the laughingstock of the world" for pursuing the case against Assange. So Assange might be a cad for sleeping with 2 women within a couple of days, and he might be irresponsible for having sex without a condom and then failing to submit to HIV tests afterwards. But he has not been accused of rape under any traditional meaning of that term.
Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-are-only-sex-without What do you say of tha Khaz? |
It's exactly what I said and the facts I presented of the case?
You know, outside of the "blaming the victim she can't be upset because she bought food" slanted tripe... from the Daily Mail. Which you know... usually liberals call completely unreliable.
Futhermore, it still doesn't get you out of the logical fallacy you admitted above but couldn't argue your way out of...
which you basically proved by bringing it up after "dropping it because you didn't want to get further off topic."
I guess what you meant was "i'm dropping it because I have no defense and wish to save face.'
Two women told him to use a condom, and in one case he claimed it broke, and in the other case he didn't use a condom. How doesn't show a patter of blantantly disregardly women's wishes?
Sounds like he has a LOT of questions to answer.
In plenty of cases a husband can rape his wife and it's not considered rape. Doesn't mean it's not rape.
A crime with a different name is still the same crime.
In case you missed it in your own link
"A detailed, chronological account of the women’s alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn’t use a condom"
