[rmc]

Many people have pointed out in HN that the sex was consensual according to the 2 women, but the issue is about protected or unprotected sex. Rape has a different definition in the Swedish legal code than everywhere else in the world.

Lots of people are trying to point out that Assange isn't being accused of rape, but some sort of "not-using-a-condom" silly rape law that is only the law is whacky Sweden, herp de derp feminists de derp political correctness gone mad.

However in order to be extradited from UK, he had to be accused of a crime that would have been illegal in the UK. I suggest you read the High Court extradition appeal case ( http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html ). The courts quite clearly decided that it wasn't some weird 'sweden-only' law, but what he was accused of would be a crime in England & Wales.

In fact, he's 'charged' with 4 things:

• "Unlawful coercion" - Holding down a woman with his body and forcing her to have sex.

• "Sexual molestation" - Having sex with someone without a condom when they said they would only have with a condom (this would be illegal in the UK aswell BTW).

• "Sexual molestation" - "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."

• "Rape" - Having sex with someone who was asleep.

Before you talk about what's going on, read up on the charges.

[vidarh]

Again: There are no charges. There is an arrest warrant to question him on suspicion. Charges would be the next step if they decide to proceed.

The UK courts found that the Swedish prosecutors unilateral interpretation of the evidence as stated in the EAW would amount to rape under UK law.

But this description has not been used to file charges with a Swedish court, and the woman in question have previously claimed to the press that she refuses to sign the statements that the prosecutor has based this description on. So at this stage it is pure speculation whether or not the prosecutors even believe they have anything that amounts to sufficient basis for a rape charge.

This does not mean that it's not possible that they will file actual rape charges. It does mean that it is worth pointing out that the only clear cut accusation of rape so far comes from the prosecutor, and that only in a document she has every opportunity to ignore the contents off for the future should she so choose.

It would most certainly not be the first time a Scandinavian prosecutor have used claims in an arrest warrant only to end up with no charges at all or much reduced charges once they actually have to file documents backed up by the evidence in front of a court with the power to actually investigate the evidence.

[rmc]

"Again: There are no charges."

Yes and no. Yes has has not been charged, however the Swedish court system is different. In the High Court appeal to the extradition, the English judge ruled that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html). So he it is the opinion of the English courts that has been the equivalent of "charged".

[vidarh]

The opinion of the English courts is based on representations of the Swedish prosecutor on the express basis that the extradition does not need to concern itself with what evidence there is to support those representations.

In other words, it says nothing about whether or not there is a sufficient basis for charging him in Sweden, nor about whether the proseutors office will actually feel confident enough to actually go through with charges if they get hold of him.

It only says that if the Swedish prosecutor does indeed have sufficient evidence to get a Swedish court to charge him based on claims supporting the same allegations she has made in the EAW, then it would also be a crime in England and Wales.

Which raises the question of why Marianne Ny has doggedly insisted on carrying out this case in a manner that has prevented it from moving forward, nor tried to get him charged in absentia, which the Swedish system most most certainly allows her to do.

[polshaw]

    >he had to be accused of a crime that would have been illegal in the UK.

The extradition to the US of the guy who ran a site with links to pirated content comes to mind as a counter-example

e: his name was richard o'dwyer. The only related UK law is copyright infringement, links do not constitute that. He appears only as guilty under UK law (and perhaps even US law) as google, and less than Youtube. He complied with DCMA requests.

[rmc]

Counter-example of what? I'm sure profiting from copyright infringment is illegal in the UK aswell.

[adgar]

> Lots of people are trying to point out that Assange isn't being accused of rape, but some sort of "not-using-a-condom" silly rape law that is only the law is whacky Sweden, herp de derp feminists de derp political correctness gone mad.

I agree. Telling a woman you're going to use a condom so she'll sleep with you, then taking it off halfway into sex because it feels better and you don't care about the woman's choice isn't at all a violation of her sexual rights.

She doesn't get to pick how the penis goes into her, the man does! Fucking herp de derp feminists.

[MrScruff]

I think the OP was being sarcastic.

[adgar]

OP is referring to very real, disturbing sentiment that tops many discussions of Julian Assange's charges. Hop over to reddit sometime for real fun.

I did not think OP agreed with that sentiment. But he did brush right past it without addressing it.

[rmc]

Exactly, a lot of people are defending Assange by trying to portray this as some sort of extreme law that is "not like normal rape", "not a real crime". It's not just reddit, look at the comment I replied to ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4404277 )

• "the issue is about protected or unprotected sex" (er no, sex with someone asleep is one of the charges).

• "Rape has a different definition in the Swedish legal code than everywhere else in the world". laws are different yes, but the UK courts have looked at it, and decided that the charges would count as crimes if it was in UK. To re-iterate what the UK Judge said about UK law: *"in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003" (§86 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html )