an ill informed article by one Ms Valenti (a "fourth wave feminist", whatever that is) in that renowned feminist publication, the Washington Post:
"The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.
In the United States, withdrawing consent is not so clear-cut."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.htmlBullshit. Just like in the US and everywhere else, "there's a requirement of force in order to prove rape, rather than just demonstrating lack of consent" in Sweden. To wit:
While Ms Ardin may have offered the opinion that her sexual encounter with Assange developed into an "assault", she certainly never claimed that "consent was withdrawn" on her part. Not publicly, not in the published police interview. This appears to be a complete fabrication on the part of Ms Valenti. Ms Ardin does not claim she was raped. And Mr Assange is not accused of pinning Ms Ardin's arms down "during one alleged assault", no sir, Ms Ardin claims he did this to prevent her reaching for a condom - before he finally agreed to use one.
The rather vague allegation is that he "did something" to the condom, which would presumably constitute the "unlawful coercion" referred to above and which he vehemently denies. Likewise, in Ms Wilén's case, consent was not "withdrawn" at any point. The accusation of rape in her case is based on her claim that she had fallen asleep while he was fondling her and approached her sexually (after a night spent together, with consensual sex several times in a row). However, leaving aside the fact that she may have actually been only "half asleep" - she had been out buying breakfast and then came back into the bed - when she became aware that no condom was being used, she did NOT "withdraw consent", she did NOT tell him to stop and did not complain in any other way than stating "I hope you don't have AIDS".
Like in the other case, the allegation centers on the fact that a condom was not used, resulting in a lack of protection against potential transmission of venereal diseases. Since the woman claims she had previously insisted upon condom use, the failure of using one is
construed by the women's lawyer and the latest prosecutor as lack of consent for the sexual act itself. That is a highly questionable enterprise, as evidenced by the original prosecutor's out-of-hand dismissal of any such suspicion. There is nothing in the paragraphs on rape in the Sweden penal code, not any more than in other penal codes, which would make such an interpretation plausible:
Swedish penal code, with comments and case referencesExtracts in English provided on the website of Swedish Prosecution AuthorityEnglish translation provided by the Swedish Ministry of JusticeExplanation of latest changes in the penal code including the paragraphs on rape, 2005Brief version provided by Interpol
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
