Does anyone remember a high profile case in the UK a few years back where the circumstances were, as far as I remember somewhat similar to those being discussed here? I think the complainant had changed her mind part way through the act.
The judge dismissed the complaint saying that it was not the business of the court to interfere in the "mores" of sexual etiquette.
I can't for the life of me remember much more about the case and I couldn't find it on Google. It caused me to look up the word "mores" though.
If the events happened as you described, it must have happened before 2003?(assuming it was in the UK)
For the offence of rape to have been committed the defendant must have penetrated you without your consent, or continued to penetrate you after you withdrew your consent, and the defendant must not have reasonably believed that you were consenting.
But in seriousness, I fear the consequences where any regret after consent (to withdraw consent after the act) or likewise could result in someone being accused and prosecuted for a very serious and life changing crime. If we start seeing 'no win no fee' rape claim companies springing up to capitalise, this country is stuffed.
I agree that consent cannot be retroactively withdrawn.
However I do not agree that consent cannot be withdrawn during sex, if for instance a condom burst and the penetrated asks the penetrator to stop then that request should be honoured. As should a request to stop if there is any discomfort or even if one of the couple isn't enjoying themselves.
Just as NO should mean NO, STOP means STOP. Only if you use a condom means just that.
If the actual details of the cases are as he said then i think its fair to say technically its rape but if,instead of saying they didn't constitute rape, he'd said they would be unlikely to get to court here or result in a conviction if they did i'd probably agree with that.
Yes, Galloway "stepping in it" again, but surely what he stepped in is of more interest? Galloway's reputation for attaching himself to causes when it suits him is well know so why re-hash the same tired old criticisms, including cat references when there are more interesting aspects to discuss?
I personally think that references to that behaviour, when Galloway pretended to be a cat on national TV whilst sitting as an MP, are relevant because that example throws illumination on his judgement which often appears to be found wanting. Which is not to say he isn't a very talented and intelligent man, he clearly is, but he is also reckless and impulsive and as a result people such as Rula Lenska and Julian Assaqnge can have him eating out of their hands.
But...he is right on this one, it isn't rape and it demeans real rape victims to claim it is.
(DUCK)
How is it not (allegedly) rape to (allegedly) have sex with someone without their consent and while they are sleeping?
Oh, and he's not right... The law is quite clear. Sex with someone who is asleep = sex without consent = rape.
What is a "real" rape victim?
Is it only "rape" if someone is violently raped by a stranger?
What about rape in a marriage or other relationship?
What about "date rape"?
Is it OK for a man to have sex with a woman whenever he wants, regardless of whether she is conscious or not, purely because the woman consented to have sex with him on a previous occasion?
So if a woman consents to have sex with a man when they sleep together, that somehow gives the man the right to penetrate her without her consent while she is still asleep the next morning?
When the act of sexual intercourse occurs with one party asleep, this is rape.
For some women, waking up being penetrated is not an embarrassing event to be put down to experience but a frightening example of “sleep rape”. Choosing to report the matter to the police immediately rather than keep quiet can make the difference to a successful prosecution of the perpetrator but will require stoicism in court when undergoing cross examination as to why and how she ended up in bed with the defendant in the first place.
Recently the Wake Up to Rape online survey conducted by the Haven Rape Centre in London found that more than one in 10 people were unsure whether they would report being raped to the police, and two per cent said they would definitely not do so. The main reasons were being too embarrassed or ashamed (55%), wanting to forget it had happened (41%) and not wanting to go to court (38%).
As far as the Assange case is concerned, I think Galloway has a point which shouldn't be extended to all rape allegations. The whole case is strange and I think it's irresponsible to concentrate on just one aspect of it. The case should be viewed in it's full context.
As far as the Assange case is concerned, I think Galloway has a point which shouldn't be extended to all rape allegations. The whole case is strange and I think it's irresponsible to concentrate on just one aspect of it. The case should be viewed in it's full context.
Exactly. Just been reading a few blogs and comments elsewhere and it all seems very personal to me! Some people really don't like him, which is fair enough, but it does seem kinda obsessive to me.
Naomi Wolf [author], by the way, has been very straight-forward about this particular case for the past 18 months.
Wolf argues that the alleged victims should have said no, that they consented to having sex with Assange, that the charges are politically motivated and demean the cause of legitimate rape victims.
From her article last year ..
Finally, there is a profound moral issue here. Though children's identities should, of course, be shielded, women are not children. If one makes a serious criminal accusation, one must be treated as a moral adult. The importance of this is particularly clear in the Assange case, where public opinion matters far more than usual. Here, geopolitical state pressure, as well as the pressure of public attitudes about Assange, weigh unusually heavily. Can judicial decision-making be impartial when the accused is exposed to the glare of media scrutiny and attack by the US government, while his accusers remain hidden?
It is no one's business whom a victim of sex crime has had sex with previously, or what she was wearing when attacked. Laws exist to protect women from such inquiries. But some questions of motive and context, for both parties, are legitimate in any serious allegation.
I can't believe that it actually has to be explained that having sex with an unconsciousness person is rape. Galloway is completely wrong and he deserves to be condemned, as he has been. If Assange goes to court do you think his lawyers will argue, as Galloway has, that because he'd had sex with her while she was awake he then had the right to have sex with her while unconsciousness (and in a way she never would have consented to while conscious)? No of course not, because his lawyers know the reality of what legally constitutes rape and Galloway doesn't.
What Assange is accused of is rape, by the laws of this country, by the laws of Sweden, by the laws of any first world country. That is not a matter of opinion, it is fact.
Wolf argues that the alleged victims should have said no, that they consented to having sex with Assange, that the charges are politically motivated and demean the cause of legitimate rape victims.
[Alleged Offence No.] 1. Unlawful coercion
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
This one isn't an accusation of rape, but it doesn't sound like consent to me...
[Alleged Offence No.] 4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."
... This is the main rape allegation.
Rather difficult to give consent, or say no, while you're asleep.
I can't believe that it actually has to be explained that having sex with an unconsciousness person is rape. Galloway is completely wrong and he deserves to be condemned, as he has been. If Assange goes to court do you think his lawyers will argue, as Galloway has, that because he'd had sex with her while she was awake he then had the right to have sex with her while unconsciousness (and in a way she never would have consented to while conscious)? No of course not, because his lawyers know the reality of what legally constitutes rape and Galloway doesn't.
What Assange is accused of is rape, by the laws of this country, by the laws of Sweden, by the laws of any first world country. That is not a matter of opinion, it is fact.
If it wasn't Assange,on that evidence,it would never have got to court and people can argue about it and get on their high horse all they like but the fact is he's innocent until proven guilty and he hasn't even been interviewed,let alone charged,tried or proven guilty or innocent.
I can't believe that it actually has to be explained that having sex with an unconsciousness person is rape. Galloway is completely wrong and he deserves to be condemned, as he has been. If Assange goes to court do you think his lawyers will argue, as Galloway has, that because he'd had sex with her while she was awake he then had the right to have sex with her while unconsciousness (and in a way she never would have consented to while conscious)? No of course not, because his lawyers know the reality of what legally constitutes rape and Galloway doesn't.
What Assange is accused of is rape, by the laws of this country, by the laws of Sweden, by the laws of any first world country. That is not a matter of opinion, it is fact.
Here's what Assange's lawyer has already tried (& failed) to argue...
[Assange lawyer Ben] Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] 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 therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] 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. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”
As in the case of the first incident, Emmerson argues that subsequent consent renders the entire encounter consensual, and legal.
The City of Westminster Magistrates' Court rejected his appeal and clearly ruled that the four alleged offences would be offences under the law of England and Wales, with alleged offence number 4 (the "sleep sex") clearly an allegation of rape under the law of England and Wales.
Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.
Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote.
(Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.)
(snip)
Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.
Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor’s position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:
(1) Assange has not been charged with any offence.
Correct - if by charge you mean formally indicted. In the Swedish system formal indictment takes place at a very late stage in proceedings, following a second and final interview with the suspect, and in the case of a person in pre-trial detention, trial must follow within two weeks. (As Assange is very unlikely to get bail again, for obvious reasons, it must be assumed that this would apply in his case).
However, the High Court has held that Assange does stand accused of the four offences (including rape) for which his extradition is sought. It is a requirement of the Extradition Act 2003 that the warrant contains a statement that the person in respect of whom extradition is sought stand "accused" of the offence(s) set out in the warrant. There is no doubt that the European Arrest Warrant issued in Sweden did contain such a statement.
Assange sought to argue, first in the Magistrates Court, then in the High Court, that it is not enough that the statement is made, but the statement must also be true; and that he has not in fact been accused of any offence in Sweden because he had not been formally charged and so criminal proceedings had not yet commenced. He lost that argument. For full details, see the judgment in the High Court, especially paragraphs 128-154 which deal with Issue 3, Was Mr Assange accused of an offence in Sweden?
At para.154 the High Court concludes:
"Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange." [My emphasis]
Therefore, Assange lost on this issue. There was no appeal on this issue to the Supreme Court.
(2) Assange is ONLY wanted for questioning at this stage
This is not true and was not even argued on Assange's behalf in the High Court.
It is a requirement of s.2 Extradition Act that "the warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition ... for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence." As the High Court notes at para.129 of its judgment, "It was common ground that extradition is not permitted for investigation or gathering evidence or questioning to see if the requested person should be prosecuted." So if the UK courts accepted that Assange was only wanted for questioning, they would not have ordered his extradition.
The City of Westminster Magistrates' Court rejected his appeal and clearly ruled that the four alleged offences would be offences under the law of England and Wales, with alleged offence number 4 (the "sleep sex") clearly an allegation of rape under the law of England and Wales.
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."
Very true. Perhaps he could go to Sweden then, and let them attempt to prove his guilt, while he defends his innocence?
I don't dissagree and he's probably making it worse by delaying it but that doesn't make him guilty.
Well, as for "tried or proven guilty or innocent" is that not the whole point of the extradition - so that the Swedish authorities can prosecute him?!
As i just said.
As for interviewing or charging him...Ah, that old chestnut
Here's a piece by "TwitterJokeTrial" solicitor and New Statesman legal blogger David Allen Green:
I would've sat and read all of that but it falls on the first hurdle by making the assumption before him being formally questioned that it would get to court in this country.
The last stats i read were that 80% of reported rape cases in this country never get to court and,while i agree thats a shocking statistic for a civilised country,I find it hard to believe all those cases have less evidence than this one.
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."
As I mentioned in the post you quoted, Assange's lawyer's argument was dismissed.
The High Court, like the Magistrates' Court before it, ruled that alleged offences 1-3 met the dual criminality test, while alleged offence 4 ("sleep sex") was a framework offence due to being an alleged offence of rape.
58. The position of Mr Assange in respect of offences 1-3 where dual criminality was required was:
i) Offence 1: Although it was accepted that the conduct as described would constitute an offence in England and Wales, a fair and accurate description of the prosecution case would not meet that test.
(snip)
76. It seems to us that the conduct described as offence 1 fairly and properly describes the conduct as set out in AA's statement in relation to what is complained of restricting her movement by violence. We accept that Mr Assange subsequently allowed AA to move so she could find a condom for him to use, but at the point in time to which the offence relates, we do not read anything in her statement to indicate consent to his restraining her. Indeed her statement indicates precisely the opposite at the point of time to which it relates. It of course might well be argued that his subsequent decision to let go of her might indicate a lack of coercion or consent to what followed, but at the point of time to which the offence relates, we consider the conduct of which he is charged to have been fairly and accurately described. As we have set out at paragraph 71.v) above, the matters alleged are sufficient, in our view, and to the extent relevant, to impel the inference of knowledge. The context does not change our view.
77. It must therefore follow in respect of offence 1 that the challenge made fails, even if the extraneous material was taken into account.
I don't dissagree and he's probably making it worse by delaying it but that doesn't make him guilty.
As i just said.
Of course it doesn't make him guilty. No one says it does.
But as I said, the whole point of the extradition is to put him on trial, so that the prosecution may attempt to prove his guilt while he defends his innocence. Hiding in the embassy is preventing that.
I would've sat and read all of that but it falls on the first hurdle by making the assumption before him being formally questioned that it would get to court in this country.
The last stats i read were that 80% of reported rape cases in this country never get to court and,while i agree thats a shocking statistic for a civilised country,I find it hard to believe all those cases have less evidence than this one.
Surely you've fallen at the first hurdle by not bothering to read it?
If you had read it (& you don't even need to read the links, the quotes would have sufficed), you would have seen...
"Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange." [My emphasis]
- The alleged offences are all offences under the law of England and Wales.
- The High Court stated that "there can be no doubt" that if the alleged offences had been committed in England and Wales, "he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced".
- The Swedish system is different to here, with charging happening quite late in the game, after a second and final interview. A charge cannot be brought until the person has been arrested.
- Assange is wanted for arrest, not simply questioning.
- He cannot be questioned in the Ecuador embassy, as the Swedes would have no power there to arrest him and no power to charge him. The whole point is to give him a final interview and arrest him, enabling him to then be charged.
Also: What do UK rape stats have to do with this? He is wanted in Sweden, not the UK.
Of course it doesn't make him guilty. No one says it does.
But as I said, the whole point of the extradition is to put him on trial, so that the prosecution may attempt to prove his guilt while he defends his innocence. Hiding in the embassy is preventing that.
Surely you've fallen at the first hurdle by not bothering to read it?
If you had read it (& you don't even need to read the links, the quotes would have sufficed), you would have seen...
- The alleged offences are all offences under the law of England and Wales.
- The High Court stated that "there can be no doubt" that if the alleged offences had been committed in England and Wales, "he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced".
- The Swedish system is different to here, with charging happening quite late in the game, after a second and final interview. A charge cannot be brought until the person has been arrested.
- Assange is wanted for arrest, not simply questioning.
- He cannot be questioned in the Ecuador embassy, as the Swedes would have no power there to arrest him and no power to charge him. The whole point is to give him a final interview and arrest him, enabling him to then be charged.
Also: What do UK rape stats have to do with this? He is wanted in Sweden, not the UK.
The extradition is between him,Equador and Sweden so whether you or i agree with him being in the embassy really makes no difference.
And what uk rape stats have to do with it are that you and others are making claims about what would allegedly happen if a case like that got to court in this country wheras,according to the official stats the vast majority never get that far.
And returns us to the fact that the alleged victim gave her consent to sex using a condom. If Assange then chose to ignore that condition of her consent then he did not respect her wishes or act in a responsible manner.
When it came to round two several hours later whilst supposedly still in bed together that's true, but is that really rape?
If technically it could be described as such I worry that to apply it to this specific set of circumstances could weaken the severity of the word 'rape' in peoples minds somewhat.
Comments
If the events happened as you described, it must have happened before 2003?(assuming it was in the UK)
For the offence of rape to have been committed the defendant must have penetrated you without your consent, or continued to penetrate you after you withdrew your consent, and the defendant must not have reasonably believed that you were consenting.
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/Definitionofrape2.php
I agree that consent cannot be retroactively withdrawn.
However I do not agree that consent cannot be withdrawn during sex, if for instance a condom burst and the penetrated asks the penetrator to stop then that request should be honoured. As should a request to stop if there is any discomfort or even if one of the couple isn't enjoying themselves.
Just as NO should mean NO, STOP means STOP. Only if you use a condom means just that.
You have made me cry with laughter.
He might be forced to resign before that and agreed odious man.
I personally think that references to that behaviour, when Galloway pretended to be a cat on national TV whilst sitting as an MP, are relevant because that example throws illumination on his judgement which often appears to be found wanting. Which is not to say he isn't a very talented and intelligent man, he clearly is, but he is also reckless and impulsive and as a result people such as Rula Lenska and Julian Assaqnge can have him eating out of their hands.
He is.
I loathe him.
But...he is right on this one, it isn't rape and it demeans real rape victims to claim it is.
(DUCK)
How is it not (allegedly) rape to (allegedly) have sex with someone without their consent and while they are sleeping?
Oh, and he's not right... The law is quite clear. Sex with someone who is asleep = sex without consent = rape.
What is a "real" rape victim?
Is it only "rape" if someone is violently raped by a stranger?
What about rape in a marriage or other relationship?
What about "date rape"?
Is it OK for a man to have sex with a woman whenever he wants, regardless of whether she is conscious or not, purely because the woman consented to have sex with him on a previous occasion?
So if a woman consents to have sex with a man when they sleep together, that somehow gives the man the right to penetrate her without her consent while she is still asleep the next morning?
There are no dream lovers for ‘Sleep Rape’ Victims by @felicitygerry
An interesting blog post from George Potter:
Rape: Or why I am now a feminist
Exactly. Just been reading a few blogs and comments elsewhere and it all seems very personal to me! Some people really don't like him, which is fair enough, but it does seem kinda obsessive to me.
Naomi Wolf [author], by the way, has been very straight-forward about this particular case for the past 18 months.
Wolf argues that the alleged victims should have said no, that they consented to having sex with Assange, that the charges are politically motivated and demean the cause of legitimate rape victims.
From her article last year ..
What Assange is accused of is rape, by the laws of this country, by the laws of Sweden, by the laws of any first world country. That is not a matter of opinion, it is fact.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
This one isn't an accusation of rape, but it doesn't sound like consent to me...
... This is the main rape allegation.
Rather difficult to give consent, or say no, while you're asleep.
If it wasn't Assange,on that evidence,it would never have got to court and people can argue about it and get on their high horse all they like but the fact is he's innocent until proven guilty and he hasn't even been interviewed,let alone charged,tried or proven guilty or innocent.
Here's what Assange's lawyer has already tried (& failed) to argue...
http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concedes/
Lovely :rolleyes:
Also here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-extradition-live-coverage
Of course, this argument failed.
The City of Westminster Magistrates' Court rejected his appeal and clearly ruled that the four alleged offences would be offences under the law of England and Wales, with alleged offence number 4 (the "sleep sex") clearly an allegation of rape under the law of England and Wales.
The High Court ruled the same.
... and then the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, ruled against him too and dismissed the appeal.
Very true. Perhaps he could go to Sweden then, and let them attempt to prove his guilt, while he defends his innocence?
Well, as for "tried or proven guilty or innocent" is that not the whole point of the extradition - so that the Swedish authorities can prosecute him?!
As for interviewing or charging him...Ah, that old chestnut
Here's a piece by "TwitterJokeTrial" solicitor and New Statesman legal blogger David Allen Green:
Legal myths about the Assange extradition
See also:
Why doesn't Sweden interview Assange in London? by barrister Anya Palmer:
re -
Also here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-extradition-live-coverage
it goes on to report...
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."
I don't dissagree and he's probably making it worse by delaying it but that doesn't make him guilty.
As i just said.
I would've sat and read all of that but it falls on the first hurdle by making the assumption before him being formally questioned that it would get to court in this country.
The last stats i read were that 80% of reported rape cases in this country never get to court and,while i agree thats a shocking statistic for a civilised country,I find it hard to believe all those cases have less evidence than this one.
As I mentioned in the post you quoted, Assange's lawyer's argument was dismissed.
The High Court, like the Magistrates' Court before it, ruled that alleged offences 1-3 met the dual criminality test, while alleged offence 4 ("sleep sex") was a framework offence due to being an alleged offence of rape.
Of course it doesn't make him guilty. No one says it does.
But as I said, the whole point of the extradition is to put him on trial, so that the prosecution may attempt to prove his guilt while he defends his innocence. Hiding in the embassy is preventing that.
Surely you've fallen at the first hurdle by not bothering to read it?
If you had read it (& you don't even need to read the links, the quotes would have sufficed), you would have seen...
- The alleged offences are all offences under the law of England and Wales.
- The High Court stated that "there can be no doubt" that if the alleged offences had been committed in England and Wales, "he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced".
- The Swedish system is different to here, with charging happening quite late in the game, after a second and final interview. A charge cannot be brought until the person has been arrested.
- Assange is wanted for arrest, not simply questioning.
- He cannot be questioned in the Ecuador embassy, as the Swedes would have no power there to arrest him and no power to charge him. The whole point is to give him a final interview and arrest him, enabling him to then be charged.
Also: What do UK rape stats have to do with this? He is wanted in Sweden, not the UK.
What makes Assange deserving of special treatment before the Law?
The extradition is between him,Equador and Sweden so whether you or i agree with him being in the embassy really makes no difference.
And what uk rape stats have to do with it are that you and others are making claims about what would allegedly happen if a case like that got to court in this country wheras,according to the official stats the vast majority never get that far.
When it came to round two several hours later whilst supposedly still in bed together that's true, but is that really rape?
If technically it could be described as such I worry that to apply it to this specific set of circumstances could weaken the severity of the word 'rape' in peoples minds somewhat.