WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested and denied bail today in London, on rape charges in Sweden. The controversial Assange, who, through his website WikiLeaks.com, released hundreds of thousands of previously secret documents from the U.S. Government, detailing the planning and behind the scene politics of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, as well as secret diplomatic cables that are embarrassing to the U.S. and its allies, will have to remain in custody in London until extradition proceedings are completed.
While some folks believe the charges are politically motivated, and are being brought only to retaliate against Assange for his “subversive” activity, what is interesting to me at this point is the actual charges from Sweden.
In essence, Mr. Assange is charged on two separate occasions in August 2010 of having sexual relations with two different women, without a condom. Reuters writes:
One charge over Miss a is that Assange “sexually molested her” by ignoring her request for him to use a condom when having sex with her.
Another charge relates to “Miss W,” who alleged Assange had sex with her without a condom while she was sleeping on August 7.
Apparently, in Sweden, having sexual intercourse without a condom when requested is a sexual assault. It is called, “Sex by surprise”. How odd. In both situations stated above, neither woman complained that Mr. Assange contacted them sexually without their consent. It seems based upon the allegations, that these women had “post-sex regret”, a somewhat common condition, especially after a heavy night of quaffing your favorite libation.
Can these charges be real? I mean having consensual intercourse without a condom, and then the female has second thoughts because no condom was used? That is not rape. That is not sexual assault. That is Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest.
Rape, by definition, involves a component of consent, or more aptly, the lack thereof. It seems in this case, Mr. Assange was asked by Miss a to use a condom, but he didn’t use one. Now, here is the important part: Did Miss a then tell Mr. Assange that she did not want to engage in sexual intercourse with him without a condom, or did she consent either verbally or by assent, to continue with the coitus? If there was consent after the condom use was not to be forthcoming, then Sweden is in the curious position of criminalizing sex without a condom.
Obviously, very little details are being made public at this time concerning these allegations, and maybe there is more to the story, but from what is known now, I am sure the sales of Trojans in Sweden is skyrocketing!
The matter concerning Miss W is a little different. Miss W allegedly claims that Mr. Assange had sexual intercourse with her while she was asleep, without a condom. Having sex with someone while they are asleep can by rape, because consent could be lacking. I say “could” because the circumstances maybe that consent was by assent, for instance, the two had sexual intercourse that night, and then in the morning Mr. Assange was feeling frisky and did the roll over. Under those circumstances, it would be unlikely for rape charges to be filed in California. So there might be more to this story as well, but I am still curious because in all the reports the “without a condom” is tagged on.
Consensual sex without a condom, and extraditable offense? A sexual assault? In the United States, the use of a condom during a rape has been used as a defense for rape, sometimes successfully, most of the time not successfully. On one occasion, the victim asked her attacker to use a condom, which he did. The attacker is now in prison. So the lack of the use of a condom as a sexual assault is just a further extension of unlawful sexual intercourse seems to be bit absurd. If that is the case, why are not both parties charged? Is it the lack of a contraceptive the issue? If so, Sweden has one upped China’s One Child Policy.
No Condom = Rape? WikiLeaks Founder And Sex By Surprise « Golden State Justice
