It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I thought this rape case was actually a case of consensual intercourse, where the discrepancy was in the contraceptive used. Is that not the case? They are calling it rape because he didn't use a condom?
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I thought this rape case was actually a case of consensual intercourse, where the discrepancy was in the contraceptive used. Is that not the case? They are calling it rape because he didn't use a condom?
4. On 17 th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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.
originally posted by: purplemer
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I thought this rape case was actually a case of consensual intercourse, where the discrepancy was in the contraceptive used. Is that not the case? They are calling it rape because he didn't use a condom?
You are correct. It is smear. A common tactic used against whistleblowers.
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I thought this rape case was actually a case of consensual intercourse, where the discrepancy was in the contraceptive used. Is that not the case? They are calling it rape because he didn't use a condom?
Actually, the fact that Assange did not use a condom is not rape. People focus on this to divert attention from the actual facts that he was alleged to have raped a sleeping woman. Here is the text from the EAW in his first hearing, noting that in Assange's extradition appeal it was reasserted that it would have been rape under English law.
4. On 17 th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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.
Westminster Court Sweden V Julian Assange
Seeing as it hasn't been to court and Assange ran and hid for a few years who are you to say it's a smear? Were you there
originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: uncommitted
Seeing as it hasn't been to court and Assange ran and hid for a few years who are you to say it's a smear? Were you there
Try reading the court case files and then get back to me
originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: uncommitted
I dont really care what you think it is based on your imagination. As I said try reading the court notes. Then you will ad least be worthy of an opinion on the subject.