A British court has ruled against Julian Assange in his bid to avoid extradition to Sweden to face rape and sexual molestation charges against two women.
The two judges ruled on a variety of technical and jurisdictional issues, but the meat of their ruling addressed two questions: whether the complaints against Assange accurately described the behaviors alleged, and whether such acts, if proven, constituted criminal offenses in the jurisdiction in which they occurred.
Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:
The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.
With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.
In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”
Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”
One important note as to that last charge. Assange’s attorneys contended that SW’s consent to the continuation of unprotected intercourse after she awoke to find Assange penetrating her rendered the entire encounter consensual. The judges rejected that argument, declaring that “the fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.” It was his alleged initial penetration, they ruled, that constituted rape, and consent to non-consensual intercourse cannot be obtained retroactively.
Today’s ruling is not Assange’s final appeal, and it is not a finding of fact by the court. But it is a wholesale rejection of the Assange legal team’s contention that the behavior alleged, even if proven, would not be unlawful in England. As such, it stands as a powerful endorsement of a robust and common-sensical approach to the question of consent in the law of rape and sexual assault.
studentactivism.net 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 3, 2011 at 7:58 am
ctrenta
Thank you for writing this.
It’s disheartening to see so many progressives give Julian Assange the “Kobe Bryant treatment” but not afford the same kind of support or even sensitivity to the alleged rape survivors. I thought most progressives would understand this. Especially the likes of Naomi Wolf, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, independent journalist John Pilger, Daniel Ellsberg, and others.
November 6, 2011 at 11:33 am
Jay Knott
“As such, it stands as a powerful endorsement of a robust and common-sensical approach to the question of consent in the law of rape and sexual assault” says Angus of the tribulations of Julian. No, it doesn’t. It is possible that the two women’s claims against Assange are true, but it is impossible to prove them, therefore the courts in Britain would not prosecute. Unfortunately, Sweden doesn’t have an Anglo-Saxon legal system, and political movements like radical feminism can affect it. The two plaintiffs appear to be jilted groupies looking for revenge. Feminism doesn’t recognize the phenomenon ‘groupie’ – the fact that many women are attracted by wealth, power and fame – because it makes them look dependent, and they want to look independent. How ironic – to see Scandinavian feminists helping the American fascists who want to see Assange dead. Good luck, Julian. You’ll need it.
November 7, 2011 at 11:06 am
ctrenta
Jay Knott said the following:
“The two plaintiffs appear to be jilted groupies looking for revenge.”
That’s the same kind of rationalization I hear from admirers of professional athletes accused of domestic and sexual violence and/or divorce: “She’s going after him for the money.” It happened with Kobe Bryant, O.J. Simpson, Scottie Pippen, Warren Moon, and countless others.
I agree that charges need to come forth first and that Assange deserves a fair shot at justice, just like those who were allegedy raped by Assange. But make no mistake, false allegations of rape are rare, even rarer are those who make false allegations and stick to their stories.
It could very well be politically motivated. But what I don’t like and what I don’t tolerate is the invalidation of the alleged rape survivors stories, even by progressive heroes such as Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, and Naomi Wolf. Rape survivors are watching how this is being handled and if Assange’s alleged survivors aren’t taken seriously by the media or other so-called progressive heroes, then it can discourage or disuade other survivors fro seeking justice against their accusers. It perpetuates the idea that justice is not on their side when it comes to rape prosecutions.
As someone who taught domestic and sexual violence prevention in public schools and someone who follows rape trials closely, I’ve seen this situation play out too many times. Assange’s is turning out that way and it needs to change.