WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Says to Leave London Embassy 'Soon'

[JDPriestly]

68. A woman invites a man she hardly knows into her bed. Their relationship is consensual.

In the morning he wakes up in the same bed with her thinking that she is still a consenting adult. In the morning she either has second thoughts or discovers that he is engaged in activities to which she either did not consent or did not specifically consent. Later, apparently after he has left, she reports to the police that certain aspects of their morning activities were nor consensual. Did a crime occur?

When did the consent of the night before end?

Was that consent conditioned on the use of a condom?

He says that is not the way he understood it. She says he exceeded the terms of her consent.

He says, she says is the crux of the evidence in many if not most rape cases. Since in our British legal tradition, the standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, it is very difficult to prove rape unless you have a video or some physical proof that there was no consent.

Proving lack of consent can be somewhat simpler in cases involving strangers. But here, the alleged victim admitted that she invited the alleged rapist into her home and admitted she consented to sex. It will be very difficult to prove that the consent was limited to sex with a condom unless she made him sign a contract or took a video of her stating her terms.

This is all complicated by the evidence in this specific case including the delay in interviewing the women involved, the alleged internet statements about revenge, etc.

The lesson to be learned: when it comes to sex, both men and women need to be very careful about trusting near strangers. That's the lesson to be learned. I would bet that In this case, Assange may feel more or at least just as violated as the women involved. He thought he had consent. They say he did not. A misunderstanding? Something that was not clarified at the outset? Or truly a vicious crime? An accidental rape? A rape due to a misunderstanding?


As for whether Assange should have been extradited to Sweden, I think the question was whether that was just a means to get Assange into a country with laws that would facilitate rendering him to the US for prosecution. In this case, this question overrides the issue about whether the sex in question was a rape or consensual. Is a potential prosecution in Sweden merely a subterfuge for rendering Assange to the US? Would the Swedish court bother to request extradition of Assange on such a shaky claim were it not for US pressure to try to then render Assange to the US?

I am a critic of excessive secrecy in government. It gives rise to rumors, disenfranchises voters and undermines the integrity of the government. Assange is pursued not because of his sexual conduct but because he has challenged excessive secrecy in government -- and not just in the US. I haven't read a great deal of what Assange has published. But I support his right to publish it and to, thereby, reveal just how excessive our government's secrecy is.

Again, excessive secrecy disenfranchises the people.

Sexual assault is a terrible, terrible thing. But, in this case, it would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the specific crime of lack of consent for sex without a condom is not illegal in most places.

All men and women should be very careful about the circumstances in which we become involved in sexual relationships. At what point is a consensual act no longer consensual? Very difficult to prove in hindsight.

Sex that is not consensual can hurt the man as well as the woman. That is something to be learned from this case. But another thing to be learned is that charges and innuendo about sexual activities of a political opponent can be used for political purposes. And that may be the case here -- which is why I oppose the extradition and hope Assange will be free soon.