The detail of the accusations against Assange

Because of the difficulty in finding out what exactly is alleged against Julian Assange, this post sets out the accusations in full.  Please note that these are accusations only and are denied by Assange.


There are four accusations against Assange in the European Arrest Warrant issued on 26 November 2010.

I set out each of these four accusations as stated in the EAW.

Then for each accusation I also set out the London High Court’s summary of the relevant complainant’s statement.  These statements are legally relevant as they were considered by the High Court in determining whether the alleged conduct was fairly described in the EAW.

In each of the four accusations, the High Court held that the alleged offences would constitute an offence under the criminal law of England and Wales.

(“H” refers to the Judgment of High Court, 2 November 2011 [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin). Numbers refer to paragraph numbers.)


The first accusation is in respect of AA and is stated in the EAW as follows:

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 was supplemented by AA’s statement, which the High Court summarised as follows (H74):

 AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange’ s part against using a condom.


The second accusation is again in respect of AA and is stated by the EAW as follows:

 2. Sexual molestation

 On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. 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, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

This was supplemented by AA’s witness statement, which the High Court summarised as follows (H93):

 AA’s statement went on to describe what happened immediately after what we have set out in relation to offence 1. She made it quite clear, as we have set out at paragraph 74, that she wished him to put a condom on before he entered her. Indeed she was concerned he had not put a condom on. She felt his penis with her hand to check he had really put it on. She felt that the edge of the condom was in the right place on the root of his penis. They therefore continued to have sex, as she said that she thought that she just wanted to get it over with. After a while AA noticed that Mr Assange had pulled his penis out of her and started to arrange the condom. Judging by the sound AA thought he was removing the condom. He then penetrated her again and continued sexual intercourse. She felt again with her hand that the edge of the condom was, as previously, around the root of the penis. She therefore let him continue. AA stated that a while later he ejaculated inside her and then pulled out. When he removed the condom from his penis, AA saw it was empty of semen. When she started to move her body she noticed something was seeping out of her vagina and understood it must be his semen. AA told the police she was convinced that Mr Assange, when he pulled out of her, broke the condom by the glans and then continued the intercourse until he ejaculated.


The third accusation in respect of AA is set out as follows in the EAW:

 3. Sexual molestation

 On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

AA’s statement on this, as summarised by the High Court, was as follows (H99-100):

In her statement describing offence 3, which is alleged to have occurred some days later on 18 August 2010 or (in the revised translation) on or about 18 August 2010, AA stated that after 12/13 August 2010 they did not have sexual intercourse again. AA said that Mr Assange tried to make sexual advances towards her every day thereafter. For example he had touched her breasts. She rejected him on all occasions. He accepted these rejections.

During this time, however, she continued to sleep in the same bed as Mr Assange. When they were in the same bed on 18 August 2010, he suddenly took all his clothes off from the lower part of his body and rubbed that part of his body and his erect penis against AA. She had felt this was very strange behaviour and awkward. After this, she no longer slept in the same bed as Mr Assange, but moved to a mattress on the floor.


The final accusation is from the other woman, SW.  This is stated in the EAW as follows:

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.”

The High Court summarised SW’s statement as follows:

120.         Offence 4 was based on the complaint of SW made at a hearing on 26 August 2010. The fairness and accuracy of Offence 4 related to SW’s account of what happened on 17 August 2010. It was submitted that, if that part of her statement relating to 17 August 2010 was read in its entirety, a fair and accurate description of the conduct would have made clear her consent to sexual intercourse or alternatively a reasonable belief on his part that she consented.

121.         In her statement SW said that she had been captivated by Mr Assange when she had seen him in a TV interview. She had attended a lunch with him and others on 14 August 2010. He had flirted with her over lunch and they had gone out together ending up in cinema where they kissed and fondled. She contacted him on 16 August 2010 and invited him to her house. In the bedroom he took her clothes off; they were naked together on the bed and engaged in sexual foreplay on the bed. He rubbed his penis against her. She closed her legs because she did not want to have intercourse with him unless he used a condom. After a period of some hours, he went to sleep. For a long time she had lain awake, but then she also fell asleep. They then had sexual intercourse with him using a condom. They fell asleep and woke and had sex again. They had breakfast. They had sex again with a condom only on the glans of his penis.

122.         Her statement then describes in some detail the conduct that forms the basis of Offence 4. She fell asleep, but was woken up by his penetration of her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered to the effect that he was not. She felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. She had never had unprotected sex. He then ejaculated inside her.


This post is for the convenience of those following the case only, and it is not intended to provide any information not already in the published judgment.



Comments are pre-moderated. No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters. Other comments published at my absolute discretion.
No post naming the complainants or in anyway attacking them will be published.

13 thoughts on “The detail of the accusations against Assange”

  1. My impression of the nature of the accusations is that thet are exceptional in nature. It has frequently been asserted that Assange has been subjected to politically motivated persecution. Key to understanding this is the number of similar cases that have been prosecuted in Sweden and England. The key elements would be:

  2. Oops did not mean to post unfinished:

    My impression of the nature of the accusations is that thet are exceptional. It has frequently been asserted that Assange has been subjected to politically motivated persecution. Key to understanding this is the number of similar cases that have been prosecuted in Sweden and England. The key elements would be accusations of:
    1. Holding a consensual sexual partner firmly preventing movement
    2. Deliberately breaking a condom while having sex.
    3. Having consensual sex then in the same episode having sex without a condom starting with the partner asleep.

    If no one has been prosecuted in Sweden then it woudl be strong evidence that Assange has been subjected to political persecution. If similar prosecutions have occured in Sweden but not Britain then it is evidence that there are differences between the prosecution of sexual offences in Britain and Sweden but not of political persecution. If there are similar cases in Sweden and Britain then it is clear that Assange is being treated as anyone else and is simply seeking to evade justice.

    This issue of whether consent had or had not been given and whether Assange could reasonably have believed that consent had been given seems remarkably unclear for accusations bearing in mind that Assange may well dispute the events described.

    1. I don’t follow your logic. You imply that if the case description justifies prosecution, then there is no political persecution, but that requires as a sine-qua-non that the actual accusations are genuine – and that’s what most of his supporters doubt. Looking at the text above, one key point used to raise doubt becomes quite evident:

      AA stated “that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. ” So the initial agreement was for him to stay there until the 14th. Supposedly, just before that period ended, the intercourse at issue happened. In the passage summarised as H99-100, however, it becomes clear that he actually stayed longer than initially agreed on and they in fact continued to sleep in the same bed. If it was initially planned that he moves out on the 14th, why did she consent in extending that stay, given what happened on August 13-14? The fact that she consented to not only continue to host him, but actually let him sleep in her bed is certainly strange behaviour.

      Given that Assange was on a speaking trip, it seems likely to me that he left the apartment repeatedly during that time – so it also can’t be a case of simply squatting her apartment. More: she lets him sleep in her bed and after having intercourse with him deems it strange that he continues to make sexual advancements on her?

      After the non-consensual sex on Aug 13-14, she did not make him leave on the 14th as initially agreed on. She also didn’t insist that he sleep on a couch or mattress. Instead she continued to share a bed with him.

      If the behavior on Aug 13-14 upset her as much as suggested, her conduct in the following days certainly seems strange.

      So while I perfectly agree that he should face the charges in Sweden, I can at least understand that some of his “fans” are paranoid. The fact that the US have not precisely been very law-abiding in getting their hands on people they want doesn’t exactly help, either.

  3. AJ, “consensual sex” was predicated on a condom being used. Because the insertion happened without a condom and SW was asleep there was no consent, implied or otherwise. One can argue whether allowing the sex act to continue implies consent but I would argue with that. There are many rape cases where penetration happens and the victim allows the perpetrator to continue (be it because they simply want it over with or be it because they don’t want to disappoint their abuser, or whatever, it’s still rape).

    What is damning is that SW was adamant about requiring a condom and therefore his insertion into her while she was asleep without a condom was non-consensual. AA’s experience with Assange and his reluctance to use condoms is more evidence to those ends. This is why I think that the Swedish authorities believe they have a case. Assange’s only argument is that it was consensual because he told SW that he was in fact not wearing a condom (admitting during the act that he had violated the terms of consent). Also, I’m fairly certain Assange admitted to penetrating SW without a condom despite her express desires to have a condom be used, if that recollection is correct it is very damming for Assanges’ case. Retract it and you got AA’s testimony that Assange was reluctant to wear a condom.

  4. Thank you for this summary, it’s really useful to have the facts of the accusations laid out.

    The persistent denial that the allegations constitute sexual assault and rape just seems to me to suggest that for a lot of people, women’s bodily autonomy, desire, pleasure and sexuality simply isn’t as important as men’s. Which is depressing.

  5. There is alot missing from the above information which is also contained in the High Court Judgment (& without reference to any of the other stuff floating around on the internet). SW’s statement was misleading in that she sent a text saying that she was ‘half asleep’ and admitted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep.
    The bed Assange was allowed to continue to share with AA for some days after the alleged holding incident was a single bed which may well have resulted in certain circumstances BUT lacking criminal intent see H101
    Both consensual encounters seem to have begun within hours of the parties meeting which may go to the quality of reasonable belief in consent.
    Both women seem to have initially adopted an approach of squeezing their legs together/closing legs & only subsequently stating what that meant. Indeed with AA Assange had to ask her what she was doing it for. All this goes to the quality of reasonable belief in consent.
    The forensic evidence did not support the allegation of deliberate destruction of the condom but wear & tear. AA made her statement on 21 August. The alleged condom incident happened on 13-14 August which means the condom must have been kept for at least a week before submitted to police.
    All this in the context of further encounters described where Assange had been respectful of the women’s wishes.
    There are even more queries & doubts raised by a thorough reading of the information as stated in the court documents.
    What is descibed in the court document info is just as easily the kind of negotiation & learning curve partners go through rather than criminal conduct unless one makes it so.
    I am a woman. I have been in not dissimilar circumstances but don’t consider it a criminal matter. I have also supported a woman who became worried about HIV from a consensual encounter – I accompanied her to a clinic not a police station which seemed the appropriate thing to do (according to supreme court a worry about disease was apparently the ostensible reason for SW & AA attending the police station for ‘advice’) .

  6. The question that I raised is not whether the accusations meet the technical definitions of offences in the UK or elsewhere but whether theer is any prospect at all of conviction given a fair trial and whether the acussed has been treated differently from normal. This is critical because if Assange is being treated in a way not normal then he might reasonably expect that his exceptional treatment would continue and therefore he is at an unusual and unfair risk.

    Three of the accusations seem beyondany reasonable expectation that any conviction could be possibly be found and therefore clealry an abussive process:

  7. Sorry Second time a post has occured while editting and when pressing return….

    The question that I raised is not whether the accusations meet the technical definitions of offences in the UK or elsewhere but whether theer is any prospect at all of conviction given a fair trial and whether the acussed has been treated differently from normal. This is critical because if Assange is being treated in a way not normal then he might reasonably expect that his exceptional treatment would continue and therefore he is at an unusual and unfair risk.

    Some of the accusations seem beyondany reasonable expectation that any one could believe Assange guilty beyond reasonable doubt:
    1. Unlawful coercion. Clearly given what AA said this wa spart of consensual sex. Holding someone formly etc but then acceding to their requests seems the antithesis of unlawful coercion.
    2. Deliberately breaking a condom which the complaint did not see but inferred from the fact it broke. constituiting rape because consent was conditional on the use of a condom.
    3. Sexualmolestation by lying naked next to someone he had recently had sex with.

    Only the rape due to not using a condom when having sex with a partner whose consent was conditional on the use of a condom has any chance at all and this seems to ask questiosn of what Assange could reasonably believe, and the communication and understanding during the event.

    The question of whether Assange’s treatment is normal or not is key. If it is normal then the asylum is wrong and he should go to Sweden if it is very unusual treatment alone is reason to believe the legal process is unfair and he might expect further unusual treatment in which case the asylum is reasonabel and correct.

    This can be answered by looking for similar cases. Is this case unique or can similar cases be found?

  8. There was no rape in these circumstances.
    1. Neither of the partners said NO to Assange.
    2. Neither of the partners said STOP to Assange.
    3. Both continued to have sex with Assange during and afterwards.
    The truth is – both partners were embarrassed and humiliated after discovering Assange was having sex with both of them in a short period of time.
    The scenarios and circumstances describe typical sexual behavior in modern times – a debate about condom use. As for nocturnal sex – this is part of normal sexual behavior. Partners gratify and pleasure each other at spontaneous times in a healthy relationship. I recall once wakening from a deep sleep having oral sex performed on me; would I constitute that as rape, absolutely not, that was love.

  9. One wonders if anyone has actually read the charges/allegations from AA, because it seems there is simply no case there at all. The only area where an actual crime would have been committed, intentionally breaking a condom, has no evidence attached to it. The accuser can’t even say if he did what he was accused of. She “thinks” he “may have” broken the condom “on purpose.” How, in any reasonable court of law, does that have any chance of resulting in a conviction? It seems absurd on its face.

    The only charge overall which holds ANY water at all would be the penetrating while asleep accusation. This, too, has some serious problems. First, she didn’t stop him, which could be implied as consent, though dubious, but even worse is the reports that a) she didn’t endorse the version police attributed to her b) the reports that she had no interest in pursuing the charges c) she reportedly told friends/family she thought police were railroading her d) reportedly, she also told friends she was “half asleep, ” not “asleep.”

    One must look at these factors and ask yourself would a prosecutor pursue charges with this evidence if it wasn’t Julian Assange? And does this case look winnable AT ALL? I’m no expert but I am aware enough to know prosecutors don’t generally go all out on reed thin, virtually unwinnable cases.

    Everything about this case looks extremely suspect. Add the long list of whistleblowers/journalists who find themselves facing unrelated criminal charges shortly after making enemies of the powerful and one needs to have their head planted firmly in the ground to think this isn’t in all likelihood a politically motivated persecution.

  10. In the matter of Julian Assange…

    It strikes me, from experience, that it is often very difficult for the man to tell what a woman wants to do, during the whole process of having sex. One thing though, is very clear: if the woman doesn’t want to have sex, she has many very effective ways that stop it. Just a strong look can be enough. God forbid that she would actually say something or make a forceful movement. But, almost always, the defense a woman uses is to skip right to the chase, and immediately “react”,- perhaps it would be better put to say that she goes right to the definite, authoritative rejection, ending any current relations, right at that moment; she does not allow anything to get started. That’s because we all know that, once the man is really sexually aroused and manifesting it, it’s hard for him to stop. It would be as if you were eating a good dinner, and someone came and abruptly took the plate away from you. The process is in motion, the horse has left the gate. So, effectively preventing this arousal before it goes too far, she will immediately say, with a strong content, “I think you had better leave”. And that’s that.

    Women the world over have been known to do this, regardless of the condition of the man, the weather, the time of day (or night), whether he has any where else to go (never a consideration), or really anything else – and, it is known that, at the slightest contravention of their sense of being treated fairly, they are very very likely to do just that.

    In the general language and convention of the sexual process, if a woman actively plays around with you, that means one thing: you are going to have sex. If she invites you to her home at night and there is nothing much on the agenda, it means one thing: she is planning on having sex with you. Normally, when a man and a women spend very much time alone with each other, the sexual forces will stir. It’s a fact of life. We all know this.

    During the course of actually consummating the sexual act, it often happens that the woman will exhibit contradictory behavior. For instance, she will say “No, no, no”, while proceeding actively toward consummation. Very often, her body language will be going strongly in one direction, while her emotions will be vacillating, or moving in another direction.
    Later, she is sometimes hard pressed to be really clear about what she wanted. To be truthful, the fact is that she is sometimes not really sure.

    It’s hard for a man to understand (because really he can’t quite) a woman, and when having sex, that condition remains. Often, (not always) what the woman is feeling during the process remains a mystery to the man. Particularly with a new partner.

    In discussing the matter afterwards, the two partners often have very different impressions of what happened. This is exacerbated by the strong tendency of people today to equivocate at the slightest excuse. In other words, out of consideration for the partner’s feelings, or out of cowardice, or out of the current habit of many people to lie about everything as a matter of course, it often becomes really difficult to know the truth about what another person is feeling. If you love someone, perhaps you will be more encouraged to tell them the truth, just because you love them; but in the current condition where people have sex without strong love, the possibility of the truth being known becomes more remote.

    Men generally know that a woman’s friends know what the women is feeling very well, because she has told them, but he will probably never know, for sure.

    With men though, unless they are very close, which is rare, it is harder for them to be completely open about what they are feeling, because of the slight jealousy that exists between men…

    Although women think about sex far less than men, and are generally “in the mood” only about a sixth as much as men, they learn, usually at a young age, that men are easily aroused, and they also learn, that once aroused, and then finally, encouraged, those forces are hard to quell.

    Looking at the evidence, it seems clear that both parties acted with the various sorts of mistakes that sometimes occur in this process: the man, overly strong and somewhat inconsiderate of their feelings (is that not somewhat typical?); the women, contradictory and vacillating, making it hard to figure out what it was that they really wanted – did they themselves know? Unable to definitively make up their minds…and then, instead of going to Julian with their grievances, without a thought for Julian, going to the police; going to a third party right off the bat. Did they ask him if he would take the test?
    Did they attempt to reconcile their differences in a way that would not cause undue harm to any of the parties?

    You might say that’s because they were obviously frightened of Julian and didn’t respect him enough to think he would act justly toward them, but the rest of us, I dare say, don’t find Julian to be frightening, but rather more civilized and caring of other’s feelings (he certainly is in interviews he does with world leaders) than is the standard, and certainly possessing a strong sense of justice. Basically, I think it’s fair to say that most of us find Julian to be a likable guy, and impressive…But only he and the two women know what they really did – and thus they have the best chance of understanding it and resolving it, themselves, unless one or more of them is unwilling to do so.

    Did they care?

    All of these sorts of issues often arise when people have sex with people they are not married to and hardly know (or don’t know). One could not expect it to be otherwise. People of goodwill find ways to address these issues with methods that protect to an appropriate degree, the well being and feelings of the other party, because people realize that usually both parties have fallen short of perfect behavior, and that really, normally, no one is blameless.

    The way of the religions in these matters is to confront the person you feel has wronged you alone, with no third party present, (If there is fear, or a safety issue, the other person can be confronted in a room with others nearby, or just out of the earshot of other people, but within view.) and seek what you consider to be fair redress. Usually, when the two parties meet and speak openly about the matter, it gets resolved, particularly if both parties are sufficiently civilized, and both parties are left with more understanding of themselves and the other party, and often feel actually closer to each other than they did before. The one realizes their mistake, and resolves not to let it happen again. The other understands why the person harmed them and/or upset them, and very often, sees that the accused was not acting out of malice, but out of ignorance of one kind or another, which this meeting has corrected, and with that understanding comes peace. Usually, the two parties will then be moved to forgive each other for their various mistakes, and harmony and peace will really be restored. If that doesn’t avail, the advice of the messengers of God is to do it again, and this time bring one witness; if that doesn’t avail, then bring two witnesses, and so on, until the matter is resolved.

    Of course, it requires courage, but then courage is necessary in life. It’s important that the two parties meet privately in the initial confrontation, because it is known that third parties may have their own interests and intervene or take sides, thus exacerbating the issue or causing one side to be treated unfairly.

    Normal intelligent people who are not completely suborned by the established powers that hold sway over the day, routinely avoid going to the police right away, if possible. The reason for this is well known: the law of life is to first try to solve your own problems yourself; only then, if you can’t, is it appropriate to ask for help from others. Also, unfortunately the police have their own interests, or will sometimes be too quick to come to an opinion in their treatment of a situation. Some police are good; some are wonderful, courageous, well mannered, upright in their dealings – true, but the risk is too high that in the main, they will fall short in their attempts to render a happy outcome for the various parties. They may have different values than the group or person seeking redress. They often have access to lethal force and have great power, which at the least, causes an imbalance as the situation proceeds. They may come from a different culture. They may come from a different class…- Or in the worst case, they may have their own hidden agenda, which has very little or nothing to do with a really fair settlement of the issue.

    Clearly authorities, including the police, are appropriate when the parties involved are unable to take care of their own affairs.- But, they are a last resort, not a first. One must endeavor to arrange and solve one’s own affairs, and not fob them off on others. You, and not someone else, are responsible for your own life. Having others take care of your problems will lead to an insidious lack of self esteem, a lack of self confidence. Try to put out the fire first, and then call the fire department if you can’t. See if you can’t confront your enemy first and solve your own problems; then, if you can’t, get your friends to help, go to your community leaders, people who have a reputation for being fair, and have the ability to resolve issues, and then, if that doesn’t work, go to the police if you have to.

    Eventually prominent figures in the public, and indeed in any walk of life, learn how to behave: standards are higher, and one’s behavior is intensely observed. Thus, one must never break the law or the custom. Indeed, this is true for anyone who wants to be in a harmonious relationship with society. (It becomes a habit.) To do so makes one vulnerable. People will think you are crazy and lock you up. In the case of someone who is well known, they must always behave in an exemplary fashion, setting an example for those who are observing, and that works out well for everyone. Further, it is a truism that any conduct that you prosecute will become known, no matter how hard you try to hide it. (People will know or sense it, even if they don’t know it consciously. If nothing else, you will know it.) It is, well, perhaps you won’t believe this, impossible to fool another human being. (You can put this assertion away, and check over the years to see if your experience verifies that it’s true, or not.) Thus one should never be two-faced, and always act as if whatever you do will become known…That is, never do something in private, or in a way, that you wouldn’t do openly.

    In this case, I don’t see anyone acting in a way that would normally require the police. What I do see is that Julian took a risk, exposing himself to people he did not know at all, and his behavior contained errors (note: Wanting to have sex every chance he had, brushing aside her inconsistent requests but then when she made it clear, following them, may not be what we would hope for, but can’t be that infrequent in relationships I would guess,-still errors) which males sometimes make when they are deeply involved with their sexual forces (they go on before they know it).

    A wise person will not take risks, and will wait until what he wants to do can be done safely, because a risk is a risk, and one day will that risk will (inevitably) play…

    Because the sex was clearly consensual in the main, and because surely the stories of the two parties will at times contradict each other, so that it will hard to know who is telling the truth because of that, this kind of thing would be more commonly not taken up, and authorities would wait for a clearer violation before prosecuting…In other words, this kind of behavior and circumstance would veer toward common cases that were not prosecuted…the uncommon behavior that would be prosecuted, and the generally considered criminal behavior, involves actually hurting the other person, and/or totally disregarding their requests), where there was no consensual sex whatsoever…

    Additionally, it looks like, the two women, although perhaps in different ways and with different levels of awareness and understanding, were no real friends of Assange’s, and acted without regard for his other feelings and his reputation.

    Which of us can say that we have never been insensitive to the feelings and needs of others? You could say that he committed a human injustice against them, and used the various kinds of force which are available to males to do this, probably without malice aforethought, which is generally an element in the consideration of whether something is a crime…but acted in ways which are similar to the imperfect actions that occur and that we carry out in our own relationships. Will we not use our influence to get our partner into bed at times? Isn’t it true that sometimes when your wife wants to have sex and you don’t, you do it anyway, out of consideration for her, and her rights? Doesn’t the woman also do the same at times, for the same reasons? Does the man not try to have his way? Does the woman not resist?

    Going on to another topic, which of us doesn’t know that “ratting someone out to the police” will cause great consequences, and often, unjust ones?

    As I say, the messengers of God gave excellent advice on how to solve such problems; people ignore it at their own peril. If that advice had been followed, Julian would have learned to stop a harmful behavior, so that he would not be harming any other women in this way in the future; and that would be a significant improvement. The women would have felt good about themselves that they stood up to the man and fought for their rights…He could have agreed to take whatever test was necessary, and thus allay their fears of having caught some disease, and apologize for his behavior. He would then have also learned a valuable lesson for men: you can’t know very well what women are thinking, and need to be very careful indeed, and respect their feelings and what they want. Possibly they would have become wiser too, because they would have come to realize that it is unwise to be alone too long with a member of the opposite sex, least something occur which you didn’t want; also they may have learned that generally men have stronger sexual feelings, and have real trouble, as I said before, in stopping the horse, once it’s out of the gate. Realizing this, they may have both disciplined themselves not to encourage the male (which they surely did) unless they were willing to accept the consequences, the result when strong sexual forces are unleashed, even in civilized person…

    Let me be clear: I’m not taking sides here; one can surmise that various errors were committed by both parties. Eventually we all hope that we will become wise enough and disciplined enough, that our behavior is good, does not harm others, and has a positive effect on our fellow man, or leads to positive results. In the pursuit of this perfection, there are many ways to correct errors. There were better ways to attempt to correct them, ways that have proven more successful in resolving issues and restoring peace and harmony, than were utilized in this instance, I think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *