|
On August 17 2012 10:20 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 10:02 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:
[quote]
wat.
I'm walking around at night.
I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout.
Then I stick my dick in her.
Probably rape, no?
Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act? True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. What's your point? Pretty simple, a rape involves sex against the will of the victim with violence or you simply plan with drugs the make someone unconscious. But anyway it leads to nothing this discussion. Now strange cases with people with alzheimeer are suddenly involved in this matter and unconscious girls that lay in the alley. I have said everything.
How would you feel if I (a man) came up well you were sleeping and inserted myself into you? I'm pretty sure you'd be upset and would want to press charges.
Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, period. Doesn't matter if there's no violence or drugs, if there's no tangible consent, it's rape. This is how it is in basically every western (and eastern for that matter) country.
|
On August 17 2012 09:23 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? apparently not in Canada... are there any other Canadians that can verify? I mean if we don't count sleep, then we would hardly count unconscious. Date rape? not anymore! now its just an unconscious cuddle..
In Canada we no longer have an offence called "rape" in the criminal code but this is definitely "sexual assault" under Canadian criminal law.
|
On August 17 2012 10:41 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 10:20 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 10:02 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:
[quote]
True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing.
correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. What's your point? Pretty simple, a rape involves sex against the will of the victim with violence or you simply plan with drugs the make someone unconscious. But anyway it leads to nothing this discussion. Now strange cases with people with alzheimeer are suddenly involved in this matter and unconscious girls that lay in the alley. I have said everything. How would you feel if I (a man) came up well you were sleeping and inserted myself into you? I'm pretty sure you'd be upset and would want to press charges. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, period. Doesn't matter if there's no violence or drugs, if there's no tangible consent, it's rape. This is how it is in basically every western (and eastern for that matter) country.
Law has nothing to do what i feel. Anyway it gets more strange. You and girl have sex and then in morning she i s sleeping you begin have sex with she doesnt wake and while you are the breakfast you ask if she didnt noticed what was going on in the morning. Then she is says, man that was rape. I hardly belief that everyone think that is rape.
All this stupid examples with randomly leing unconscious people on the street have nothing to do with that case. But anyway, you could always say country can define law how they want. Its okay i dont life in sweden so it doesnt matter anyway to me.
|
On August 17 2012 08:21 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 07:02 oBlade wrote:On August 17 2012 06:40 archonOOid wrote:I pity Mr Assange as he is a really despicable human being. He has the balls to act like a dirt-bag with Swedish women but has no respect for the consequences. For those who criticize the Swedish court system take a look at the independent, The World Justice Project, shows that Sweden is one of the best justice systems in the world. He fears that Sweden will hand him over to the USA but Sweden doesn't hand over people to countries where death penalties are allowed. 2011 Report p96 in report/p94 in PDF This is fallacious. My friend might buy the statistically safest car in the world, but it doesn't mean he won't wreck it if he's the worst driver there is. Similarly, the Swedish justice system is no doubt great for laymen, but in the case of a highly controversial political figure, it could easily get SNAFUed. Do you really think that the US can control what a swedish prosecutor does? Well they can't. Prosecutors are independent bureaucrats (not elected like in the US) who guard their independence pretty zealously. The idea that the prosecution is politically motivated is just a silly conspiracy theory. The claim that the accusers are politically motivated is certainly possible. But that's not an excuse to take off from the country and try to evade lawful authorities. If Assange is innocent he should go to court and get acquitted -- not run away and do everything he can to avoid a trial.
There's no need to call things conspiracy theories. People are in each other's pockets, whether we want them to be or not. It's not impossible that people are in each other's pockets in some way we don't know about, the prosecutor included. After all, she reopened the case after another prosecutor had already talked to J.A. and said there wasn't evidence for the crimes that are alleged now. So he cooperated with the investigation, left Sweden, and then they issued a European arrest warrant because they wanted to... talk to him again. Not because they filed charges against him. That was issued about two months after he left Sweden.
All my sympathy to victims of rape from all over the gender spectrum, but in this case it's largely a buzzword. The molestation charges may carry some weight, but I think as they are they're peculiar to Sweden. So I'm not a fan of being arrested in one country for questioning in another with respect to something you haven't been charged with.
|
On August 17 2012 10:41 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 10:20 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 10:02 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:
[quote]
True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing.
correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. What's your point? Pretty simple, a rape involves sex against the will of the victim with violence or you simply plan with drugs the make someone unconscious. But anyway it leads to nothing this discussion. Now strange cases with people with alzheimeer are suddenly involved in this matter and unconscious girls that lay in the alley. I have said everything. How would you feel if I (a man) came up well you were sleeping and inserted myself into you? I'm pretty sure you'd be upset and would want to press charges. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, period. Doesn't matter if there's no violence or drugs, if there's no tangible consent, it's rape. This is how it is in basically every western (and eastern for that matter) country.
 Even though this discussion with the broken english guy is hillarious(please do continue), when did Miss W say that she had sex while asleep?From the description of the events, all I could gather were two women butthut with the fact that they found out their prince charming had sex with the both of them, i.e they were feeling somewhat betrayed, also seemed like Miss A started to believe that he broke the condom on purpose only after talking to Miss W and finding out that he had refused to have protected sex with her and that's what really busted her buttons, while Miss W was mostly angry because he forgot about her and went on with his life, hardly anything covered by the law, am I correct? Maybe it has some value for a comedy movie though.
|
On August 17 2012 10:41 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 10:20 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 10:02 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz wrote:
[quote]
True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing.
correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. What's your point? Pretty simple, a rape involves sex against the will of the victim with violence or you simply plan with drugs the make someone unconscious. But anyway it leads to nothing this discussion. Now strange cases with people with alzheimeer are suddenly involved in this matter and unconscious girls that lay in the alley. I have said everything. How would you feel if I (a man) came up well you were sleeping and inserted myself into you? I'm pretty sure you'd be upset and would want to press charges. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, period. Doesn't matter if there's no violence or drugs, if there's no tangible consent, it's rape. This is how it is in basically every western (and eastern for that matter) country.
Did this with a past girlfriend to tease her awake and she liked it. Also had my current girl say she wouldn't mind waking up like that but i refrain because she's grumpy when she's woken up early in spite of what she says.
Also been woken up with a blowjob several times and didn't complain, far from it.
I was a little impatient earlier in the thread, not because I don't want to see assange escape judicial proceedings, but because the way this shit is all going down. Breaking all the rules and going above and beyond to bring assange in, for obvious reasons, while super child rapist criminals kick it and relax.
It's cool that they want to keep their ongoing investigation under wraps, but the fact that They are going out of their way to nail assange due to his being central to wikileaks, is completely obvious. Them keeping silent on THAT while playing all these strong arm tactics, is hypocrisy to me. A little honesty, "we are gonna make life hard for this guy because we don't like what his website does" that's all I ask. Right now the poor bastard is being given no way to answer any of the charges against him without potentially exposing himself to being taken in and executed by the us. Meanwhile the officials in Sweden and the uk playing politics with justice get to hide their true intentions behind this big shield of "standard legal practice" or whatever when in reality it is Anything but standard. Doesn't seem fair.
|
On August 17 2012 11:07 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 10:41 1Eris1 wrote:On August 17 2012 10:20 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 10:02 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:
[quote]
correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not?
If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. What's your point? Pretty simple, a rape involves sex against the will of the victim with violence or you simply plan with drugs the make someone unconscious. But anyway it leads to nothing this discussion. Now strange cases with people with alzheimeer are suddenly involved in this matter and unconscious girls that lay in the alley. I have said everything. How would you feel if I (a man) came up well you were sleeping and inserted myself into you? I'm pretty sure you'd be upset and would want to press charges. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, period. Doesn't matter if there's no violence or drugs, if there's no tangible consent, it's rape. This is how it is in basically every western (and eastern for that matter) country. Did this with a past girlfriend to tease her awake and she liked it. Also had my current girl say she wouldn't mind waking up like that but i refrain because she's grumpy when she's woken up early in spite of what she says. Also been woken up with a blowjob several times and didn't complain, far from it. I was a little impatient earlier in the thread, not because I don't want to see assange escape judicial proceedings, but because the way this shit is all going down. Breaking all the rules and going above and beyond to bring assange in, for obvious reasons, while super child rapist criminals kick it and relax. It's cool that they want to keep their ongoing investigation under wraps, but the fact that They are going out of their way to nail assange due to his being central to wikileaks, is completely obvious. Them keeping silent on THAT while playing all these strong arm tactics, is hypocrisy to me. A little honesty, "we are gonna make life hard for this guy because we don't like what his website does" that's all I ask. Right now the poor bastard is being given no way to answer any of the charges against him without potentially exposing himself to being taken in and executed by the us. Meanwhile the officials in Sweden and the uk playing politics with justice get to hide their true intentions behind this big shield of "standard legal practice" or whatever when in reality it is Anything but standard. Doesn't seem fair.
Personally I think the women have been payed off to file the lawsuit in the first place, or they're jealous. The fact of the matter is that the chances of him being convicted in the first place are extremely slim. The whole story just seems made up and it's so long ago. That's up to the court though.
There's next to no risk whatsoever of him being deported to the US. This would break EU conventions and the US hasn't requested him in the first place. Why exactly do you think he decided to go to Sweden of all places? He obviously went to a place where he thought he would never get deported to the US, which I hope and believe still is the case.
Sweden would be in a serious fucking shit storm internationally if he was still deported, and the persons behind it would face some serious jail time.
I don't think it's a viable option, really.
On August 17 2012 11:07 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 10:41 1Eris1 wrote:On August 17 2012 10:20 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 10:02 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:
[quote]
correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not?
If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. What's your point? Pretty simple, a rape involves sex against the will of the victim with violence or you simply plan with drugs the make someone unconscious. But anyway it leads to nothing this discussion. Now strange cases with people with alzheimeer are suddenly involved in this matter and unconscious girls that lay in the alley. I have said everything. How would you feel if I (a man) came up well you were sleeping and inserted myself into you? I'm pretty sure you'd be upset and would want to press charges. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, period. Doesn't matter if there's no violence or drugs, if there's no tangible consent, it's rape. This is how it is in basically every western (and eastern for that matter) country. Did this with a past girlfriend to tease her awake and she liked it. Also had my current girl say she wouldn't mind waking up like that but i refrain because she's grumpy when she's woken up early in spite of what she says. Also been woken up with a blowjob several times and didn't complain, far from it. I was a little impatient earlier in the thread, not because I don't want to see assange escape judicial proceedings, but because the way this shit is all going down. Breaking all the rules and going above and beyond to bring assange in, for obvious reasons, while super child rapist criminals kick it and relax. It's cool that they want to keep their ongoing investigation under wraps, but the fact that They are going out of their way to nail assange due to his being central to wikileaks, is completely obvious. Them keeping silent on THAT while playing all these strong arm tactics, is hypocrisy to me. A little honesty, "we are gonna make life hard for this guy because we don't like what his website does" that's all I ask. Right now the poor bastard is being given no way to answer any of the charges against him without potentially exposing himself to being taken in and executed by the us. Meanwhile the officials in Sweden and the uk playing politics with justice get to hide their true intentions behind this big shield of "standard legal practice" or whatever when in reality it is Anything but standard. Doesn't seem fair.
You're comparing consensual sex with non-consensual sex.
An example of where this law has been applied is when for instance men have slept in the same room as a woman who they have never even talked to, stripped off their clothes and had sex with them and woken them up this way.
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 11:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:21 ziggurat wrote:On August 17 2012 07:02 oBlade wrote:On August 17 2012 06:40 archonOOid wrote:I pity Mr Assange as he is a really despicable human being. He has the balls to act like a dirt-bag with Swedish women but has no respect for the consequences. For those who criticize the Swedish court system take a look at the independent, The World Justice Project, shows that Sweden is one of the best justice systems in the world. He fears that Sweden will hand him over to the USA but Sweden doesn't hand over people to countries where death penalties are allowed. 2011 Report p96 in report/p94 in PDF This is fallacious. My friend might buy the statistically safest car in the world, but it doesn't mean he won't wreck it if he's the worst driver there is. Similarly, the Swedish justice system is no doubt great for laymen, but in the case of a highly controversial political figure, it could easily get SNAFUed. Do you really think that the US can control what a swedish prosecutor does? Well they can't. Prosecutors are independent bureaucrats (not elected like in the US) who guard their independence pretty zealously. The idea that the prosecution is politically motivated is just a silly conspiracy theory. The claim that the accusers are politically motivated is certainly possible. But that's not an excuse to take off from the country and try to evade lawful authorities. If Assange is innocent he should go to court and get acquitted -- not run away and do everything he can to avoid a trial. There's no need to call things conspiracy theories. People are in each other's pockets, whether we want them to be or not. It's not impossible that people are in each other's pockets in some way we don't know about, the prosecutor included. After all, she reopened the case after another prosecutor had already talked to J.A. and said there wasn't evidence for the crimes that are alleged now. So he cooperated with the investigation, left Sweden, and then they issued a European arrest warrant because they wanted to... talk to him again. Not because they filed charges against him. That was issued about two months after he left Sweden.
"It's not impossible" is a fair statement. But it's highly improbable and there's absolutely no evidence.
On August 17 2012 11:00 oBlade wrote: All my sympathy to victims of rape from all over the gender spectrum, but in this case it's largely a buzzword. The molestation charges may carry some weight, but I think as they are they're peculiar to Sweden. So I'm not a fan of being arrested in one country for questioning in another with respect to something you haven't been charged with.
You may not agree with the laws in Sweden or in the EU. Maybe a lot of people don't. But when you travel you are subject to the laws of the place you're visiting. I agree with all the people saying that the charges sound a bit ridiculous, but that's really beside the point.
|
On August 17 2012 10:58 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 10:41 1Eris1 wrote:On August 17 2012 10:20 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 10:02 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 10:00 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 17 2012 09:49 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:45 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:
[quote]
correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not?
If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. That's utterly stupid. If a person is unconscious by definition there is no need for coercion. So according to you it could never be rape, even though it is every bit as unconsentual. Sounds awfully rapey to me. Yeah you know, its always important what someone does so that the other unconscious. Are you serious? You find some guy having sex with an unconscious woman in an alley. You say "Hey, what the fuck are you doing" He says "What? She was already unconscious when i got here" you say "Oh ok then, sorry." That is not what i said. In Every crime its important for the judge what criminal energy is involved. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing. And if you planned it and use drugs, so that she is unconscious., it a little different matter and thats clearly a rape. What's your point? Pretty simple, a rape involves sex against the will of the victim with violence or you simply plan with drugs the make someone unconscious. But anyway it leads to nothing this discussion. Now strange cases with people with alzheimeer are suddenly involved in this matter and unconscious girls that lay in the alley. I have said everything. How would you feel if I (a man) came up well you were sleeping and inserted myself into you? I'm pretty sure you'd be upset and would want to press charges. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, period. Doesn't matter if there's no violence or drugs, if there's no tangible consent, it's rape. This is how it is in basically every western (and eastern for that matter) country. Law has nothing to do what i feel. Anyway it gets more strange. You and girl have sex and then in morning she i s sleeping you begin have sex with she doesnt wake and while you are the breakfast you ask if she didnt noticed what was going on in the morning. Then she is says, man that was rape. I hardly belief that everyone think that is rape. All this stupid examples with randomly leing unconscious people on the street have nothing to do with that case. But anyway, you could always say country can define law how they want. Its okay i dont life in sweden so it doesnt matter anyway to me.
That's the entire point. You have no right to her body. It is rape, and you're wrong, both morally and legally.
Morally I would be okay with it if you and her had explicitly talked about it (that you were going to have sex with her while she was sleeping) before it happened and she had consented. Obviously your scenario doesn't contain this.
|
What you do with your girlfriend is one thing. But if you bring home an unknown girl for the night, would you really wake her up with some surprise sex the morning after? Doesn't sound like a smart thing to do.
However, I will say that even though I believe that Wikileaks and the US has nothing at all to do with this case, it might be pursued a bit more actively (like the women getting a high profile lawyer) because nailing Assange would be a feather in the hat for some people.
|
The Ecuador situation was discussed literally in the last page. Here's my translation of what the Swedish minister of foreign affairs had do say about Ecuador interfering in a Swedish justice process. Feel free to use google translate.
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sveriges-slar-tillbaka-efter-ecuadors-kritik/
In short it says that the foreign minister of Ecuador says that the Swedish justice system cannot guarantee JA's safety.
The Ecuadorian ambassador in Sweden is now called to the department of foreign affairs for a meeting, and the Swedish foreign minister basically tells him to fuck off and don't interfere in a Swedish justice process.
According to the Swedish department of foreign affair's press guy, there's reason for the asylum to Ecuador in the first place, as it's illegal (according to EU law) for Sweden to hand people out to the US as they have the death penalty.
It's also stated that there's not even a request from the US to hand him over anyway, and as the US has better relations with the UK than they do with Sweden, they're taken aback by the accusations coming from Ecuador.
Edit. The evidence that there was a planned British raid comes from a former Uzbekistan ambassador? I don't even....
|
On August 17 2012 11:30 Euronyme wrote:
According to the Swedish department of foreign affair's press guy, there's reason for the asylum to Ecuador in the first place, as it's illegal (according to EU law) for Sweden to hand people out to the US as they have the death penalty.
It's also stated that there's not even a request from the US to hand him over anyway, and as the US has better relations with the UK than they do with Sweden, they're taken aback by the accusations coming from Ecuador.
This is a good point that hasn't really been picked up on. If the US wanted to get Assange shipped to the US it would be a lot easier for them to do it from the UK than Sweden.
|
On August 17 2012 11:36 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 11:30 Euronyme wrote:
According to the Swedish department of foreign affair's press guy, there's reason for the asylum to Ecuador in the first place, as it's illegal (according to EU law) for Sweden to hand people out to the US as they have the death penalty.
It's also stated that there's not even a request from the US to hand him over anyway, and as the US has better relations with the UK than they do with Sweden, they're taken aback by the accusations coming from Ecuador.
This is a good point that hasn't really been picked up on. If the US wanted to get Assange shipped to the US it would be a lot easier for them to do it from the UK than Sweden.
People have pointed this out before a couple times in this very thread, but it's a pretty moot point since he is holed up in the Ecuador embassy which clearly means that he doesn't think he is safe in the UK, and I don't blame him, then I wouldn't go out to deal with Guantanamo or Egypt either, better stay put and hope for the best.
|
On August 17 2012 11:43 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 11:36 ziggurat wrote:On August 17 2012 11:30 Euronyme wrote:
According to the Swedish department of foreign affair's press guy, there's reason for the asylum to Ecuador in the first place, as it's illegal (according to EU law) for Sweden to hand people out to the US as they have the death penalty.
It's also stated that there's not even a request from the US to hand him over anyway, and as the US has better relations with the UK than they do with Sweden, they're taken aback by the accusations coming from Ecuador.
This is a good point that hasn't really been picked up on. If the US wanted to get Assange shipped to the US it would be a lot easier for them to do it from the UK than Sweden. People have pointed this out before a couple times in this very thread, but it's a pretty moot point since he is holed up in the Ecuador embassy which clearly means that he doesn't think he is safe in the UK, and I don't blame him, then I wouldn't go out to deal with Guantanamo or Egypt either, better stay put and hope for the best.
Yeah well, he also has a warrant for his arrest for the rape thing.
Edit. What I mean is that he ran from being questioned about alleged rape, and has since done everything in his power to 'obstruct justice' in that lawsuit. It's hopefully already been demented that he's going to be deported to the US, so it would seem he's more afraid that he'll be convicted for the rape charges.
|
On August 17 2012 11:30 Euronyme wrote:The Ecuador situation was discussed literally in the last page. Here's my translation of what the Swedish minister of foreign affairs had do say about Ecuador interfering in a Swedish justice process. Feel free to use google translate. http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sveriges-slar-tillbaka-efter-ecuadors-kritik/In short it says that the foreign minister of Ecuador says that the Swedish justice system cannot guarantee JA's safety. The Ecuadorian ambassador in Sweden is now called to the department of foreign affairs for a meeting, and the Swedish foreign minister basically tells him to fuck off and don't interfere in a Swedish justice process. According to the Swedish department of foreign affair's press guy, there's reason for the asylum to Ecuador in the first place, as it's illegal (according to EU law) for Sweden to hand people out to the US as they have the death penalty. It's also stated that there's not even a request from the US to hand him over anyway, and as the US has better relations with the UK than they do with Sweden, they're taken aback by the accusations coming from Ecuador. Edit. The evidence that there was a planned British raid comes from a former Uzbekistan ambassador? I don't even....
And lets not forget that the Swedish electorate would murder the sitting government in the election if they handed him over to the the Americans. The opposition would take it and (rightly) bash it over the governments head about a hundred times over.
Theres just no kinds of pressure the U.S. could apply on the Swedish government that would merit taking the kind of shitstorm that would ensue if he somehow appeared in U.S. custody.
|
Thank you. Excellent article, good source and hits all the major points I wish people would pay more attention to: allegations not charges or convictions, Major pressure from the Obama administration on the UK, vienna convention and standard diplomatic Practice going out the damned window, Ecuador and Uzbekistan being forced to take up the West's discarded mantle as defenders of international diplomatic standards and the right to asylum.
Not a pretty picture when you put it all together. And the most important part, the US pressure (which some were seeking to deny as even a factor). That pressure does not bode well for Assange. Even if the us does not manage to get him extradited, they are going to be throwing their weight around getting others to fuck up his life no matter where he goes.
Let us pray the moderate and reasoned voices of the uzbek and Ecuadorean diplomatic corps can prevail and uphold the sanctity of embassies and asylum.
|
On August 17 2012 12:02 Zahir wrote:Thank you. Excellent article, good source and hits all the major points I wish people would pay more attention to: allegations not charges or convictions, Major pressure from the Obama administration on the UK, vienna convention and standard diplomatic Practice going out the damned window, Ecuador and Uzbekistan being forced to take up the West's discarded mantle as defenders of international diplomatic standards and the right to asylum. Not a pretty picture when you put it all together. And the most important part, the US pressure (which some were seeking to deny as even a factor). That pressure does not bode well for Assange. Even if the us does not manage to get him extradited, they are going to be throwing their weight around getting others to fuck up his life no matter where he goes. Let us pray the moderate and reasoned voices of the uzbek and Ecuadorean diplomatic corps can prevail and uphold the sanctity of embassies and asylum.
Please read the thread.
The source is also questionable at best. It would highly surprise me if there were serious considerations of raiding the embassy. The only thing that suggests this is a former Uzbek ambassador as far as I can tell.
Raiding an embassy is the same as a declaration of war afaik.
Edit. Oops. Apparently I'm way off. The Brits said that they in accordance with British law can enter the facilities within a week if they make that decision. They have not however.
Still. He can't be turned over to the US from Sweden at least, so it's the only reason for him not to go here would be because of the rape allegations.
Edit2. He has no right to political asylum as his arrest warrant is not political in nature.
|
According to what source have the Obama administration put on pressure? According to some guy. Did he get that info directly from the government? Highly unlikely. He either made it up completely to sell a story, or he made the assumption that USA had put on pressure. Although it may be true, it's far from being confirmed, and one shouldn't assume that it's true.
|
On August 17 2012 12:36 ninini wrote:
According to what source have the Obama administration put on pressure? According to some guy. Did he get that info directly from the government? Highly unlikely. He either made it up completely to sell a story, or he made the assumption that USA had put on pressure. Although it may be true, it's far from being confirmed, and one shouldn't assume that it's true.
I mean no offense, but taking this with your other posts, I find this highly ironic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
