11

Is Julian Assange being charged with sexual assault merely because he's alleged not to use a condom?

I heard the claim on Australian talkback radio station 2UE this afternoon, and the following was the second hit I got while googling for Assange condom: Wikileaks Julian Assange rape charge for not using condoms

According to The Raw Story and Crikey, Swedish prosecutors charge that while Mr. Assange did have consensual sex with his two accusers, he allegedly did not use a condom, which, according to The Herald Sun, is against Swedish law. Thus, Swedish authorities are in the process of re-issuing the once-closed arrest warrant for Assange.

  • 7
    Obviously, it's not against Swedish law to not use a condom, otherwise there wouldn't be any more Swedes. The claim in the article is "If consensual sex that started out with the intention of condom use and actual condom use ended up without condom, that’s rape." and AFAIK hasn't yet been tried in a court of law yet. – Zano Mar 18 '12 at 10:55
  • 1
    "If consensual sex that started out with the intention of condom use and actual condom use ended up without condom, that’s rape." Which is still ridiculous. – Raskolnikov Mar 18 '12 at 12:16
  • 3
    "Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence; the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning." Source. Until (and if) charges are laid, can there be any meaningful answer to what the charges are? – Oddthinking Mar 18 '12 at 12:26
  • 1
    The claim I've most often seen isn't related to the use of a condom as such, but rather that he continued in intercourse after his partner asked him to stop, which would be considered rape. It should be possible to quote/translate from an official source to see what the actual charges are. – Sonny Ordell Mar 18 '12 at 15:33
  • 2
    As for calling it rape: 1) Consent to one sex act (sex with condom) doesn't mean consent to another (sex without condom)--one can reasonably make the case it's nonconsensual sex, aka rape. 2) There's a translation problem here. They are using "rape" as we would use "sexual assault". – Loren Pechtel Mar 11 '17 at 0:55
20

Source - Judgement issued by The High Court, 2nd November 2011

The European Arrest Warrant issued by the Swedish Prosecuter set out the following four offences:

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.

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.

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.

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 linked document contains more details of what is alleged to have taken place (paragraph 70 onwards).

That High Court ruling also made a judgement on whether or not failure to use a condom could be a criminal offence in England & Wales (the Dual Criminality test):

It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that, if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom without her consent. His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .