Julian Assange: What really happened in Sweden

2010/12/19 § 24 Comments

A picture of the events that lead to Julian Assange’s arrest is emerging. We can now attempt to answer the question everyone is asking: What did really happen in Sweden during Assange’s visit in Sweden in Summer of this year? Is the CIA behind it all? What does it mean, when Michael Moore says “Sweden is a heaven for rapists”? And why do some claim that Sweden is paradise for false rape accusations?

We do know now, that two women accuse Assange of rape. The definition that the allegation is based on may be alienating, because the legal definition of rape in Sweden is not identical with what most of us would think of when we hear rape. Most of us would think that intercourse took place, that one of the involved individuals did not consent and that some kind of threat or violence took place. In the case against Assange no threat took place and the sex happened with consent.

Under Swedish law, a rape has occurred if someone has threatened another person with sex or forced someone to have sex. “Threat” does not necessarily mean violence, in fact, it may be enough if the “victim” felt under threat. It becomes instantly clear that this is a very vague definition since “feeling threatened” is a highly subjective circumstance. This subjectivity is what the case against Assange is mostly based on.

What happened in brief:

– Assange had repeatedly consenting sex with the two Swedish women, and slept at their place for several days.

– Assange has been accused of removing or ripping a the condom in use, by women A.

– Assange has been accused of having sex with women W while she was sleeping.

– After the alleged rape, women A threw a party for Assange.

– After the alleged rape, women W had breakfast with Assange, took him to the trainstation and bought him a ticket for his train.

– Women A added that Assange riped her clothes of at one occasion and they began to have sex. She claims that she did not want to let it happen, but that “it was too late to stop him [Assange]”. Apparently she did not try to stop him either.

– The Swedish prosecutor shelved the case in August 2010 because she said there simply was no case, especially not for rape. Three months later another prosecutor, from a different district than where the accusation was raised, opens the case again.

After the “incidence” the two women happened to talk with each other. Women W was worried that she had contracted a disease from the unprotected sex. Women A was shocked to learn that she was not the only women that Assange had sex with while in Sweden. One can imagine that they raged about the fact. One can imagine that they felt betrayed. One can also imagine that they felt anger, embarrassment and jealousy. One can imagine that they felt the need for revenge.

The two women conspired in order to force Assange to take a test for sexual transmittable diseases. Right here one wonders how weired that thought is, since it would be useless for Women W to know if Assange has any disease, it is obviously of more use to her to test herself. However, the women went to the police station in order to inquire what could be done to force Assange into testing. One cannot help but wonder if this was thought to cause great inconvenience for Assange rather than to help women W.

In this context it is interesting to note that women A had a blog entry visible to the world where she gives advice how to take revenge. She advices that the revenge should have something to do with sex when a lover disappoints you. The “revenge-blog” entry has been changed lately. Instead of the “7 steps to a successful revenge” [A] it now reads “forgiveness is almost always better than revenge“. Why the sudden change of heart?

There is an interesting blog in Swedish that deals with the things the women wrote on twitter and her blog that had later been erased [0]. They were probably erased because they seriously call women A’s version of the events into question.

It was women A who advised women W to go to the police. The two women went together and learned from the police officer that Assange would be forced to be tested for STDs if a rape had occurred. The two women then apparently reported Assange for abuse which caused the prosecution to open a case against Julian Assange.

A matter of definition

Now the problems with that accusation are several. One: Apparently no detectable threat has occurred other than an alleged subjectively perceived threat. Two: The two women seem to have become convinced only afterwards that foul play had occurred. Three: His word stands against each individual women’s word, no witnesses were present. Four: Women A originally only escorted women W to the police for support, suddenly though she “remembered” that Assange had “abused” her too.

A recent article in the Swedish press that seems to have decided to side with the women’s story, says: “When the woman [A] tried to stop Assange [from having sex] without explicitly saying ‘No’, he did not care about it” [1]. I had to read this sentence several times in disbelieve. Apparently here it is being claimed that Assange is careless because he did not react to something that never has been expressed. Pause for a moment and think about this gem of a logical argument…

This is pretty much the logic behind it: “Had I said ‘no’ he would not have respected it, hence what he did with me is rape”. If you think that this way of thinking does not make too much sense it may be, because it doesn’t. However, this is not an exception but rather a frequent occurrence in Swedish “rape” cases. I do not want to belittle the severity and disgusting nature of a rape, however, what has happened in Sweden lately is that the definition of the term “rape” has been broadened so much that it has almost lost all its meaning.

Recently an EU-report stated that Sweden is the number one country when it comes to reported rape. A debate article in the Swedish newspaper SvD explains: “In an international context the Swedish definition for rape is extremely broad and furthermore, it is constantly widening”[2]. In fact, the definition has been broadened so much already that Michael Moore feels compelled to note something that I can only hope he meant ironically, that Sweden is a heaven for rapists. Sweden probably has no more real rapes than any other nation. However, there are plenty of reported rapes that would not be considered rape in other countries. Additionally, there is a fair amount of wrongly reported men in Sweden.

The Swedish sensitivity for the topic and the well developed automatism to believe a women rather than a man has lead to plenty false accusations. Feminist logic dictates that one must believe a women and cannot question her report. After all, why would a women report a man wrongly? Here is a thought: Maybe for the reason that she can make his life miserable in an instance, and something will definetely “stick” even if he is cleared from the accusation?

Of cause, if it is true that Assange has initiated intercourse with women A while she was sleeping, he strictly speaking did not have her consent at that very moment. However, it would have to be determined if legally speaking her consent from the evening before and the days previous had extended to this morning. Why did women A not tell him to stop, one wonders? The same goes without saying for women W. If she did not want to continue sex when the condom ripped or was removed (she seems not to know which, maybe the condom slipped, but she apparently prefers to imply intention on the part of Assange) why did she not tell him so?

A problem for Assange comes from a recent development in Sweden, where some demand that the definition for rape is further broadened. That would entail that before every sexual intercourse consent has to be given, also in a long-term relationship [3]. Additionally, if a rape allegation is being raised the accused would have to provide evidence that he had consent. Obviously this would only be possible if one takes written consent from their sexual partners prior to every single intercourse. One can imagine vividly what that would mean for the sexual relationships of people.

For Assange this argument means that the initiation of sex with someone who is sleeping is a rape unless he has evidence that the consent given by women A has been given permanently until further notice and not on a case to case basis. Alternatively, if she had previously given her consent for occasionally being woken using sex. To me this way of thinking is completely unworldly and nonsensical.

When following the discussion in Sweden it frequently appears as though sex merely is a weapon to be used. Maybe in Sweden there is too much of the old feministic thinking from the 70s that every intercourse involving a penis automatically is a rape. For sure, any further broadening of the definition of the term “rape”, and in fact about every second intercourse is legally speaking a rape. In a healthy relationship one of course assumes permanent consent unless stated otherwise. Let us not forget: they call it making love after all.

This does naturally not mean that one can do whatever with a partner. However, both partners are responsible to set boundaries, usually using language, gestures or any other form of clear and unambiguous communication. Women A and women W apparently failed to communicate their dissent, or maybe they only forgot. Apparently, they fortunately remembered when talking to the police.

In fact, the logic applied her, as to what a rape is, resembles the classical “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, where the result of an action is mistaken for the reason of an action. Following this twisted logic, it would mean that if a women regrets what has happened in her bedroom after she has had consenting sex with a person, she is free to attribute this feeling of discomfort to the other person, which makes that person at the least an abuser, maybe even a rapist. Legally this certainly is somewhat fishy, to say the least.

If one considers the facts available, it is of course evident that it is impossible to determine what really has happened in the bedrooms (in one case the last row of a movie theater) of these women. Quite likely it was not rape in accordance to any sane definition. Therefore, one cannot help but wonder about the motives behind the report by the women. Revenge as motive is the most likely possibility.

P.S. If the accusations are established as false, Assange would have to finance the court case for renunciation against the two women himself, while a case based on the accusation of rape is financed by the Swedish state. Blaming someone for rape is apparently easy for women in feministic Sweden, getting justice is hard for the falsely accused man.

A) http://www.ehow.com/how_2296915_get-legal-revenge.html
B) http://annaardin.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/sjustegsmodell-for-laglig-hamnd/
0) http://www.samtycke.nu/2010/09/fallet-assange-uppgifter-raderas-om-och-om-igen/
1) http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/forhoren-ger-oklar-bild-1.1229552
2) http://blog.svd.se/faktakollen/2010/08/25/sd-sverige-har-drabbats-av-en-ny-valdtaktsvag/
3) http://www.samtycke.nu/

UPDATE: As DN reports, Assange remains free for now, but indeed, in the beginning of February he may be extradited to Sweden. We will see if Sweden will extradite him to the US in turn- which would be scandalous.

As a recent court ruling came out, Assange has been extradited to Sweden. However, he says he will try to appeal.

Tagged: , , , ,

§ 24 Responses to Julian Assange: What really happened in Sweden

  • There are a large number of errors in your article. Too many to respond to.

    I also note a lot of speculation that confuses the real issues.

    Göran Rudling

  • Julian Assange: What really happened in Sweden « DavidKramer.DK…

    Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……

  • Frida says:

    I don’t like the way you discuss the matter of consent… of course there has to be mutual consent prior to every intercourse between two people in a relationship – a majority of all rape crimes happen in the home in a relationship. As late as 1965 there was a law established in Sweden that made it clear that a husband does not have the right to rape his wife. No one has the right to have sex with someone else without a clear consent – which is just obvious. It’s the only thing that bothers me in the Assange-case.

    • davidkramer says:

      No one ever questioned that there has to be consent, including relationships. In Assange’s case obviously there was consent, that is the one thing the two women do not even deny. However, the matter I discussed here is what consent means and what it does not mean. Withdrawal of consent after the fact hardly makes a case for molestation or even rape.

    • KLARTEXTEN! says:

      I agree completely with Frida and David! Of course u need consent before intercourse!

      Some (Göran Rudling) claim u need to ASK permission before every intercourse even if ure married! If u forgot to ask u raped her! Thats sick of cours (and so is Göran)

      If u need a formal consens like “yes u can fuck me” before every normal intercourse, the low birth rates would sink even lower.

      U have to respect the body language though! And if a woman dont want to fuck, she can say so, right?

  • […] Julian Assange: What really happened in Sweden […]

  • Jen says:

    You say: “It becomes instantly clear that this is a very vague definition since “feeling threatened” is a highly subjective circumstance. This subjectivity is what the case against Assange is mostly based on.”

    Sure, because “feeling threatened” is ALWAYS subjective.

    And apparently you cannot read very well. “Why did women A not tell him to stop, one wonders? The same goes without saying for women W. If she did not want to continue sex when the condom ripped or was removed (she seems not to know which, maybe the condom slipped, but she apparently prefers to imply intention on the part of Assange) why did she not tell him so?” Both women said explicitly to Assange that sex was conditional on his wearing a condom. He broke this rule and therefore consent was automatically withdrawn.

    Your piece here is a sad little pool of untruths and speculation.

    Why don’t you just let the justice system do its thing and shut up?

    • davidkramer says:

      Thanks for your postulations. I could have done without them.

    • KLARTEXTEN! says:

      First; u DONT know what the women said, right!

      If we assume tho condom broke during/before penetration, but noonen noticed. So what? Is that a crime? And saying he “probably” broke it, is just some shit! How the fuck are u gonna prove who broke it, and even worse, broke it intentionally? Its so stupid that only an idiot would consider making a court case out of this stupidity!

      We all agree they only had consensual sex right? He had sex without a condom and she consented anyway. So whats the problem for u? Explain!!!!

  • Charles II says:

    David, I think that everyone in the thread is missing a very important point.

    Until a court proceeding in a neutral court takes place, the allegations are just that: allegations. People take sides on this because they assume that one version of events or the other is correct. I’m sure that if it were proven that Assange coerced anyone to have sex, his defenders would say he should be punished under the law. I’m sure that if it were proven that the women conspired to exact revenge on Assange or even conspired before the encounters to falsely accuse him especially if that happened to be a machination to silence Wikileaks, those who are so vociferous in attacking him now would be ashamed of their virulent statements.

    The issue is that a neutral judge has to allow for the presumption of innocence. That makes prosecuting allegations of this kind, involving degrees of consent in a private act, extraordinarily difficult. Where is the corroborating evidence of coercion? In most cases that come to trial, the evidence is indisputable: a record of violence by the defendant, bruises on the victim, a prompt visit by the victim to the police or emergency care, avoidance of the defendant, and so on. While what we know of this case are mere shadows of what will appear in the courtroom, so far, there is no corroborating evidence. The only reason that the allegations as we know them fit even minimum standards for prosecution is that there are two accusers.

    And that, in itself, raises one’s eyebrows. Within a few days, two strangers encounter Assange and are so taken by him that they independently participate in sexual encounters which then turn into coercion, but are not so coerced that they even break off contact with him.

    Ok, it might have happened that way. But any neutral judge will want to know more than we presently do know before reaching any conclusion that these encounters were not in some manner staged.

  • […] by Charles II on December 21, 2010 I posted this here (comment is presently in moderation), and think it’s worth preserving: “…I think […]

  • Niklas says:

    First of all, I think publishing these women’s photos are outrageous.

    And second, a man claiming to spread the truth to the world, is hiding from the truth himself. I admire Wikileaks, don’t get me wrong, but he should face the accusations in court of law. Not by common bloggers or activists. No one is above the law. Imagine that if you have reached a specific level of celebrity you would be able to commit a burglary without having to face prosecution.

    People may vote here on your blog wether or not they think the women are lying or if Assange is innocent or not. But no one here really knows what happened. Not even Michael Moore. Hope he can live with having defended a rapist if Assange is convicted.

    I very much agree with previous repliers

    • davidkramer says:

      1) The pictures are all over the net, common knowledge if you like. 2) Nowhere did I say he should not put in front of a court. 3) People are free to say what their opinion is, also the common blogger. 4) I am not Michael Moore an cannot speak for him- and I don’t. 5) You agree wth previous replier who seem to agree that there is something fishy about the two women’s story? 6) My humble poll will not decide about Assange’s fate, don’t you worry.

  • KLARTEXTEN! says:

    Uve done a very good analysis! I think ure spot on! The swedish feministic sex-legislation is basically sick! I would never reenter Iran to clarify myself from an accusation of adultery. Cause their laws regarding adultery shouldnt be respected. And the swedish “rape”-laws shouldnt be respected either! He should be tried here by our sick laws!

    And the two accusors: petty, evil liers!

  • KLARTEXTEN! says:

    He shouldn´t be tried here by our sick laws! (of course)

  • KLARTEXTEN! says:

    The women have thrown Assanges name in the dirt, out of petty jealosy! Their names and photos should be exposed as well (I have done so too, and Im proud of it!).

    If the laws defies common sense in practiacally every country; should they be respected? I dont think so!

    Is it OK to stone women for adultery, as they do in Iran? Or hang homosexuals? Thats their laws. Shouldnt laws allways be respected??? Should Iranian injustice be respected? Or did u mean only Swedish injustice should be respected?

    I think ure head isnt screwed on properly! Can u think at all??

  • KLARTEXTEN! says:

    Göran Rudling is one of the biggest idiots around! He allways dismisses other arguments, cause “the know nothing, understand nothing” and so on. But hes too tired to argue, its too many faults and so on. Of course Im blacklisted from his loser-blog!

    Ive told him this many times: I´ll easaly destroy him in any free debate! A fkn blind and stupid feminist, probably castrated!

  • KLARTEXTEN! says:

    U can all see how weak Göran Rudling and the other femtinists are. A few lines and they´re toast! They give up!

  • Kim says:

    From what I understand, none of the women have even accused Assange of rape or molestation — the rape case was opened independently by the police upon hearing the women’s story (police are obliged to do this upon hearing of possible serious crimes). Their lawyer has famously commented on why they didn’t report him for rape themselves with “because they are not jurists” — the implication being that in today’s Sweden you need to have extensive legal training in order to figure out if you have been raped or not.

    A lot of the speculation in this post about possible revenge motives seem much less well-founded in light of this. One may of course speculate about their initial motives (like causing inconvenience by forcing Assange to take a STD test), but now they’re just along for the ride in a court spectacle carried out in their names. Something worth considering before placing blame.

  • T says:

    I get way you could think the definition of is becoming to wide in Sweden. But, as have been stated here already, In the mid 20th century it was quite common with men thinking it was their right to have sex with their wife when they wanted.

    And then there are alot of other gray areas. But then again, if there isn’t consent it can be traumatising.
    And here I think you oversimplify the people. The law is the law, and most time people don’t go to extremes and report just because the law might have been crossed. That said the law still have to exist.

    Take mobbing/bullying wich is forbidden by law in Sweden through a couple of different offences such as causing of harm, defamation, anlawful threat and a few more. That means that if I strike an other person in a fight i’ve commited a crime, it doesn’t mean that the person report me to the police, while he could do it. Again there are gray areas of severity. That doesn’t mean the law shouldn’t be written as it is.

    Now becaus of some stupid comments of others here I will say I’m not a feminist.
    I’m not talking about this case, I’m talking about the reasoning that the law about rape in sweden is getting to wide.

    If rape is defined as sexual acts without consent all comes down to how consent is defined.

  • reine says:

    You confuse woman A and woman W (directly after the poll), and I think you may confuse the order of events concerning the alleged rape and breakfast, though I´m not sure if I remember rightly from the Häktningspromemoria. Anyway, I guess Rudling may be right about your numerous errors.

Leave a Reply to Jen Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Julian Assange: What really happened in Sweden at DavidKramer.DK.


%d bloggers like this: