In Canada, having sex without a condom is "sexual assault", and is criminal. Lying about birth control isn't a crime because (paraphrasing the judgement) "No physical or economic harm has been done".
18 years of paying child support apparently isn't "economic harm".
If somebody is literally not being accused of something by the proposed victim and in fact is telling you that the police made up the charges then please listen to them.
Rape is a serious issue and it doesn't deserve this post-truth political treatment you're giving it.
You might want to read about the effects of coercive control.
I'm not suggesting it applies to Assange, but what you've written here is wrong and causes a lot of harm.
If there's an accusation of rape the state needs to investigate that, and if they think they have enough evidence they need to prosecute that.
When accused of rape most people cooperate with police. They do not skip bail and hide in a cupboard for many years.
That is the direct implication of ignoring the woman involved.
> If there's an accusation of rape the state needs to investigate that
> "it was the police who made up the charges"
That's one hell of an accusation.
> When accused of rape most people cooperate with police. They do not skip bail and hide in a cupboard for many years.
Only idiots cooperate with the police [0]. By the way, most people aren't being persecuted by the government for exposing violations of international law, so what "most people" do probably shouldn't define how we would expect Assange to act.
That's only true for the US. He isn't being asked to talk to US police, he's being asked to talk to Swedish or British police. In both those countries the population have little to fear from the police.
And it takes a special kind of idiot to run from the police, skip bail, and hide in a cupboard for years.
This isn't true at all. The specifics of American law are unique, but the general ideas apply everywhere. The idea that you shouldn't talk to the police is much older than the recent rise in police brutality in America. The 5th amendment was originally a response to overreach by the British government.
> And it takes a special kind of idiot to run from the police, skip bail, and hide in a cupboard for years.
Why does that make him an idiot? It is the smart play if you think you won't get treated fairly in court, which is obviously what he believes. You might think he is wrong, but that doesn't make him an idiot.
If you want to try to convince me of your position feel free to explain what you mean in a less opaque way, rather than merely accusing me of harmful speech and implying something hard to understand.
2) You've said "If somebody is literally not being accused of something by the proposed victim and in fact is telling you that the police made up the charges then please listen to them." -- this is harmful bollocks. People who are the victims of abuse partners, especially in cases of coercive control, will not make police complaints or will not cooperate with police, even when the crimes they've been subjected to are horrific.
Assange is FREE TO LEAVE THE CUPBOARD HE'S HIDING IN TO ESCAPE A RAPE CHARGE WHENEVER HE LIKES. This is literally the EXACT opposite meaning of detained.
Let's go over this again since Assange fans are largely misogynistic rape-apologist gullible fools.
1. He has been voluntarily hiding in a cupboard for seven years.
2. He's been doing this because he was accused of rape
3. In the U.K. and Sweden we consider rape a serious crime
4. Hiding in a wardrobe does not exempt him from answering to the crimes of which he is accused
5. He skipped bail losing his followers £60,000 in surety
6. Bail skipping is a criminal offence; he is wanted in the U.K. for that
7. If he ever leaves the wardrobe he's hiding in he will be arrested and charged for bail skipping
8. Sweden may reopen the rape investigation until 2020
9. Now the rape charges are droppped it will be easier, not harder, to extradite Assange to the US
10. The US has made no formal extradition request yet, but given Assange's role in collaborating with the kremlin to sabotage the 2016 US presidential election, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to.
If you're accused, you're guilty. Damn the facts!
That's worked out well in the past. /s
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/kill-a-mockingbird-1...
One of my favorite quotes is from "A man for all seasons":
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Denying the rule of law to "get" a bad person is called "lynching".
But he'll always be the man who spent a decade hiding in an attic to avoid a rape charge.
That's a level of cognitive dissonance which is surprising to admit publicly.
This is a matter of public record.
He skipped bail, costing his supporters £60K in surety.
For skipping bail he's now wanted for failure to appear, which is a criminal offence in the U.K. of which he is most certainly guilty.
Whether or not Assange is a rapist we can't ascertain because he fled justice rather than face the accusations.
Maybe if he ever leaves the wardrobe he's hiding from justice the case will be re-opened he'll answer the accused and we'll find out if he's a rapist or not.
But since there's no statue of limitations on his failure to appear, of which he is certainly guilty, it doesn't look like he's emerging from that attic any time soon.