If you have consent for sex with a condom, and you don't use a condom, you no longer have consent and thus it's rape.

Playing devil's advocate... what if I (as a man) consent to sex because she says she's on the pill? And then she's not?

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".

The legal situation on those things varies quite a bit from country to county. It's regarded as a rape like offence in Sweden but not I think the UK or US.

The rape charge is on account of him fucking her while she was sleeping, the condom trickery was the basis for one of the other charges that has since been prescribed.

That may be true. In the real world though, there are no explicit legally binding statements uttered and confirmed before sex.

Yes, rape. Putting "rape" in scare quotes because you're a misogynist doesn't make rape stop being serious. Just FYI.

One of the women in question "did not want to accuse JA of anything" and said "it was the police who made up the charges".

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.

> 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.

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.

So basically the government should be able to accuse anyone of raping anyone, and they are guilty regardless of what the victims have to say about it?

Who said that?

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.

> Who said that?

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.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

> Only idiots cooperate with the police

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.

> 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.

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.

The British police have just as much of a credibility problem as any other police force in the world. That is what happens when you participate in a cover-up of political pedophilia, as has happened with the UK's police force. There is no honor to be saved.

It's fairly clear to me that it's the swedish government which should be accused of coercive control here.

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.

1) this is nothing to do with Asange

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.

Oh fair enough, that is valid opinion in cases of domestic abuse. I was trying to specifically express an opinion on Assange though - I don't think what you're saying applies in this case.

Maybe if he had committed rape, you would have a point, but he didn't, so this comment is stupid (not to mention harmful to rape victims).