There is an interesting discussion going on at Cath Elliott’s blog on the Assange extradition case:
It is a feminist blog and whenever I turn up at those places the conversation turns a bit adversarial. But it is a subject I am very interested in, so I thought I’d see if anyone here had any comments, where the tone of discourse tends to remain more civil!
Cath focusses on comments by Assange’s defence lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC. She is upset because the feminist Helena Kennedy is also on his legal team, and Cath believes Robertson has undermined the law on rape, and the status of rape victims.
“Geoffrey Robertson QC told the extradition hearing, at Belmarsh magistrate’s court in south London, that any resistance had been “unarticulated” on the part of Miss A, who has accused the WikiLeaks founder of ripping off her clothes, snapping a necklace, pinning her down and trying to force himself on her without wearing a condom.
“In so far as Mr Assange held her arms and there was a forceful spreading of her legs, there’s no allegation that this was without her consent,” he said.
“Sexual encounters have their ups and downs, their ebbs and flows. What may be unwanted one moment can with further empathy become desired. These complex human interactions are not criminal in this country.”
The argument that Assange used the weight of his body to pin her down “describes what is usually termed the missionary position,” he said.”
I have not seen the transcript from the hearing. These comments are all I have. But on their own, they kind of make sense to me. Though, I do accept that if they make sense, then the current law on rape in the UK (let alone Sweden) doesn’t.
What do you think?