Sweden Drops Rape Case Against Wikileak's Julian Assange

Caution: somewhat graphic sexual description below

‘I do not forgive or forget’: Assange responds

after Swedish prosecutors drop rape case

© Neil Hall

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he will not “forgive or forget” being “slandered” and “detained” for seven years without charge.

“Detained for 7 years without charge while my children grew up and my name was slandered. I do not forgive or forget,” Assange tweeted.

Assange is due to give a public statement shortly after rape allegations against him were dropped by Swedish prosecutors on Friday.

Swedish prosecutors said as “all options of moving the investigation forward are now exhausted” and “in light of the views expressed by the [Swedish] Supreme Court on the proportionality of remanding someone in absentia” it was no longer “proportional” to maintain Assange’s arrest warrant.

Sweden’s director of public prosecution, Marianne Ny, said: “I don’t want to assign blame and responsibility to any particular person for this. I must note however that the reason for this [investigation ending] is that Julian Assange has kept himself away from us for so long.”

Of course, you wouldn't guarantee not to extradite him to America, and it's not like you didn't know where he was. You were attempting to do America's bidding. Your case was very flimsy to begin with charging him for having sex with someone who was naked and in bed with him and with whom he had already had sex several times. 

Breakdown of the rape allegations

The crux of the rape allegations against Assange stem from two sexual encounters and the WikiLeaks’ founder’s reluctance to use condoms during them.

Assange had sex with two women, dubbed ‘AA’ and ‘SW,’ when he was in Sweden in 2010. The two women wanted Assange to get an STI test because they suspected he had unprotected sex with both of them.

The two women went to a police station to ascertain whether they could force Assange to take a HIV test, sparking an investigation that has plagued Assange for seven years.   

‘SW’

Assange had what he described as “consensual” sex with ‘SW’ on August 16, 2010, after meeting her at a talk in Stockholm two days before. The two went to the cinema on the day they met, where they kissed.

“We had consensual sexual intercourse on four or five occasions,” Assange said. “Her words, her expressions and her physical reactions made it clear to me that she encouraged and enjoyed our interactions.”

According to SW’s police interview, after the two had dozed off one night, “she awoke and felt him penetrating her.” She asked if he was wearing a condom and said, “You better don't have HIV.” ‘SW’ texted a friend on August 18 saying, “I was half asleep.”

“He was already inside her and she let him continue,” the police interview reads. “She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long.”

On August 20, Assange spoke to ‘SW’ who said she was at the hospital and wanted him to meet her there to get tested for STIs, so that she wouldn’t have to worry while she was awaiting for her own results. “HIV, for instance, needs months to show up,” Assange explained.

He told her he couldn’t do that until the next day. “She said that it was normal in Sweden to go to the police to get advice about STDs and that if I didn't come down to the hospital she would go to the police to ask whether I could be forced to get tested.”

After agreeing he would meet her the next day to be tested, Assange was surprised to find out he had later been accused of rape.

According to police records of SW’s phone seen by Assange’s lawyers, ‘SW’ wrote from the police station that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange,” but that the police were “keen on getting their hands on him.”

The next day she wrote she “did not want to accuse” Assange “for anything” and that it was the “police who made up the charges (sic).”

‘AA’

Assange stayed at AA’s home when he was in Stockholm, before he had sex with SW.

The two had sex, which ‘AA’ said was “so fast” and that Assange was rough and impatient. She said she wanted to reach for a condom but Assange wouldn’t let her. She told him she wanted him to wear a condom and then he let her reach for it, and wore it.

However, ‘AA’ said she didn’t see any semen in the condom and suspected Assange had broken it during sex.

Assange stayed with ‘AA’ for a few more nights and he attempted to come on to her again, including one incident where he rubbed against her in the bed they shared, AA’s police interview says, but they had no further sexual relations.

‘AA’ said she went to the police largely to support ‘SW.’

“Anna states that she had consented to have sex with Assange, but that she would not have done so if she had known that he was not wearing a condom,” the police interview reads. “Anna does not desire any contact with a crime victims service, but will get back to us if she feels the need.”

It seems likely that neither woman tested positive for HIV or any other STD, or that would be part of the story. 

It's shameful that you, Sweden, have been so doggedly determined to bring Assange to 'justice' for his 'rape' of a Swedish woman and yet you are daily sacrificing Swedish women and girls to Muslim migrants on the altar of political correctness and stupidity.

Assange’s lawyer Per Samuelsson said his client was now considering suing Sweden.

“It’s not about money but redress,” Samuelson told news agency TT.

He added that Assange would eventually try to move to Ecuador. 

Assange sought political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012 and has been living there since, fearing the Swedish investigation would result in him being extradited to the US over leaked military documents and diplomatic cables.

Assange, 45, has always denied the rape allegations made against him.

It remains unclear how Friday’s development will affect Assange’s risk of being extradited to the US if he leaves the embassy and is arrested. The Metropolitan Police in London say they will still arrest Assange over a lesser charge of skipping bail in 2012 when he sought asylum.

Prime Minister Theresa May said any decision about Assange’s arrest or otherwise is an “operational matter” for police.

That's helpful! Great leader!

Genetically Modified Human Embryos 'Essential' Says Report

Can Monsanto be far behind?

By James Gallagher
Health editor, BBC News website

Human blastocyst - very early pre-embryo stage in pregnancy

It is "essential" that the genetic modification of human embryos is allowed, says a group of scientists, ethicists and policy experts.

A Hinxton Group report says editing the genetic code of early stage embryos is of "tremendous value" to research.

It adds although GM babies should not be allowed to be born at the moment, it may be "morally acceptable" under some circumstances in the future.

The US refuses to fund research involving the gene editing of embryos.

The global Hinxton Group met in response to the phenomenal advances taking place in the field of genetics.

A range of novel techniques combine a "molecular sat-nav" that travels to a precise location in our DNA with a pair of "molecular scissors" that cut it.

It has transformed research in a wide range of fields, but the progress means genetically modified babies are ceasing to be a prospect and fast becoming a possibility.

Earlier this year, a team at Sun Yat-sen University, in China, showed that errors in the DNA that led to a blood disorder could be corrected in early stage embryos.

In the future, the technologies could be used to prevent children being born with cystic fibrosis or genes that increase the risk of cancer.

Analysis

Five month old foetus (SPL)

Embryo engineering dominates debate around these novel gene-editing tools.

But while disease-free children or "designer babies" may be on the horizon, the more immediate uses are far less controversial.

It could restore the reputation of the field of gene therapy in adults and children.

It was nearly a success in children with no immune system (known as bubble-boy syndrome). Symptoms improved, but the technique led to cancer in some cases.

These more accurate tools may be able to tweak our genetic code without the side-effects.

There have even been successful trials to give HIV patients immunity to the virus.

And because these changes would not be passed on to the next generation, they are far less controversial.

There have been calls for a moratorium on such research, which has left many asking where to draw the line - should any embryo research be banned, should it be allowed but only for research, or should GM babies be permitted?

A meeting of the influential Hinxton Group, in Manchester, acknowledged that the rate of progress meant there was a "pressure to make decisions" and argued embryo editing should be allowed.

In a statement, it said: "We believe that while this technology has tremendous value to basic research and enormous potential... it is not sufficiently developed to consider human genome editing for clinical reproductive purposes at this time."

This is in stark contrast to the US National Institutes of Health, which has already refused to fund any gene editing of embryos.

Its director, Dr Francis Collins, who was also a key player in the Human Genome Project, said: "The concept of altering the human germline [inherited DNA] in embryos for clinical purposes has been debated over many years from many different perspectives, and has been viewed almost universally as a line that should not be crossed."

However, the Hinxton Group's full report acknowledges that "there may be morally acceptable uses of this technology in human reproduction, though further substantial discussion and debate will be required".

But even one of the principal figures in the discovery and development of Crispr (one of the easiest methods of editing DNA) has doubts.

Prof Emmanuelle Charpentier told BBC News: "Personally, I don't think it is acceptable to manipulate the human germline for the purpose of changing some genetic traits that will be transmitted over generations."

"I just have a problem right now with regard to the manipulation of the human germlines."

Dr Peter Mills, from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, added: "We have seen these uses coming over the horizon, but we need to decide whether we're going to invite them in when they reach our doorstep."

There always seems to be a good reason for doing evil things. It is why political correctness has such extraordinary power, and why the world's priorities are so monumentally screwed up.

To make matters worse, if the technology is out there, someone is going to use it. We will be seeing all sorts of monstrosities born into this world within a few years. God help us.

What is the Hinxton Group?

The Hinxton Group describes itself as an international consortium on stem cells, ethics and law, and brings together researchers, bioethicists and policy experts from around the world.

Named after the Cambridgeshire village in the UK where the group first met, its members aim to "explore the ethical and policy challenges of transnational scientific collaboration raised by variations in national regulations governing embryo research and stem cell science".

Hinxton is also home to the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, where a third of the DNA sequencing work which led to the publication of the draft human genome was undertaken.

Uganda President Blocks Anti-gay Law

Some gay Ugandans have fled the country, saying they are being persecuted

Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni has refused to approve a controversial bill to toughen punishments for homosexuals.

He has written to the parliamentary speaker criticising her for passing it in December without a quorum.

Homosexuals were "abnormal" or were so for "mercenary reasons" and could be "rescued", a local paper quotes his letter as saying.

The bill provides for life imprisonment for homosexual acts and also makes it a crime not to report gay people.

The promotion of homosexuality - even talking about it without condemning the lifestyle - would also be punishable by a prison term.

The BBC's Catherine Byaruhanga in the capital, Kampala, says the president is aware that if he signs the bill there will be an international outcry, which could see some countries suspend aid to the country.

Uganda already has legislation banning gay sex, specifically between men, lesbianism wasn't considered under a provision of the 1950 Penal Code. The new law would add female-to-female sex to banned practices.

The Penal Code also never made it an offence for someone to identify himself or herself as a homosexual. It was the act that was illegal. Gay activists have been able to state their sexuality in public and advocate for their rights without being prosecuted.

Catherine Byaruhanga, BBC Uganda

This, legislators felt, endangered Uganda's culture and family structure, centred around marriage between a man and woman.

There's been a battle here, well captured in the international media, between gay activists and Evangelical Christians over the rights and wrongs of homosexuality.

So what MPs are trying to do is to create the "idea" of homosexuality in the law. Once you specify that homosexuality is wrong, you then ban its promotion.

If the law is passed, standing up saying "I am gay" would become illegal.

Citizens would also have to report anyone who they believe is gay to the police. And it would be illegal to provide advisory services to homosexuals.

His spokesman told the AFP news agency that Mr Museveni believes that gay people are sick but this does not mean they should be killed or jailed for life.


"What the president has being saying is that we shall not persecute these homosexuals and lesbians. That is the point," said Tamale Mirudi.

He denied that the president had changed his mind under pressure.

"The president's position has been the same for a long time, nothing has changed," he added.

Our reporter says Mr Museveni is trying to reach a compromise with MPs, because if he refuses to sign the bill, parliament can still force it through with a two-thirds vote.

But in contrast to Nigeria, where earlier this month the president signed a bill banning same-sex marriages, gay groups and shows of same-sex public affection, Mr Museveni is politically strong and so more able to resist pressure from conservative groups, she says. See post immediately below re: Nigeria and also for map of gay rights in Africa.

Mr Museveni said the bill was forced through despite his advice to shelve it until the government had studied it in depth, Uganda's private Monitor newspaper reports.

"Even with legislation, they will simply go underground and continue practicing [sic] homosexuality or lesbianism for mercenary reasons," he is quoted as saying.

The president's eight-page letter to speaker Rebecca Kadaga said they could be "rescued" by improving the economy.

He also disputed the view that homosexuality could be described as an "alternative sexual orientation".

"You cannot call an abnormality an alternative orientation. It could be that the Western societies, on account of random breeding, have generated many abnormal people," he said.

He said another reason women became lesbians was because of "sexual starvation" when they failed to marry, the Monitor reports.

Gay Activist in Uganda

Ugandan gay rights activist Pepe Julian Onziema told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme she had mixed feelings about Mr Museveni's comments.

"Him not assenting to the bill makes us happy but him calling us 'abnormal', 'nothing-doers', 'sexually starved', that is so derogatory," she said.

"It encourages the community to attack people like me."

There is meant to be a caucus meeting of ruling party MPs later this month to discuss the bill.

The government will try to persuade them to reject it, but some have already said they would go against their government's wishes, our correspondent says.

Human rights activists say the bill highlights the intolerance and discrimination the gay community faces in Uganda.

One gay activist was killed in 2011, although the police denied he was targeted because of his sexuality.

The bill has been condemned by world leaders since it was mooted in 2009 - US President Barack Obama called it "odious".

The private member's bill originally proposed the death penalty for some offences, such as if a minor was involved or the perpetrator was HIV-positive, but this clause has been dropped.

Rapist Scared

In the "How Stupid is That" category, this from BBC...

In the Manchester, UK, area, a 27 year old man got drunk on booze and high on drugs. He doesn't remember much after that, but when he found out he fainted.

Richard Thomas was sentenced to five years and four months after admitting raping a woman at her home in Leigh, Greater Manchester.

He knew she was ill but did not know what she was ill from.

Thomas, 27, of Sandringham Drive, Leigh, raped the woman after she had taken a sleeping tablet.

He said he had been drinking heavily and taken drugs, and could not recall the attack but believed the woman, the court heard.

Thomas had let himself into the house uninvited in the middle of the night and the woman, who had taken a sleeping tablet, awoke to find him raping her.

Harry Pepper, prosecuting, said: "She froze and no words were exchanged. He pulled up his shorts and left."

During the trial police related the fact that what the woman was ill form was HIV, and when they informed Thomas, he fainted.

Thomas is due to find out whether he has contracted HIV later in the week.

His barrister, Virginia Hayton, said: "It is his own fault, if he had not committed this offence he would not have placed himself in this position."

How stupid is that for a young man to ruin his life for the sake of a few minutes of high? A few minutes that he doesn't even remember.