As the picture clearly shows, two of you.

Even his defence admits what i'd consider rape... sweden have indicated that asange would be protected from extradition to the US by EU courts anyway.

take from sian and the crooked rib (assuming the author wont mind the repost):

"Assange is currently waiting to hear the results of his appeal against extradition to Sweden on two charges of sexual assault. Now, there has been a lot of debate in the lefty liberal media about whether what he allegedly did was actually sexual assault. So here’s a reminder of what the defence said at his appeal hearing:


‘AA felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … She did not articulate this. Instead she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … AA tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.’



The defence also tried to explain how, despite being asleep, and therefore unable to consent, AA actually did consent to sex with Assange:



'They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: "You." She said: "You better not have HIV." He said: "Of course not." She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its [the sexual encounter's] continuation and that is a central consideration.’

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/13/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-hearing-day-two-live-coverage

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-extradition-live-coverage

Now, if you don’t believe that someone penetrating another person when they’re asleep isn’t sexual assault, isn’t rape, then you have a pretty poor understanding of what constitutes a violation of someone’s bodily autonomy. The same goes for the first description. Remember, this isn’t the prosecution talking. This is his defence. His defence is trying to redefine rape.

The prosecution said:

“they did not freely consent without coercion" but agreed to sex because of physical force, or consented "already having been trapped into a position where they had no choice, and they submitted to Mr Assange's attentions".”"

Definitely not the actions of a guilty man... The filthy beast has practically admitted his guilt with this cowardice.

Running like a coward is the action of a guilty man. If he really is innocent like he claims he should use his day in court to expose the politically motivated charges. The fact that he's running shows he's guilty and is afraid of being punished. I have no sympathy and hope he's arrested and deported the Sweden the moment he steps outside the embassy.

So, we have parts of the left supporting a man wanted for rape.
Sweden is a liberal society, he will get a fair trial.

Or as the supporters of this man say, all the women are working for the CIA/Mossad?

He is a sexual predator, with plenty of evidence supporting this, if he is a rapist, well, that is why he must face trial.

Shame on those supporting this man in his efforts to avoid facing his accusers in court.

filthy rapist. rot in jail

Can one of the mods explain to me what editorial guidelines are apparently broken by every comment even a little critical of Assange? Seems a bit censor-y, no?

Go here:  http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/06/497275.html?c=all#comments to see all the comments.

here’s a reminder of what the defence said at his appeal hearing:


‘AA felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … She did not articulate this. Instead she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … AA tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.’



The defence also tried to explain how, despite being asleep, and therefore unable to consent, AA actually did consent to sex with Assange:



'They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: "You." She said: "You better not have HIV." He said: "Of course not." She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its [the sexual encounter's] continuation and that is a central consideration.’

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/13/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-hearing-day-two-live-coverage

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-extradition-live-coverage

Now, if you don’t believe that someone penetrating another person when they’re asleep isn’t sexual assault, isn’t rape, then you have a pretty poor understanding of what constitutes a violation of someone’s bodily autonomy. The same goes for the first description. Remember, this isn’t the prosecution talking. This is his defence. His defence is trying to redefine rape.