Monday, September 17, 2012

Assange's case condom does not even have his DNA

In another twist in the clearly political case of persecution against Julian Assange by Sweden on the fringe legal grounds of "deliberately breaking a condom", it has been known now that this one does not contain the DNA of the accused, who has requested political asylum in Ecuador.

According to the source of this news, the Daily Mail, this leaves just one condom with the counter-information activist's sperm: at least one of the "victims" just lied.

So the only possible formal accusation is now that Assange "deliberately" broke a condom when making love with one of the alleged victims. Why would someone do that?, is the question. Condoms occasionally break spontaneously but from experience I can tell you that you don't really notice much difference (what can be a health and pregnancy serious risk). I can imagine that some very mischievous person (man or woman) obsessed with causing pregnancy may perforate an apparently perfect condom in the hope that some semen crosses it (I think I read a comic or watched a movie where that happened, very complicated in any case) but why would a man who probably has no problems whatsoever to get laid want to get a random encounter getting pregnant? Beats me. 

Let's recapitulate: there was no rape in the common sense of the word: all fucking was done consensually. There is some controversy on one broken condom, not anymore two, and the whole Interpol is behind a guy accused of suffering of a broken condom problem?

Never mind that one of the two "victims" is a US spy and that the other, manipulated by this one initially, retired the accusation (but the state continued ex officio).

It's such an obvious mischief that we can consider it as an attack not just on Assange, Wikilieaks or freedom of speech but an attack on the seriousness of the most grave crime of rape, which was not the case here, quite obviously.

Of course we do know that this was just a distraction, a legal pretext to freeze Assange in NATO imperial territory until more serious charges could be issued. That happened in 2011, when Australia accused Assange and Wikileaks of revealing the identity of one of their undercover agents. This would be enough for the UK to extradite him to Australia or alternatively to the USA (the UK has previously extradited its own citizens to the USA for comparable cases).

1 comment:

  1. I think the whole Swedish prosecution team should face charges for trying to ruin the reputation of a good man.

    Please watch, approve and distribute.


Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Comment moderation before publishing is... ON