I'm well aware of that. So until he's been charged there is no process, until there has been a process he hasn't been convicted (or declared not guilty) and until he's convicted using terms like 'rapist' is - for now - inappropriate.
What you can accuse Assange rightly of at this point in time is being a douchebag and phenomenally stupid. But fame has done similar things to lots of other people and he doesn't have the monopoly on either in this particular case.
The Swedes had him on their soil, declared that there was no case, told him he was free to go, then changed their minds and then a whole circus ensued. In the UK he was at some point in custody.
There is enough fodder for a whole slew of in-depth investigations but so far there is no movement on that and the standing invitation of the Equadorians to interview Assange 'on site' has been steadfastly refused, which is curious indeed.
Other notable points in this case are that Sweden doesn't normally make such a hoopla over much more serious cases (including rape cases) and the too convenient timing.
An arrest warrant was issued and the guy fled to escape being charged. And then he ran again. So saying he hasn't been convicted or charged is a pretty high-chutzpah defense.
So I won't blame you, it's an extremely complex case that does not lend itself to the issuing of 5 word sound bites.
It's complex because all parties appear to have behaved in weird and sometimes in-explicable ways and all parties seem to have made morally questionable moves (including the prosecutor).
You mention 'less rape' as if to you rape has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Normally such language is used for convicted criminals.
It's perfectly ok with me if you don't like Assange, I'm of the opinion if he did just the bits that he has admitted to and that seem to be indisputable that he's a complete douchebag but the behaviour of the women, the authorities and the process up to and including Assanges holing up in the Equadorian Embassy in London make me stop very much short of calling him a rapist. I may change that position in the future, but I'll wait for the trial (assuming there ever is one).
There is a ton of stuff there that's questionable at a minimum not the least of which is the series of actions by the Swedish prosecutor.
I'm not going to speculate on what Assange's real motivations are for hiding out in that embassy, he's said enough on the subject and whether you agree with him or not that those are his true motivations is between you and him.
So no, he hasn't been convicted and/or charged and as such calling him a rapist is getting ahead of the timeline.
What he does in the meantime doesn't change that one bit.
I think calling him a rapist is correct. AFAIK, no-one (including him and his lawyers) is contesting the accusations against him, including the one that he had sex with a sleeping woman, which IMO is definitely rape.
Of course, I still think that the whole charade around having him extradited to Sweden for questioning is just a tiny little bit too convenient for the powers-that-be to think it's only about the rape.
Just the picture byline I find interesting: "Julian Assange has made it clear that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype."
Since when do those under suspicion get to dictate to the authorities how they conduct their investigation?
They don't, but Assange being somewhat paranoid is something the Swedes should be able to accommodate, especially if they want to resolve the case. Their strategy makes more sense if they don't actually want to resolve that case.
I think the content of what Assange and Wikileaks has delivered since Assange's rise to fame/infamy is far more worthy than this conversation. How about you all get back to the point.
The people he "raped" were singing his praises on Twitter after the supposed incident took place. The woman only went to the police to see if she could compel him to take an STD test.
"definitely rape" is so far off base, it's ridiculous. You're either gravely misinformed, or shilling.
That's quite irrelevant. Rape is prosecuted by the state, not by the victim. If an action fits the definition of rape (e.g. having sex with a person who is unconscious and thus unable to consent), it's rape, no matter what the "victim" feels about it. The purpose of the courts is not only to seek retribution, but also to discourage similar behavior in the future.
I agree that Swedish definition of rape is a bit bonkers (e.g. I don't think that "sex without a condom" is rape, at most it's "fraud" or "lying"), but I think that sex with a sleeping person is always rape (unless you've been explicitly given consent that it's OK beforehand).
Has Assange been convicted of rape?
Has a charge even been brought?