A woman's right to say "no"

I find the whole current story surrounding Julian Assange rather ridiculous.

Here is someone who released a whole load of supposedly secret government information (of wharrever importance) to the world, and is now concerned that someone would want to prosecute him for it. Is it really so surprising that the governments concerned took so long to get there (not that any substantial charges have appeared yet!)?

Here is someone who is frightened to go to Sweden to face trial on a sexual assault charge because the Swedes might deport him to the US on the spying charge with the above leaks, even though no charge has been laid. And yet he has been in the UK all this time?

Which do you think would be more likely to deport him to the US? Sweden, a country that managed to stay neutral in both the Second World War and the Cold War (and would be extremely unlikely to extradite anyone to a country on a charge bearing the death penalty, given its humanitarian record) or the UK, the US's marionette on a string for the past few decades (that tends to be much worse though when there's a Republican in the White House - maybe they are waiting for 2013?)? 

And now he wants asylum in Ecuador. Nothing to do with facing trial in Sweden, of course. Of course? On Ecuador - the current government is one of several in South America which is not that keen on the US, but how long will that be the case anyway? A change of regime and who knows what will happen?

I made myself unpopular on Yahoo today by remarking that if even if Ecuador does offer him asylum, they should cut a deal with the Swedes that he has to go there and face trial (and serve any sentence if found guilty) first.

Eventually there is a charge to answer. In many ways it is a typical consensual sex charge. He will insist that the girl agreed all the time to go through with it. She will insist that she wanted him to stop - it was her right to say "no", she shouldn't have started in the first place, he refused to stop once he was charged up (that actually I can understand) .... He said, she said - who do you believe?

The point is though if she did change her mind halfway through as she insists, then she has a right to be heard. And if it is a set-up (as his supporters claim), we will soon find that out as well.

Personally I think that if someone had wanted to set him up, again it was much more likely to happen in the UK than in Sweden!

There is always a risk for men on one-night-stands. The problem at time is that voice in the back of your head refuses to understand the word "no" and the word "stop". Once you are beyond a certain point, how do you show restraint?

But women in that circumstance must be allowed the right to refuse, to go back, to change their minds. They probably should not let themselves get drawn into the situation in the first place if even the slightest bit uncertain (or if they have maybe drunk too much alcohol), but it happens.

Never easy, this case should be heard out though, and all the other side issues should be dropped and not even be available till it has been. And if that means a safe passage to Quito afterwards, so be it.