Julian Asange is angry about incriminating police files that were published in the Guardian over the weekend - the same paper that used him as its source for hundreds of leaked UK Embassy cables. So why did they decide to publish this sensitive material? They said they had a duty to present a "brief summary" of the sex allegations against Assange. "The argument that papers involved with the WikiLeaks cables should not report criticism of him is one all journalists would find ridiculous" a Guardian spokesman said.
Having unprotected sex without consent is not only irresponsible, it's illegal and it seems Julian Assange has a fetish for it. One of the Swedish women involved said Assange ripped the condom on purpose during sex. The other said they had protected sex at her flat in the evening but in the morning he forced himself on her and had sex without a condom - something she had never done before. Both women were terrified that he might be HIV positive and implored him to be tested but he refused, saying he wasn't going to be dictated to. When they finally went to police, as soon as they heard that he had unprotected sex with both women, it was taken out of their hands, it became an official crime and they could not take back their testimony. In Sweden, having consensual sex without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape.
So I've changed my mind about Assange. If this is true, it gives us an insight into his true character, and it's not very nice. He must actually believe his own publicity - that he's a legend in his own lunchtime - and needs a huge reality check. Being Australian, it's something he should already know only too well.