Tuesday, 21 August 2012

The Assange Thing

I did promise...

To me it's fairly simple.
He may be the victim of trumped up allegations in a complicated honey-trap operation designed to eventually force him to stand trial in the US over the release of sensitive government documents. He may well be, although if you were one of the richest nations on earth and inclined to do that sort of thing, there are surely easier ways that don't involve extraditing to one country in the hope that you can then  maybe possibly extradite him to your own one.


He still has questions to answer. I would much rather he'd saved his lawyer money (and the bail money his friends put up for him) for fighting any attempt to actually extradite him to the US from Sweden than on not going to Sweden at all. If the allegations are as preposterous as some of his supporters claim, there shouldn't be a problem with simply putting his side and waiting to be released without charge and without giving any other nation the ability to seek his extradition in relation to any other charges.

Get Sweden to promise they won't send him to America if you like, then get his John Inman-alike arse to Sweden to face the legal process there.

I'd feel the same whatever the alleged crime. I have no time for the likes of George Galloway however, who has spouted a lot of quite vile nonsense, most likely simply to keep himself in the press. Galloway has suggested that the allegations made, even if 100% true, do not constitute rape.
In once case a woman alleges that she had consenting sex with Assange one night and woke in the morning to find him having sex with her again. Quite apart from how creepy it is to want to have sex with someone who is unconscious, if she was asleep, she did not consent or even was consulted in the act and it is therefore, rape. No question.
In the other case the woman was about to engage in sex with Assange but on the condition that he wore he condom. He refused and when she then tried to stop proceedings, she says he then held her down and carried on in spite of her attempts to prevent him. Again, no question that this scenario would constitute rape.

It really shouldn't be too complicated. Enough with the qualifications about a woman taking responsibility for putting herself in a situation. When you start with that sort of argument you insult men and women alike. Not only are women to blame for not being nuns but men are bestial savages, unable to control themselves or engage with rational thought as soon as a sexual encounter is even remotely on the cards. And when I say "on the cards" by these people's definition I'm talking about something as simple as wearing make up or attractive clothing, never mind kissing him.
Consent isn't just not saying no, if you have any respect for the person you intend to have sex with, or indeed for yourself, you will be looking for ENTHUSIASM. If your intended partner isn't responding to you with enthusiasm, surely you should at least be wondering why. It won't stop you being a victim of spurious allegations of course, nothing except possibly inviting an independent witness along to verify every encounter is likely to do that. But at least you, male or female, will be assured in your own mind about what happened. I would also say that if you don't have any respect for your intended partner, whether they are to be your partner for life for the next few hours, you probably shouldn't be having sex with them at all.

Anyhoo, I support the work of Wikileaks and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. That does not preclude me from expecting people to be answerable for their actions and to respond to allegations, especially of this nature, with transparency and honesty. Not hide from them.

1 comment:

  1. Damn straight. It really is quite simple, despite the cant and drivel of those who want to "grade" rape - (Helen Mirren, Whoopi Goldberg - shame on you both. Shame). Sex where the woman (or man, let's not be sexist about this) is an unknowing (ie unconscious or mentally incapable of consenting) or an unwilling participant is rape. There's no different degrees of it, it's still rape. Assange may not have been charged but there are sufficient concerns to have the police wanting to question him. If he did any of the above then he committed a criminal act, and the police have a duty to investigate complaints and allegations - he may well not be guilty but the police seem sufficiently convinced by the women to want to investigate further.

    The rise in "rape apologists" at the moment horrifies and appals me. From TrueLad, to Ched Evans, to Akin's "legitimate" rape, I'm just sickened by the mentality of some people. Pah.