General politics discussion thread

[David]

Christ, the MP for Bradford West, George Galloway has certainly kicked up a shitstorm with his views on the Assange carry on, hasn't he?

 

George Galloway, the Respect MP for Bradford, has attacked the attempts to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, arguing that "even if the allegations made by these two women were 100 per cent true. . . they don't constitute rape."

 

Galloway launched the attack on his video podcast, Good night with George Galloway.

 

Let me tell you, I think that Julian Assange's personal sexual behaviour is something sordid, disgusting, and I condemn it. But even taken at its worst, the allegations made against him by the two women

[Loki]

I thought the accusation was that he'd had sex with one woman without a condom, and she subsequently said she's not given consent for unprotected sex?

 

Galloway is right, the actual accusations are pretty ropey. I believe in this country's law, they'd not be regarded as sex crimes even if true.

[Ronnie]

I thought the accusation was that he'd had sex with one woman without a condom, and she subsequently said she's not given consent for unprotected sex?

I suppose it could be a combination of the two events, since I find it hard to imagine that a woman can have consensual sex and then complain that he didn't use a condom, and have that constituted as a crime. If a woman consents to sex and you're not wearing a condom, then she's consented to sex without a condom, surely? Perhaps it was the case that they had consensual protected sex, and then that he initiated sex without a condom in the morning whilst she was sleeping.

 

Edit: In that Galloway video he states that one of the women claimed that the condom ripped and Assange continued regardless.

 

In other news, I believe I've just set the record for lowest amount of intellectual substance in any post in this thread.

Not at all. Kiffy and BigMickeyEDL were prominent posters in it at one point.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Ronnie

[Kenny McBride]

I thought the accusation was that he'd had sex with one woman without a condom, and she subsequently said she's not given consent for unprotected sex?

 

Galloway is right, the actual accusations are pretty ropey. I believe in this country's law, they'd not be regarded as sex crimes even if true.

 

Some legal bits and bobs about the Assange case. Get your myths exploded here!

[Loki]

Ah, thank you Kenny.

[Kenny McBride]

I think the "it wouldn't even be a crime here" argument is bullshit even if it were true. Jaywalking isn't illegal in this country, but if you got lifted for it in New York you wouldn't really have a leg to stand on. You can't pick and choose which of a country's laws you're going to abide by when you visit it. By all means, if Mr. Assange and his backers wish to campaign for a change in Swedish law once his trial is over, so be it. Until then he needs to man the fuck up and face the music.

[Keith Houchen]

I find some of the attitudes that have been expressed towards rape, or what some people do and don't consider rape very very disturbing. For instance,

Claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know.

Yes it can, George, and it is called rape.

 

Why people cant understand what consent actually means staggers me. The rape apologists of the Cult Of Saint Julian (and the likes of Ched Evans) are sick, disgusting people. I wrote a blog about the mentality of some football fans called "Of Course He's Innocent, He Plays For My Team" a month or so ago and the same mindset applies to a lot of Wikileaks supporters. I'm a Wikileaks supporter, but I'm not a supporter of Assange. He is not Wikileaks and Wikileaks is not him.

 

I don't mean this flippantly but has their been much word from his big name backers who put up his bail money? What have the likes of Pilger and Khan said recently? I wonder what they think of the poster boy for open journalism and the freedom of the press running to a country that closes down media it doesn't like?

 

And of course, this takes the light off of the Bradley Manning case.

 

Flame away but, in this matter particularly, I wish bobbins still posted here.

 

EDIT - Kenny, David Allen Green has been brilliant on this, hasn't he? Nice one

Edited August 21, 2012 by Keith Houchen

[Ronnie]

Why people cant understand what consent actually means staggers me.

I think the issue for many is a question of degree, Houchers, but it's unfortunate that the issue in discussion is such a sensitive one. I would think that most people would say that a husband in the context of a loving marriage gently waking his wife with a bit of oral before they go on to have sex is not the same as a stranger forcing himself on a lone woman in the park, even though the lack of clear consent means that both might be considered as sexual assault. Though the actions are the same (woman doesn't give consent, man performs oral sex on her) one is a violent, despicable crime, the other isn't - or, at least, shouldn't automatically be thought of as the same thing.

 

And I think that this "already in the sexual game" thing is what people are saying here. It would be expected that there be clear consent in the initial instance. But I think it's muddy waters when a man and woman are in bed with one another having already had consensual sex and either of them initiates a follow-up in the same session (for want of a better word) whilst the other one happens to be asleep. That's not an excuse for someone penetrating someone else (especially when the no consent has ever been received for unprotected sex) but I think enough people have probably initiated sex themselves whilst the other person was asleep (meaning a few kisses and a squeeze of a tit, rather than rolling them facedown and going straight for the wrong 'un) to feel that the term "rape" shouldn't apply equally to that circumstance as it does to holding a knife to a woman's throat.

[Magnum]

I don't know enough about Julian Assange personally to make a judgement about his character one way or the other, so I'm certainly no defender of his. However, Galloway has said that the woman in question went on to have several subsequent dates with Assange AFTER the alleged rape took place. If true, that casts significant doubt on the allegations for me. I could see a woman in an abusive relationship doing this after a traumatic incident, but not somebody in what appears to have been a casual fling.

 

For anyone interested, Galloway has just tweeted a link to this Australian documentary on the case. Not sure if it's convincing or any good as haven't had chance to watch it yet:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaUGB3sjbs

[Keith Houchen]

Why people cant understand what consent actually means staggers me.

I think the issue for many is a question of degree, Houchers, but it's unfortunate that the issue in discussion is such a sensitive one. I would think that most people would say that a husband in the context of a loving marriage gently waking his wife with a bit of oral before they go on to have sex is not the same as a stranger forcing himself on a lone woman in the park, even though the lack of clear consent means that both might be considered as sexual assault. Though the actions are the same (woman doesn't give consent, man performs oral sex on her) one is a violent, despicable crime, the other isn't - or, at least, shouldn't automatically be thought of as the same thing.

 

And I think that this "already in the sexual game" thing is what people are saying here. It would be expected that there be clear consent in the initial instance. But I think it's muddy waters when a man and woman are in bed with one another having already had consensual sex and either of them initiates a follow-up in the same session (for want of a better word) whilst the other one happens to be asleep. That's not an excuse for someone penetrating someone else (especially when the no consent has ever been received for unprotected sex) but I think enough people have probably initiated sex themselves whilst the other person was asleep (meaning a few kisses and a squeeze of a tit, rather than rolling them facedown and going straight for the wrong 'un) to feel that the term "rape" shouldn't apply equally to that circumstance as it does to holding a knife to a woman's throat.

Ronnie, wish respect, this is the kind of thing that rape support groups have to put up with. I know you don't mean to, but that line of thinking doesn't help one bit. Consent means a woman, or man saying yes. Saying nothing isn't saying yes, therefore isn't consent. That's the whole consent thing in a nutshell. There are no degrees. Either there is rape and sexual assault, or there is consent.

 

I see what you say about a couple but if I was to "Wake up my wife" with oral, I am committing a criminal act if she doesn't want sex.

[PowerButchi]

Completely off topic and probably a fucking really stupid question, but what about unspoken consent, if you know what I mean. Sometimes in the heat of passion and all that you and someone else will out of the blue just fuck, normally at a funeral or something, and nary a word is spoken. Is it a case of it's consent unless she's saying no, or is it not consent unless you ask and she says yes?

 

Just as a theoretical question.

[Keith Houchen]

Completely off topic and probably a fucking really stupid question, but what about unspoken consent, if you know what I mean. Sometimes in the heat of passion and all that you and someone else will out of the blue just fuck, normally at a funeral or something, and nary a word is spoken. Is it a case of it's consent unless she's saying no, or is it not consent unless you ask and she says yes?

 

Just as a theoretical question.

It's not a stupid question, Butch. Your example is a world away from initiating a sexual act on someone sleeping though. It clearly isn't rape or assault if two people start going at it without a word being said but, as soon as one of them has second thoughts, even during the act of sex itself, the other person must stop. Otherwise it is assault or rape, dependent on how "far" they are gone.

 

I bet you were thinking of Stevie at Shane Dog's funeral in season three, weren't you?

 

As an aside, its worth noting that in the rare case of convictions, it is normally a conviction because the charge has been batted down to Sexual Assault, as it is easier to get a conviction.

[Maverick]

A one night stand went completely off it when we were about to get into the throes and I asked her was she sure she was up for it claiming I killed the mood and was unromantic. I was just trying to keep myself out of prison

Edited August 21, 2012 by Inspector Paul Solo

[Keith Houchen]

You did the right thing, Inspector, if only Saint Julian of Wiki had your resolve.

[Ronnie]

I see what you say about a couple but if I was to "Wake up my wife" with oral, I am committing a criminal act if she doesn't want sex.

Sure, but even there we find muddy waters, don't we? It might be that they both have initiated sex with the sleeping partner numerous times in the past and have always proceeded to have happy, consensual sex and so the precedent is there. Then one day the other half wakes up but doesn't feel like going any further on that occasion. As long as it goes no further and there is no unpleasantness about the refusal, then I find it hard to equate the initial action with that of a balaclava-wearing, knife-wielding psycho, do you know what I mean?

 

I hope I'm not coming across as the guy trying to downplay rape but I can't help but think that one is not the same thing (at least in degree) as the other. Certainly not in my own life, at any rate. My other half and I have been together for around six years. In that time we've never discussed the subject of waking the other up with some sort of sexual action and thought to obtain the other's permission to do so, yet on pretty much the one occasion when she's woken up before me she was feeling frisky and went to give me a blowjob whilst I slept. (Unsuccessfully, as it happened, since I'm an extremely light sleeper so woke up when she kicked the duvet out the way.)

 

In spite of the fact that she hadn't obtained my consent I don't consider that for a moment to be assault. I wouldn't either if it were the case that I didn't feel like having sex afterwards. I think it comes down to the nature of the relationship. Ours is a loving, sexual one and it so happens that we wouldn't consider that assault if it happened between us (and assuming that we hadn't gone to bed on bad terms etc). I expect many couples probably have that presumed consent between themselves and would, I bet, be horrified if they were told that their husband of twenty years had committed sexual assault every time he successfully initiated sexual activity during their Sunday-morning lie-ins over the course of their marriage.

 

Mind you, I think by trying to find exceptions to prove the rule I'm jumping a bit far away from the issue at hand, being that Assange - who wasn't in a position to presume consent in the way that couples who have known each other and their feelings for years - allegedly penetrated a woman whilst she was still asleep and, at that, without using a condom.