Thursday, 6 September 2012

That rapey matter ... Galloway, the left and Assange

There's a storm going on in the left, less over what really happened between Julian Assange and his two temp lovers, and more about what constitutes rape in this case — of which we only know stuff from what we've read as we weren't there and no-one had the foresight to make a sex-tape.

Everyone else has had their twopennyworth, so here's mine.

The objection for some is what Respect MP George Galloway didn't say in that now notorious podcast (above). He argued the case with no reference to what is alleged: not that Assange just woke up with a morning glory and maybe misread the situation, but that (i) he didn't use protection when the woman had asked for condoms to be used and (b) that when she said no repeatedly, he ignored her and carried on, using his physical strength. (Yes, my numbering is inconsistent, but so is the left.) If that's proven, then that is indeed rape, as it is sex against the express wishes of the woman.

In omitting this stage of the "insertion" as per the allegation (which is, after all, what he was discussing), GG distorted the case.

It's unfortunate that GG's loaded description of the complainants as "two rather free and liberal women" make him sound like the Witchfinder General warming up to a blistering condemnation of Hussies. "Even taken at its worst, the allegations made against him by the two women ... [insert smear against them here] if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 percent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape."

That's pretty clear. GG is then at pains to make it clearer, even.

"Woman A ... claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again, something which can happen, you know."

Yes, within a loving or horny relationship where the rules of "the sex game" (as he charmingly calls it) have been established — not necessarily in specific words that issue from one's gob, but in all sorts of body language signals that the more loutish among us may not be fully equipped to pick up, although no-one is demanding superhero spider-senses. Just a bit of sensitivity and respect will do.

"It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'Do you mind if I do it again?' It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."

So much for mutual pleasuring.

GG is entitled to disbelieve the women — this situation is, after all, a timely gift to the US. But we don't know whether the gift actually came courtesy of Assange himself in a spectacular own goal, drunk on his newly-acquired rock-god status, rather than via a complex stitch-up. Sometimes the mundane explanation is the true one. We just don't know right now.

GG's definition of rape is what's disturbing, reflecting what a swathe of the left (mostly men) are saying. He did state afterwards that "No never means yes and non-consensual sex is rape. There's no doubt about it and that has always been my position." But then he went and spoilt it by adding, "What occurred is not rape as most people understand it."

Fair criticism of GG does not make one a supporter of US imperialism — we can think and chew gum at the same time. My belief is that, until Sweden guarantees no extradition to the US, Assange shouldn't go, but we shouldn't dismiss the seriousness of the allegations, which will have to be proven (or disproven) in a court of law.

The left has to face up to the fact that this is not a Manichean tussle between absolutes, or a football match where you cheer on one side regardless. It is a genuinely challenging and intriguing conundrum. Here we have someone who did a power of good with Wikileaks, who is then almost immediately revealed to have some deep character flaws. Sometimes this process of revelation takes years.

My frustration re the powerlessness of the left and the ascent of the right has been so great that when Assange came along I was delighted to find that we seemed to have an effective champion. My first response when the allegations surfaced was that the Forces of Evuhl were 'avin' a larf. But as the picture has taken its shaky shape, it's looking murky — on BOTH sides. Was the women's failure to kick up immediately a delayed shock reaction? Desire to be with the cool guy? Or something more sinister? Assange has, after all, consistently denied their claims. As I and others have said, all parties need to have their day in a court of law, because we are only the court of public opinion right now and whaddo we know?

None of this diminishes the importance of Assange's Wikileaks work (let us not forget Bradley Manning) and the very real threat to his freedom and perhaps his life should he be sent to the US (there have been calls for his assassination as well as prosecution by politicians and in the media), but it is a useful lesson in not elevating human beings to the status of deities, because then you are stuck with that position no matter what and it begins to look ridiculous. Especially when someone pokes a cucumber up your bum and there's nothing you can do except shout.

Read the transcripts of the police interviews here. Thanks to Mark Anthony France for the tip.


Albanov said...

'...and when she said "No" repeatedly.'

Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence either in the women's police statements (nor was it ever claimed before Mr Justice Riddle) that either woman ever used the word 'No.'

You appear to have fallen into the trap of using previous erroneous reports as the basis for your argument. For instance, when, as is claimed 'Miss A kept her legs closed and he tried to prise them open,' what you and others have omitted is the following: 'He asked her what she was doing and she told him she was reaching for a condom. He then put on the condom he gave her.' Assange was invited by this woman (Miss A) to stay in her single-bed flat for another five days.

You are also in danger of morphing both women's experiences into one.

Regarding Miss W, she actually told police she was 'half asleep' when he is accused of intercourse without a condom. Her statement says she immediately said: 'I hope you don't have HIV.'

Assange replied: 'Of course not.' They then continued sex, then she made him breakfast and went with him to the railway station and asked her to call him.

You must also remember that the allegations have been described as 'very serious.' Had they the substance that is claimed, I doubt very much indeed that Sweden's chief prosecutor would have dismissed the allegations. They were, of course, resurrected by a different prosecutor several days later (but we won't go into the shady political ramifications of that particular development).

Thank you,

Roy David.

Cornelius said...

Thank you for saying this! It sickens me how many people have taken a "black or white" attitude to what is, in fact, a very complex situation. The left's blind support for Assange has, unfortunately, caused them to downplay rape and normalise it further - do we really need that, when so many women suffer from its normalisation already?

I support Wikileaks, and I believe that its net effect has been positive. But I believe we can still be skeptical about Assange - I do not know if he is guilty or not, but there have been equivocations on both sides.