UPDATE
Minutes after I posted this article, the ludicrous Jess Phillips published an article in the Guardian which could not have been better designed to prove my thesis. A number of people have posted comments on the Guardian article pointing this out, and they have all been immediately deleted by the Guardian. I just tried it myself and was also deleted. I should be grateful if readers could now also try posting comments there, in order to make a point about censorship on the Guardian.
Catching up on a fortnight’s news, I have spent five hours searching in vain for criticism of Simon Danczuk from prominent or even just declared feminists. The Guardian was the obvious place to start, but while they had two articles by feminist writers condemning Chris Gayle’s clumsy attempt to chat up a presenter, their legion of feminist columnists were entirely silent on Danczuk. The only opinion piece was strongly defending him.
This is very peculiar. The allegation against Danczuk which is under police investigation – of initiating sex with a sleeping woman – is identical to the worst interpretation of the worst accusation against Julian Assange. The Assange allegation brought literally hundreds, probably thousands of condemnatory articles from feminist writers across the entire range of the mainstream media. I have dug up 57 in the Guardian alone with a simple and far from exhaustive search. In the case of Danczuk I can find nothing, zilch, nada. Not a single feminist peep.
The Assange case is not isolated. Tommy Sheridan has been pursuing a lone legal battle against the Murdoch empire for a decade, some of it in prison when the judicial system decided his “perjury” was imprisonable but Andy Coulson’s admitted perjury on the Murdoch side in the same case was not. I personally witnessed in court in Edinburgh last month Tommy Sheridan, with no lawyer (he has no money) arguing against a seven man Murdoch legal team including three QCs, that a letter from the husband of Jackie Bird of BBC Scotland should be admitted in evidence. Bird was working for Murdoch and suggested in his letter that a witness should be “got out of the country” to avoid giving evidence. The bias exhibited by the leading judge I found astonishing beyond belief. I was the only media in the court.
Yet even though the Murdoch allegations against Sheridan were of consensual sexual conduct, Sheridan’s fight against Murdoch has been undermined from the start by the massive and concerted attack he has faced from the forces of feminism. Just as the vital messages WikiLeaks and Assange have put out about war crimes, corruption and the relentless state attack on civil liberties have been undermined by the concerted feminist campaign promoting the self-evidently ludicrous claims of sexual offence against Assange.
As soon as the radical left pose the slightest threat to the neo-con establishment, an army of feminists can be relied upon to run a concerted campaign to undermine any progress the left wing might make. The attack on Jeremy Corbyn over the makeup of his shadow cabinet was a classic example. It is the first ever gender equal shadow cabinet, but the entire media for a 96 hour period last September ran headline news that the lack of women in the “top” posts was anti-feminist. Every feminist commentator in the UK piled in.
Among the obvious dishonesties of this campaign was the fact that Defence, Chancellor, Foreign Affairs and Home Secretary have always been considered the “great offices of State” and the argument only could be made by simply ignoring Defence. The other great irony was the “feminist” attack was led by Blairites like Harman and Cooper, and failed to address the fact that Blair had NO women in any of these posts for a full ten years as Prime Minister.
But facts did not matter in deploying the organised feminist lobby against Corbyn.
Which is why it is an important test to see what the feminists, both inside and outside the Labour Party, would do when the leading anti-Corbyn rent-a-gob, Simon Danczuk, was alleged to have some attitudes to women that seem very dubious indeed, including forcing an ex-wife into non-consensual s&m and that rape allegation.
And the answer is …nothing. Feminists who criticised Assange, Sheridan and Corbyn in droves were utterly silent on the subject of Danczuk. Because the purpose of established and paid feminism is to undermine the left in the service of the neo-cons, not to attack neo-cons like Danczuk.
Identity politics has been used to shatter any attempt to campaign for broader social justice for everybody. Instead it becomes about the rights of particular groups, and that is soon morphed into the neo-con language of opportunity. What is needed, modern feminism argues, is not a reduction of the vast gap between rich and poor, but a chance for some women to become Michelle Mone or Ann Gloag. It is not about good conditions for all, but the removal of glass ceilings for high paid feminist journalists or political hacks.
Feminism has become the main attack tool in the neo-con ideological arsenal. I am sceptical the concept can be redeemed from this.
“In in all honesty I, can’t ever recall seeing John Swinney angry, but Labour holding back on paying flood hit victims, £1500 pounds was just too much to take, and he lost his temper.”
If you watch the video you will see that Labour was saying the Scottish government should be paying the victims not deciding councils have to pay the victims when they have just cut the council’s budgets. Instead of getting angry why doesn’t he just pay the victims from government funds?
The Scottish government has also cut funding for SEPA who are responsible for flood prevention and forecasting.
Funny thing how its deemed inappropriate to interact with Habbs, but everyone so busy today trying to engage with Ms M. At least Habbs responds. Has he actually been banned or just gone away, and if banned what for?
Lysias, you’re probably right, but let me have a bit of fun with Habba as a drag queen…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UQvBzo_rJA
“Funny thing how its deemed inappropriate to interact with Habbs, but everyone so busy today trying to engage with Ms M. At least Habbs responds. Has he actually been banned or just gone away, and if banned what for?”
I believe he was banned for a week for putting remarks about other users as his username when a moderator had asked him not to.
Gone…but unfortunately not forgotten.
Still on the Bowie kick…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5rjNY8dMzc
Recorded decades ago but sadly just as relevant now.
And all the trolls are going to be put on trial for crimes against humanity.
Great Times front page today with top left the word Starman, then wonderful photo of a Cornish ferry in a rainbow with caption Waiting in the sky The lights were low ..
Get it?
Starman waiting in the sky
The lights were low
Rainbow and a ferry.
Times is becoming interesting. Editor? Or is Ms Hall chilling out the guvnor?
Thanks Fred. Doesn’t sound so serious. Has Anon1 gone / been banned?
“Thanks Fred. Doesn’t sound so serious. Has Anon1 gone / been banned?”
Not that I know of.
Curious.
Re David Bowie, here’s a clever morhping montage of the many changing faces of DB;
http://os1.i.ua/3/1/13479015_cbe4fb42.gif
Plus a fun favourite childhood memory of mine;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQxTWDLZ8o
Our lost, somebody else’s gain; this is what we are missing now;
http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1452637121.html
“Hmmm…I’m a bit confused over why so many people on this forum feel that it would be a travesty if Julian Assange were to go to trial.”
It’s not a fair trial he fears. All charges had been dropped once.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/19/how-sweden-collaborated-with-cia-on-renditions-and-framing-of-assange/
Important!
The UK supported Sweden’s bid to have Julian Assange extradited there as a stepping-stone to extradition to the USA where they would imprison him and have the key thrown away.
Real rape is excused.
General Pinochet, Mrs Thatcher’s good friend, was protected by the UK when Spain asked for extradition. Here is the sickness of the man and his regime.
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/crime2.htm
The Turks coined the term “deep state” (derin devlet).
Or a Canadian diplomat poet?
“Has Anon1 gone / been banned?”
No, but he disappeared the same time as Habbabkuk got banned for the week.
Doubtless he’s faithfully nuzzling around Habbabkuk’s feet, wagging his tail, looking at his displeased master (whimpering occasionally) hoping his ever-attentive presence will cheer him up, hoping even more that he doesn’t get viciously kicked yet again from sheer irritation, as his master serves out his sentence.
John Goss 11:06 pm (and Becky)
I take exception to your use of “real rape”.
I’m not fully clear on the full details of the various Assange accusations and rebuttals. Although I am entirely convinced political motives entirely outweigh criminal justice motives.
Let’s just forget Assange.
A sleeping woman cannot give consent to penetration. Previous sex with a woman does not give a man subsequent rights to sex with that woman. Consent to sex with a condom does not imply consent to sex without a condom. These scenarios are “real rape”.
“Real rape” is not confined to rape with aggravating factors such as violence. Such aggravating factors may be taken into account by a judge at sentencing but are not required for a “real rape”. Rape is sex without consent. Simple.
Back to Assange.
With the sketchy knowledge I have of the accusations against him and the various machinations involved, I am happy to accept that political motivations, covert intent to extradite, and the right to a fair trial destroyed, probably add up to enough reason to drop any case.
“With the sketchy knowledge I have of the accusations against him and the various machinations involved, I am happy to accept that political motivations, covert intent to extradite, and the right to a fair trial destroyed, probably add up to enough reason to drop any case.”
Not just that Sixer he has already served a long sentence without trial. The presiding judge at the Supreme Court, last court of appeal, Justice Phillips, was rewarded with a plum job in Qatar for making a decision, that when lawyers tried to argue the same reasoning in other cases it was deemed that Justice Phillips and the other Supreme Court judges had got it wrong. It’s all political!
John – yes. Happy to concede that even without spending endless hours investigating for myself. It’s all “ipso fatso, Mum” as my son would say (my son believes himself to be the world’s greatest wit). I don’t doubt anything you are likely to say about Assange and these accusations – EXCEPT what is and isn’t “real rape”.
“Real rape” is sex without consent. This, for example, includes sex with a sleeping woman, regardless of previous sex with that woman. Any man who does this, whether his name is or isn’t Julian Assange, has had sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape.
Points arising:
So sorry to have missed Louise Mensch, who may or may not have been the real (ie unspeakable) Louise Mensch, but who would have been worth some serious effort for entertainment’s sake. Ah well, next time.
For those still unconsolable over the Bowie tragedy, get a penguin. Yes, the iconic rock legend’s next incarnation has just hatched in Cincinnatti:
http://hellogiggles.com/bowie-the-penguin/
“Has Anon1 gone / been banned?”
No, but he disappeared the same time as Habbabkuk got banned for the week.
As did Alcyone.
Point to ponder.
Fwl
12 Jan, 2016 – 9:17 pm
Funny thing how its deemed inappropriate to interact with Habbs, but everyone so busy today trying to engage with Ms M. At least Habbs responds. Has he actually been banned or just gone away, and if banned what for?
________
Fwl, I had promised I shall be following your comments more closely, and am glad to do so.
Habby, more than just responding never offers vitriolic remarks like Ms M and especially not hit-and-run ones. In fact his responses are always well argued, with his rationale clear and, if anything, forcing one to think critically and objectively. It therefore makes for a more robust debate by those capable of it. Sadly few are and therefore they would simply shout troll, a word which I feel should be banned here in order to encourage commenters towards better use of the wonderfully expressive language that English is.
I have asked the question of the Mods re Habby’s absence. I think we should have some clarification and less intrigue.
PS An example of a more robust and civilised conversation by Habby and Squonk, even on the difficult subject of Israel, appears here (even while a prolific [hopefully], ex-poster goes on referring to Habby as a troll):
https://squonk.tk/blog/2015/03/15/the-general-discussion-thread/comment-page-56/#comments
I hope Habby will join again soon. And more of Squonk, Clark and other objective and balanced commenters too.
Btw, Fwl, there is a clue upstream on the same thread as to Habby’s ‘ban’. But I would still say that it would be helpful if the Mods clarified.
PS Ba’al ponder away!
Ba’al, I hope you won’t take offence if I happen to agree with your observations about Bowie. Somehow, I could never ‘get’ his music.
Thought that would bring you back, Alcyone. Yup, the Bowie act struck me as pretty contrived, regularly reinvented for new albums; a lot of the music was derivative, and some of it just rubbish (as I think Bowie acknowledged), and the resulting alleged £135M personal fortune does not suggest to me someone who was doing anything particularly dangerous after first getting noticed – which usually requires some mould-breaking. Not offended at all.
Ba’al I am a slow typist. I had started writing my note to Fwl well before you posted.
Also you’ll find me there somewhere yesterday.
Lets stop the silly innuendos.
Agree again on Bowie.
Ba’al Zevul
13 Jan, 2016 – 11:14 am
Thought that would bring you back, Alcyone.
_________
And thanks for your call for company!
It does seem a little dead around here!! Hope Habby back soon to inject some life (and blood) 😉
Maybe Habbabkuk has gone off on a sulk because of his temporary ban. Some people around here have been known to do that, simply because an off-topic post got deleted…
Not his style at all Glenn that I would recognise.
Though its perfectly conceivable that he’s enjoying the break and will join in on a new post by CM where there might be more focus than the ordinary banter.
Did you read my comment the other day about RobG the ketchup squirter?
“Real rape” is sex without consent. This, for example, includes sex with a sleeping woman, regardless of previous sex with that woman. Any man who does this, whether his name is or isn’t Julian Assange, has had sex without consent. And sex without consent is rape.
————————————————————————
I would agree with this only if he had done this without her consent. Many younger lovers go for a – how do I put it delicately – second bite of the cherry, on the same night. Now if Sofia had said: “What are you doing? Don’t.” and he persisted, that could be construed as rape. What she did say, allegedly, was “Are you wearing something?” His answer was “You!” There was later a debate about if she got pregnant.
If as a woman you are in bed with a man you hardly know – any woman’s prerogative – there is no way he could penetrate you, or even get close to doing so, without you knowing about it. She never mentioned rape until days after. What she wanted was a screen test at the clinic. The rape allegations appear to have been at the suggestion of Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans (the police-woman interrogator). This is why the case was dismissed and JA was allowed to leave Sweden. He had no case to asnwer. Then the case was concocted by pro-US Swedish law firm Borgström & Bodström. End of . . .
Again, Alcyone, it was a rather tongue-in-cheek remark. I ought to put “/s” to indicate this.
About RobG: Everyone’s entitled to their moment of lunacy, and it looks like RobG’s taking full advantage of his, if he thinks the Paris attack was all fakery.
It’s one thing to claim that the gunmen were working on behalf of the state for some reason, but another altogether to claim that the events themselves never happened at all. Same with the Sandy Hook massacre. I can see why the far-right gun-nuts would like to pretend it never happened, because surely their precious, cuddly little guns couldn’t hurt nobody, sshhurely?? And it’s all a trick from that Big Mean Democrat who’s going to take all their freedom protectors away! First Carter, then Clinton, then Al Gore (only he never got the chance), now – even today – they’re raving about Obama’s big gun-grab.
I don’t think decent folk realise how they’re being useful idiots for the far-right when they pander to this nonsense.
Another thing that puzzles me about the knee-jerk false-flaggers – how are they prepared to believe all this guff about crisis actors, blank guns, fake explosions, pretend terrorists etc. etc., but the proposal that some screwball, religiously deluded freaks (after much provocation) have gone totally barking, blood-thirsty, and murderously insane is too much to accept?
John Goss 12:08
No, John, penetrating a woman without wearing a condom when she has made it clear she consents only to sex with a condom is sex without consent. Sex without consent is rape. This is not up for debate. It is not a “second bite of the cherry”. It is the law.
I have no idea whether or not Julian Assange did this. And frankly, in the context of our to-and-fro, I don’t care. It is clear to me that the man is being pursued for political ends, which I find the most emphatic word for wrong in your vocabulary. However, if he did it, he is a rapist, whether or not any prosecution is either so tainted it can’t take place, or we regard his captivity in the embassy as time served – either of which I am happy to concede.
What I do care about and what I don’t accept, as a feminist, is any contortion about when rape isn’t rape. Rape is sex without consent. It’s not a difficult concept.
And, taking us back to the original topic of this post – in the case of Simon Danczuk, as I said in my first comment here, it is noteworthy that he took everything he learned about grooming from the Rotherham frenzy and applied it to a young woman who applied to him for a job. You really couldn’t get any more ironic than that. However, I don’t accept Craig’s conflation of “leading feminists” with “Oxbridge-educated female newspaper columnists”. The former entirely understand the misogyny of Danczuk. The latter are self-aggrandising useful idiots.