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.
So what do me make of inicident in Turkey, regarding the suicide bomber, considering Sultanahmet square where the attack took place was blocked off and no journalists were allowed into the square to film or take pictures, due to a nationwide broadcast ban.
Well we know that Turkey has been cooperating with IS using them to drive oil laden tankers from Syria to Turkey. Russia has been blowing up these tankers at a steady rate of knots to thwart both IS and Turkey.
According to Reuters news the suicide bombers body parts have been identified as Syrian, quite how they came to that conclusion, hasn’t been revealed yet, no mention of a Syrian passport yet.
” you’d have noticed the USA are desperate to get their grubby hands on Mr Assange over his Wikileaks posts, that have embarrassed their security agencies. ”
We hadn’t as it happens. Any proof?
” Sweden would undoubtedly turn Mr Assange over to the USA, after his trial, or Mr Assange would be snatched from the streets of Stockholm, ”
Whereas of course in the UK he’s perfectly safe as even with our notoriously lop-sided extradition treaty there’s no chance of the UK government acceding to a request for extradition, the UK has never participated in rendition and it’s absolutely impossible to snatch anyone off the streets of London.
” confirm to a central agency run by Germaine Greer, that they both consent to do it, and list the terms and conditions of the proposed event (eg, how many orifices? with or without toys?”
Thanks for that laugh Ba’al, just gained my vision back after six hours of dilating pupils. had my eyes checked and yours was the first post I read.
Love to receive my condoms from the learned hands of Mrs./Ms. Greer, maybe with a little advice on what covers to choose for the pillows…
Glenn_uk – 3:08 pm
I feel a bit like it’s Groundhog Day! How many times do I have to say it?
My “case”, as you put it, as you will see if you check back, is to take issue with the “real rape” comment by John Goss. That’s it. No more. No less.
This “case” of mine has absolutely nothing to do with Julian Assange other than illustration. Forget Assange. He might be a rapist. He might not. For all I know. I have already conceded this point multiple times.
Is it possible for partners to mutually consent beforehand that one partner initiating sex with the other one who is sleeping is acceptable?
If Mr A and Ms B have had satisfying lovemaking and are both still fully in position of their faculties, and Mr A turns to Mrs B and says: “I wanna wake you up the same way”, and she says “mmmhhhmmmm yeah ok awesome”, and they then sleep, is he justified in commencing sexual behaviour at 8am the next day?
If explicit consent has not been sought but the same sequence of events has been played out twenty or fifty or a hundred times before with no problems, is it safe to assume consent?
Kind regards,
John
Kind regards,
John
Sorry, Ms B did not get married in the middle of the night. J
And that’s possession, not position. I think. J
Ba’al the fact that SW may have relented at the time, is not to be confused with the assertion that JA may have penetrated her without a condom, which prerequisite had been amply made clear by SW. Both factors could have existed.
At the same time, in practice, I find it difficult to understand, unless she is completely passed out, how a man would penetrate a woman and tip-toe around without waking her up 99% of the time.
Which is why most of this discussion is so highly theoretical, further instanced by K.R. John’s questions.
Sixer, I take on board completely your dividing line between consent and no consent. It’s not so difficult to understand.
My “case”, as you put it, as you will see if you check back, is to take issue with the “real rape” comment by John Goss. That’s it. No more. No less.
———————————————————————-
Let me define what I meant by real rape. I meant forced viollent penetration against the will of a woman (or man). Now if you cannot see the difference between that and consensual sex that got the Wikileaks founder’s name in all the newspapers as a rapist it is sad. Real rapists are most often repeat offenders. Julian Assange had gone through life without any sexual slur on his character. Then two instances of alleged rape appear within days of each other.
It is sad because it presupposes that in your mind Sixer the two are the same – which they are not. Real rape is a terrible traumatic experience that nobody should have to undergo.
violent
John Goss
13/01/2016 4:20pm
Your definition needs a bit of work, I think. I may be able to scare a woman so effectively with threats of violence that she submits without any need for force or violence, how then?
Kind regards,
John
Thanks for confirming my understanding of your definition, John.
For you, rape is only “real” when accompanied by the aggravating factor of violence.
That is what I thought you meant. That is what I am taking exception to.
“Is it possible for partners to mutually consent beforehand that one partner initiating sex with the other one who is sleeping is acceptable?”
I suspect this clinical approach would not be appealing to any but extreme feminists – and those who want pre-nuptial agreements. Sex can be casual or based within long-standing relationships but making agreements beforehand is enough to put most people off.
———————————————————————–
He goes to kiss her.
“What do you think you’re doing?”
“I thought you might fancy a kiss.”
“When did we write up the agreement for you to kiss me.”
“We didn’t. Don’t you want to?”
“It depends.”
“On what?”
“On how I feel.”
“You let me kiss you last night.”
“Last night was last night.”
“I’ll get a pen and paper.”
the assertion that JA may have penetrated her without a condom..
was made without witnesses or credible evidence, withdrawn at one point, and made again under rather curious circumstances vis-a-vis the prosecutor, as I recall. Ultimately, it’s her word against his. Which is a very weak legal position in British law. I don’t know if it’s different in Sweden. And, for whatever reason, Assange has not yet been interviewed by the Swedes. I’m not particularly for Assange, but this looks like useful-idiot feminists roped in to perform emergency surgery for the US intelligence community. Perhaps we would be better debating an apolitical instance instead?
it’s absolutely impossible to snatch anyone off the streets of London. On the beam chappie, too overt ol’ boy, not British at all – Harrowdown Hill is of course a much more civilised riddance, while planting femme fatale, hanky-panky with the banky and remotely muting the outgoing voice on a land-line telephone is quite acceptable for ‘persons of interest’ hell-bent on rocking the Establishment boat.
Baal: “Perhaps we would better debating an apolitical instance instead?”
Yes, we would. Because, as I keep saying, I am talking about consent not Julian Assange.
And I would like to know how many of the men commenting here would agree with the John Goss definition that rape is only rape if violence is used.
JSD mused that
“If Mr A and Ms B have had satisfying lovemaking and are both still fully in position of their faculties, and Mr A turns to Mrs B and says: “I wanna wake you up the same way”, and she says “mmmhhhmmmm yeah ok awesome”, and they then sleep, is he justified in commencing sexual behaviour at 8am the next day?”
Like the Schengen agreement is dead as a blue parrot, Sweden’s collective amnesia about what rape consists of has been taking a disturbing turn. Awedish judiciary must be fully engaged in covering up crimes by migrants to their country.
That does not mean that any of them have not been crim inals before, nor does it mean the CIA has any intentions of taking a few of them off Swedens hands.
Sadly it leaves Sweden’s judicial credibility, regards of Assange’s alledged case vis a vis the recent crimes, in the doldrums, without any inertia.
When will Sweden do as they said they would and interview J.Assange in his diplomatic rabbit hutch? Or, have they done it? did I miss it?
http://nyheteridag.se/exposing-major-pc-cover-up-in-sweden-leading-daily-dagens-nyheter-refused-to-write-about-cologne-like-sex-crimes-in-central-stockholm/
“Your definition needs a bit of work, I think. I may be able to scare a woman so effectively with threats of violence that she submits without any need for force or violence, how then?”
Yes, I agree, threatening behaviour and intimidation to force submission would also be rape. But there was no indication of that either in the Assange case.
Sixer cannot see the difference between these kinds of rape and what allegedly happened with Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen. Remember the night after the ‘rape’ of Anna Ardin she was with Julian Assange again and tweeting (tweets she later removed) that she was with the coolest of people. There is also the photo of them together two days after the ‘rape’ where she is beaming. It stinks.
John Goss
13/01/2015 4:34pm
I actually gave an imagined conversation which I do not think was particularly clinical.
Kind regards,
John
John Goss
13/01/2016 4:45pm
We’re not talking about the specifics of the Assange case. Sixer has made that very clear on a number of occasions. We are now discussing what does or does not constitute consent in a hypothetical way.
You have needed to broaden your definition of rape to include lack of consent, with or without violence, which is quite right.
Kind regards,
John
“And I would like to know how many of the men commenting here would agree with the John Goss definition that rape is only rape if violence is used.”
It’s clever, but I never said it. What I am trying to get you to concede is a difference between consensual sex and rape.
“You have needed to broaden your definition of rape to include lack of consent, with or without violence, which is quite right.”
But we are talking about Julian Assange. Some people, especially feminists, have already tried him and found him guilty.
John Goss
13/01/2015 4:52pm
I’m afraid you did, John. I’m sorry.
“Let me define what I meant by real rape. I meant forced viollent penetration against the will of a woman (or man).”
Unless there is a difference between rape and real rape.
Kind regards,
John
John Goss
13/01/2016 4:54pm
Yes, like Louise Mensch, for example. And on the evidence I have seen thus far I think no jury in the world would find Julian Assange guilty of rape.
Kind regards,
John
It’s a bit of a surreal discussion regarding the issue of rape, in that it is totally divorce from real life, where context is everything; if a person is comfortable enough to get into bed with somebody, for that most intimate of acts, ie love-making, and then to sleep in the same bed all night with them, surely then it goes without saying that that both partners have not only expressed and share a mutual sexual attraction, but also a mutual agreement; and due to the nature of sexual urges, it is totally unrealistic, even unnaturally to then assume, that there would be an objection by one person if the other later commence to re-engage in sexual activity while still in the same bed; if that person did not want to have any further sex with the other person, they would have made sure that this was clear to the other person, and realistically they would even be very unlikely to still want to share the same bed all night.
As regards the condom question, yes if the woman expressly insists that she will only engage in sex if the man uses one, then of course that should be respected, however just like the man who promises to withdraw before ejaculating, but doesn’t, yes it is abominable & irresponsible behaviour, & a serious betrayal of trust, but to call it rape makes it a mockery of what people normally understand by the word.
We were talking about Julian Assange. The whole debate at which Sixer took umbrage began with this comment. You cannot take it out of context and ask me to help you out with your definitions. We were speaking about real rape as opposed to what happened in the case of Julian Assange.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/01/feminism-a-neo-con-tool/comment-page-5/#comment-573251
Macky
13/01/2016 5:00pm
I think that is very sensible commentary.
Two points:
If I engage in lovemaking with a woman and then I initiate sexual activity while she is sleepyhead in bed the next morning and she starts to wake up and says no, and I continue, that is rape. (Personally, I would be jolly careful to make sure she was sleepily consenting before going too far the next morning in any case. One of the peculiarities of this case is that there appears to be very little talk about foreplay.)
If a woman says she will only consent to sex if I wear a condom and I do not wear a condom, the presumption must be that consent is withdrawn, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I am honestly not sure of the answer to this question: if I lie and say I am wearing a condom and my partner later discovers that I am not, is that an act of rape even though mutual passion has been expressed? I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that it is. On the other hand, perhaps a different offence could be argued for.
J
JSD; “she starts to wake up and says no, and I continue, that is rape.”
Again, context is everything; it’s one thing if she bolts upright & snaps a forceful “No”, and another is she giggles a sleepy “No”; the former is a definitely a withdrawal of consent, but the later could be taken as a playful tease for “I’m still too sleepy for more of that good sex, so wait a few more minutes”; the later is such a common enough scenario in many mainstream movies, that it’s a cliche.
Yes, it seems seems more than sensible for a different, and lesser, charge to that of rape, for tricking somebody into believing a condom is being used, or that there will be a withdrawal before ejaculation, but only if the woman herself decides to seek legal redress, not the Police !
Macky
13/01/2015 5:35pm
Yes, quite. I do not agree that “no” means no, but I think it is perfectly obvious to any normal human being when “no” means “this is fun” and when “no” means “fuck off”.
J
Tonight, 9.00pm, Ecstasy Wars: Stacey Dooley Investigates.
Hmmmm, not so much an investigation as a condemnation, methinks, produced at the behest of the Establishment’s distillers and brewers to support their domination of the supply of mind-altering drugs. Ecstasy instils a wonderful feeling of empathy which endures long after the drug has disappeared from your system. If everybody took ecstasy at least once, the world would be a better place. Only in the rarest of cases is it harmful, just as peanuts can be. Leah Betts died from drinking too much water, a result of ignorance and confusion about ecstasy which programmes like this deliberately generate.