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.
” Some people, especially feminists, have already tried him and found him guilty. ”
Whereas others are equally certain about his innocence without bothering about silly things like trials.
Kempe, 6:02 pm; well the media, particularly the Swedish media, shouldn’t have sabotaged the possibility of a fair trial then, should they?
“Whereas others are equally certain about his innocence without bothering about silly things like trials.”
.
We are all ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is typical neo-con thinking.
Of course, Janner never got a chance to prove his innocence.
“Gibney’s tabloidism includes an emotive image of the Swedish police’s forensic report on a ‘torn’ condom, but it does not include mentioning that the condom was submitted as evidence by Ardin 12 days after the alleged incident; that it was examined by two forensic laboratories and was found to contain absolutely no chromosomal DNA fragments from either herself or Assange:”
http://hazelpress.org/westealsecretslies-2/4578044438
If you look at the article above it contains a photograph of Anna Ardin. Look at her high-heeled shoe the one she is pointing at the camera and you will see she is perhaps not the picture of innocence some would have you believe.
The quote above details what prompted me to script a cartoon of Anna Ardin discussing the case with her friend and police interrogator, Irmeli Krans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nIrLS3gI8A
There are probably deep rooted double standards in how men and women think about sexual behaviour. In reality we communicate through thousands of gestures and some of us are more adept at controlling our own gestures and reading those of others, but in essence we follow gestures not words. We even follow the tone of the word more than the literal meaning. So sexual politics are a dance and a minefield and god help the rape victim, the falsely accused and the jury because it is not easy to convey or understand what really went on days weeks months or years before. Its okay to say Assange should stand trial, but leaving aside political interests the outcome would be a lottery. There seems to be too much of an easy game for those who oppose WikiLeaks to cry rape and drown out all else, ie to show a repellant picture and keep repeating it till any supporters feel ashamed to be associated.
When we think how often we misread the signals of others and reflect on that do we not conclude how much more difficult it is for a jury to imagine themselves in the situation and figure out what was going on. If there us evidence of violence maybe easy, but otherwise its just a lot of hunches
A barrister specialising in sex crimes will apparently tend to prefer more men on the jury if prosecuting rape (they tend to be more likely to accept the victim’s account) but more women in defending (they tend to be acquit).
How can I say that? Is it true? I don’t know, but have heard it said. I don’t. Have stats.
Justice is a vehicle or a tool with many imperfections. The jury system is one of its strongest features, but nothing is perfect. You can’t wind back the clock and be certain.
In any event Assange is only guilty of one thing: Jumping bail.
……..
Bring back Habbs, he has served his punishment. The oyster which is this blog needs its grit.
……
Ba’al & Alcy: Bowie had many flaws, but he also had many floors.
“Whereas others are equally certain about his innocence without bothering about silly things like trials.”
___________________
Is that what this pre-judged media circus is all about a fair trial. You must be the only person on the face of the earth that still thinks Julian Assange will receive a fair hearing.
I can’t quite work out whether you’re an optimist or extremely naive. Or more probable you’re pushing the establishment narrative.
“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”.
_____________
So says KR John our resident psycho. Sorry, psychoanalyst. But, is he a budding Lord Denning? Surely hope not.
Fwl
13/01/2016 6:37pm
I would be interested in this experiment. Take a hundred men and a hundred women and show each sample the picture John Goss posted of Anna Ardin in her bizarre shoe(s).
Then poll each group on how their feelings have changed towards her, if at all. Or even on their opinion on whether if she made a sexual assault allegation, it would be likely to be true or false.
I do not know, of course, what the result would be, but I believe that a hundred women selected at random in the aggregate would be markedly less sympathetic to her than a hundred men would. It’s just a feeling. I can’t back it up.
Kind regards,
“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.”
__________________
Aiding and abetting, is classed as a crime is it not?
There is evidence Britain was inappropriately involved in the rendition and ill-treatment of terror suspects, an inquiry has revealed.
Retired judge Sir Peter Gibson reviewed 20,000 top secret documents after allegations of wrongdoing by MI5 and MI6 officers in the wake of 9/11.
Sir Peter told reporters, It does appear from the documents that the United Kingdom may have been inappropriately involved in some renditions. That is a very serious matter. And no doubt any future inquiry would want to look at that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25445869
JSD yes that is the tendency noted by some barristers, but my main point is that its v difficult to know. If we reflect back to school days we might remember how some teachers would pick on the usual suspects and punish the wrong kid. That was summary justice. Juries faced with his word against hers are back to the position of the teacher. Hunches probably take over. Some are right and some are wrong. Juries reach verdicts. Whether they are right or not is uncertain. Unfair sometimes, but it seems to be as good as we can get * My end point is that when faced with someone who has been found guilty or acquitted in your own mind keep some space for another possibility. Similarly for the accuser.
(* system would work better if defendant’s had budgets to investigate a little and criminal legs aid had not been whittled away as an easy cut ignored by the voter.)
…..
Enough waffle from me for this evening. G’dnight.
So BP are to slash 600 jobs from its North sea oil operations. It was only 14 months ago that the Westminster government and its propaganda machine Better Together, heralded from the highest rooftops, that the oil industry was safe on their broad (poolsharing) shoulders. It’s now apparently clear that was all lies.
Of course for 40 years Westminster has spent oil revenues like there was no tomorrow. Not one of the scatter cash Westminster governments, ever acquired the acumen or foresight to set up an oil fund. Other nations who struck black gold when it was at its peak price wise, decided to put some of the revenue away for future generations, and rainy days.
Now the price of oil looks set fall even further, and the silence from Westminster is deafening. Gone are the idle boast of broad shoulders and pooling and sharing.
Then again I’m struggling to think of a industry that Westminster governments have gotten fully behind or fought for. Coals gone, and now the steel industry is all but dead, shipbuilding barely clings on.
Finance and the services industry seems to be Britain’s main forte, a country running on consumer debt, a house of cards. That will topple in the first stiff breeze.
Mark Golding @ 13 Jan, 2016 – 4:37 pm
“This world unease, dread, terror, torture, horror, worry and suspicion is indeed inexorably past its sell by date and imo America demands to be circumvented in world affairs until the power of NSA/CIA and NeoCon control is rolled back and put back in the bottle.”
Whilst snorkeling and diving I have witnessed a fair number of parasites feeding on total beauty, but it is extremely unusual for either the host to kill the parasite, or the parasite to kill the host.
The NSA/CIA and NeoCon control is quite clearly a parasite feeding on the beauty of humanity, but we can’t put it back in the bottle, and have no need to.
The Washington parasite has quite clearly gone insane as is obvious by watching recent press conferences from the US State Department.
In fact its been insane for quite some time – and thinks coming out with nonsense like this is normal.
“Three weeks before W. Bush’s election for a second term in 2004, his Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind. Rove said:
Guys like [Suskind] were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
“http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/06/endgame-response-karl-rove1-empire-creating-reality-study-studys-youre-arrest.html”
I believe it’s in the natural order of things that the Neocon parasite will self destruct, die, and stop sucking the lifeblood from the beauty of humanity.
The human race has been around for an exceedingly long time, and no evil parasite has succeeded in destroying us yet.
Tony
Ooh yes she’s wearing willy shaped heels. She must be a slut, obviously asking for it, if she got raped it was entirely her fault etc etc. Nobody said that she was a picture of innocence, simply that she has the right to say no.
Despite it’s shortcomings trial by law still has a significant edge over trial by media or trial by blog or trial by conspiracy theory.
RoS:- You just don’t get irony do you?
ROS you could add arms trade to sectors Gov gets behind.
Kempe
“Nobody said that she was a picture of innocence, simply that she has the right to say no.”
Yes: that’s entirely the point. There isn’t a context in which a woman should or should not have autonomy over what is done to her body. She just has it. All. The. Time.
“Despite it’s shortcomings trial by law still has a significant edge over trial by media or trial by blog or trial by conspiracy theory.”
Yes. Although I would add that he said/she said (or he said/he said or she said/she said) cases, in particular sex crime cases, are not particularly well dealt with by the adversarial system. I think looking at alternatives, be they arbitration or restorative justice or something not yet thought of, might be more helpful. But then I also think all but the most serious crimes (and the most dangerous offenders) are better dealt with other than by lengthy prison sentences.
As to a “lesser crime” than rape – what for? Rape is sex without consent. It is a crime. We already have separate treatment for rapes with aggravating factors such as violence. That is what sentencing is for.
A great outburst by a NYC DA against Grand Juries;
https://www.facebook.com/UltraLife/videos/883094311811318/
(Implications for a possible Assange grand jury indictment also ?)
Sixer: Research on dealing with crime through restorative justice would be worth considering. Have to work out how to stop the clever gaming it. Communities have to function. They don’t seem to function well at present. Restorative junction if really thought out and properly implemented (ie not just to save money) could help us rebuild our communities.
Suppose you admit a crime and you then go through some process of restorative justice with your sentence suspended pending periodic review of your conduct by a jury.. Everyone has to sit on such a jury for so many days a year reviewing particular individuals.
I’ve scared myself even thinking about it. That would be a nightmare. Sometimes the anonymous disfuntional dislocated city is the cool place to be.
“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.”
Having looked into my own question, the judges Sir John Thomas (no, I really am not joking) and Mr Justice Ouseley found in the Assange case that English law currently is that sexual intercourse without a condom when consent has only been given to sexual intercourse with a condom amounts to rape. You may think the law is an ass, or you may not, but that is how the law currently stands as interpreted by these judges.
Rape is (Sexual Offences Act 2003):
“1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.”
My italics.
What is “consent”? Section 74 of the same Act:
“For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.”
The two judges above:
“The question of consent in the present case is to be determined by reference to s.74. The allegation is clear and covers the alternatives; it not an allegation that the condom came off accidentally or was damaged accidentally. It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that, if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom without her consent. His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act.”
My italics.
The judges are plainly of the opinion that sex without a condom when a condom has been insisted upon broaches section 74 (consent) and therefore the allegation is of penetration without consent, which is rape in English law.
Kind regards,
John
Oh – source.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
And from the same judgement:
“If, contrary to our view, it was necessary to consider the law of England and Wales, the issue would relate to SW’s lack of consent and Mr Assange’s knowledge and belief. We have considered the general issue of consent at paragraphs 79 to 91. Our view is, as we have set out, that a jury would be entitled to find that consent to sexual intercourse with a condom is not consent to sexual intercourse without a condom which affords protection. As the conduct set out in the EAW alleges that Mr Assange knew SW would only have sex if a condom was used, the allegation that he had sexual intercourse with her without a condom would amount to an allegation of rape in England and Wales.”
My italics.
Kind regards,
John
Firstly a control freak who seeks to bring the full weight of the law to keep her men victims at bay ought not set herself up as a pollster into the bargain. The notions of using a wide interpretation of the crime of “rape” as measure of a woman’s control over her body is a rather bizarre instance of misapplication of the laws of the land.
The constant desire to control the conduct of the males through the coercion of the threats of potential punishment in law clearly are indicative of underlying psychological, and personalty disorder.
Nonetheless these lines of thought diminish the gravity of the crime of rape, whilst further promote the pernicious rich and control of police state deep into the bedroom too.
Fact that a cleaner does not want to clean a grossly dirty and faeces smeared club toilet and her supervisor sends her to clean the said toilets ought to be classed as rape, or sacking of a female due to her dress code or hair length etc, ought to be classed as rape wreaks of a bizarre mindset and an addled thoughtlessness as to the implications of such a crass misinterpretations of the current laws.
===========
John Goss why are you pushing the Swedish pasties misdemeanour’s? Fact is US was kidnapping people from the streets and bundling them into jets bound to Gitmo. Hence someone like Assange would have faced such a fate only if he was not so famous and “White”. The next best method of bundling the offender into a jet bound for Gitmo is to find a Kangroo court that will initiate a phony trial in subsequent to which the offender is bundled into a jet bound to Gitmo.
You are falling into the trap of remaining on the same page and the subsequent death null of what is “rape” or what constitutes a condom?
Fwl
In all honesty, it’s not something I’ve given detailed thought to, although I do remember reading a good discussion on restorative justice over at Prisoner Ben’s blog some time ago now. But overstuffed prisons aren’t the answer, I’m sure of that.
Certainly, especially in the absence of aggravating factors such as abduction, drugging or violence, rape is not satisfactorily prosecuted in the adversarial system – either for victims or perpetrators. I think most would agree that habitually violent criminals (whatever their crime) deserve a prison sentence. But where aggravating factors are not present, it seems to me that we need to find more creative approaches whose aim is to get the offender to understand why their sexual behaviour was not acceptable and alter it in future, and the victim to get some self worth back.
Common sense would suggest that a misrepresentation as to whether one is wearing a condom or not is hardly the same thing as rape. In short it is saying that sex is rape if the consent has conditions attached. What if she said she only consents if you don’t come and you do, or if consent was only present if you did not wear a condom (supposing she wanted to get pregnant and you didn’t but you wanted sex)? So attaching conditions should not lead to rape. Maybe something else. Fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit are serious. No means no. That’s clear. So why introduce yes means yes unless xyz?
“So BP are to slash 600 jobs from its North sea oil operations. It was only 14 months ago that the Westminster government and its propaganda machine Better Together, heralded from the highest rooftops, that the oil industry was safe on their broad (poolsharing) shoulders. It’s now apparently clear that was all lies.”
Yes and Alex Salmond assured us the oil industry would make the whole of Scotland financially secure. It would be worth £8 billion to the Scottish economy.
If the nationalists had won Scotland would be entering our first year of independence with a big £8 billion pound hole in our finances, no currency or central bank, no credit rating, starting negotiations to get back into Europe. In short right up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Better Together warned that oil prices might fall and oil was not a solid base to build an economy on and they were right. The nationalists were wrong but they just do what they always do, blame Westminster.
Oil fell below $30 a barrel on the world market today, that’s not Westminster’s fault and unlike an independent Scotland they have their bets hedged, Britain is a net importer of oil and the British economy will weather the storm. The Scottish economy would be sinking without trace.
The sad part is I still hear calls for a second referendum, some ardent Nationalists are convinced it is in the SNP manifesto for next year and will vote for them on that basis. Totally lost touch with reality.
Sixter @ 8:39 yes well said. No was answers, but there must be solutions out there.
…..
Right, I have got verbal diarrhea. That’s it…I’m out of here.
Fwl
13/01/2016 8:46pm
“What if she said she only consents if you don’t come and you do”
That very case has been considered by the courts and I think the conclusion was that that is rape.
I’ll try to find it.
Kind regards,
John
“In R (on the application of F) v The DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), the High Court examined an application for judicial review of the refusal of the DPP to initiate a prosecution for rape and/or sexual assault of the complainant by her former partner. “Choice” and the “freedom” to make any particular choice must, the Court said, be approached in “a broad commonsense way”.
Against what the Court described as the “essential background” of the complainant’s partner’s “sexual dominance” and the complainant’s “unenthusiastic acquiescence to his demands”, the Court considered a specific incident when the claimant consented to sexual intercourse only on the clear understanding that her partner would not ejaculate inside her vagina. She believed that he intended and agreed to withdraw before ejaculation, and he knew and understood that this was the only basis on which she was prepared to have sexual intercourse with him. When he deliberately ejaculated inside the complainant, the result, the Court stated was:
“She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape”.”
My italics.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/
Kind regards,
John
Yes, John I wouldn’t be surprised. No doubt part of the reason make jurors are thought to be more likely to convict in rape cases compared to women jurors is because they know what acts they are capable of, whilst women on juries may be more inclined to be conscious of what lies they are capable of. The jury doesn’t decide on sentencing, but if are male judges more lenient on sentencing compared to female judges?
Excuse the sexist generalisations.
Male jurors not make jurors.
Sixter; “There isn’t a context in which a woman should or should not have autonomy over what is done to her body.”
That’s a strawman, or perhaps strawwoman, non-point that I’m not wasting time to address.
Sixter; “As to a “lesser crime” than rape – what for?”
For the same reasons there are technically distinct crimes “Sexual Assualt”, “Sexual Herassment”, Sexual Molestation”, and “Sexual Abuse”; perhaps there is a need “Sexual Not Keeping Your Word” ! That should cover those who forget to pull-out or whose condom slips off !
Sixter; “Rape is sex without consent”
Historically until fairly recent times, rape was determined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, violence, and lack of consent. Whetever rightly or wrongly, this is still wnat most people, associate with the charge of “rape”; Two people who decide to freely enter into a sexual relationship by sleeping together on any particular ocassion, have mutually agreed to participate in sex, up until the ocassion is over or up until one party says no more, so to describe as “rape” if one decides to wake up the other by means of sexual activity seems illogical & unreasonable as the consent has not been withdrawn nor is the ocassion over as they are still in bed together.
I don’t know about the sentencing – maybe someone has looked into it but I have no idea. J