Julian Assange, probably a dirtbag [Archive]

Crux

31st December 2010, 07:36

Julian Assange Says One Of His Accusers Took A 'Trophy' Photo Of Him Naked

Glynnis MacNicol (http://www.businessinsider.com/author/glynnis-macnicol) | Dec. 27, 2010, 10:13 AM | 1,906 | http://static.businessinsider.com/assets/images/icons/icon_comment_12x12.gif (http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-says-one-of-his-accusers-took-trophy-photo-of-him-naked-2010-12#comments) 12 (http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-says-one-of-his-accusers-took-trophy-photo-of-him-naked-2010-12#comments)

A (http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-says-one-of-his-accusers-took-trophy-photo-of-him-naked-2010-12#) A (http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-says-one-of-his-accusers-took-trophy-photo-of-him-naked-2010-12#) A (http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-says-one-of-his-accusers-took-trophy-photo-of-him-naked-2010-12#)
(http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-says-one-of-his-accusers-took-trophy-photo-of-him-naked-2010-12) x (http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-says-one-of-his-accusers-took-trophy-photo-of-him-naked-2010-12#) Email Article

From
To

Email Sent!

You have successfully emailed the post.

inShare1

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4d0cd91bcadcbb500c100000-275-225/assange.png
See Also:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4cf50161ccd1d58069150000-60-60/julian-assange.jpg (http://www.businessinsider.com/assange-will-get-almost-15-million-for-his-book-deal-2010-12)
Assange Will Get Almost $1.5 Million For His Book Deal (http://www.businessinsider.com/assange-will-get-almost-15-million-for-his-book-deal-2010-12)

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4d1398a549e2aed172040000-60-60/assange.png (http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-this-awesome-video-of-julian-assange-rapping-about-journalisms-new-world-order-2010-12)
Watch This Awesome Video Of Julian Assange Rapping About Journalism's New World Order (http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-this-awesome-video-of-julian-assange-rapping-about-journalisms-new-world-order-2010-12)

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4d13a6e0ccd1d56b74020000-60-60/black.jpg (http://www.businessinsider.com/gee-thanks-coned-and-merry-christmas-to-you-too-2010-12)
Gee, Thanks, ConEd. And Merry Christmas To You, Too (http://www.businessinsider.com/gee-thanks-coned-and-merry-christmas-to-you-too-2010-12)

The other week Julian Assange stormed off the set of an ABC interview (http://www.businessinsider.com/when-asked-about-rape-charges-julian-assange-calls-abc-news-reporter-tabloid-schmuck-walks-off-2010-12) after the reporter began asking him detailed questions about the rape charges he faces in Sweden. Apparently, he has had a change of heart on this front.
In an interview in today's Australian Assange appears to be quite comfortable speaking about his version of the incidents that led to his rape charges. Quite comfortable.
According to Assange one of the women took a "trophy" picture of him naked in her bed. Full disclosure: the picture has yet to surface, though the fact he uses the word 'trophy' to describe it goes some way towards reinforcing the 'dirtbag' argument.
He also says that the only reason one of the women went to the police in the first place was to force him to get tested for STD's but that the case ended up being investigated as an alleged sexual assault.
"The day after this incident, she invited friends around to her flat for a dinner in honour of me," he said. "Does that sound like someone who was upset by what had happened? And at the dinner were a couple who had offered to have me as their guest. Instead, she insisted I remain with her. I stayed the rest of the week."
He goes on to describe his second accuser as having showed up at lunch wearing "a revealing pink cashmere sweater" (translation: she was asking for it?) and flirting with him and taking him home. Also this:
Mr Assange regards himself as a victim of radicalism. "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism," he said. "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism."
Sounds like Assange has decided to try his rape case in the court of public opinion.
Read the full article here > (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/wikileaks-founder-baffled-by-sex-assault-claims/story-fn775xjq-1225976459286)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-says-one-of-his-accusers-took-trophy-photo-of-him-naked-2010-12#ixzz19flLYfhD

Rusty Shackleford

31st December 2010, 09:23

Widerstand

31st December 2010, 09:24

ZeroNowhere

31st December 2010, 09:57

I'm not sure why it is claimed that there has been a change of heart. That interview was specifically supposed to be about the recent release of documents about the wars, and that was why Assange decided to leave.

costello1977

31st December 2010, 10:02

As a previous poster said, I care more for what is being released in the leaks than for Assange, but you can't expect a man who is part of the biggest oxy moron on the earth, the Free media, to be a leftist, can you?

I love the fact that he says he is doing it to give the people the truth, sure as fcuk he wouldn't be at it if he hadn't lined up the 1.5 million pounds book.

I hate it when they lie about fighting for the people,could he not just say, "Fcuk it, I want a lot of cash and pissing off the establishment might do the trick!". Id respect him more!

brigadista

31st December 2010, 10:26

don't believe the hype - appears he's being fitted up

Wanted Man

31st December 2010, 11:29

That aside I have no idea what the OP's article is trying to tell me. All I gathered was that someone wore a revealing piece of clothing and that there supposedly are Assange nude pics. Oh and that someone called him a "dirtbag" (meaning...what?).

Yeah, it's a pretty free and self-serving interpretation. I do think this is quality journalism, though: selectively copy some quotes from another publication's work, and simply add a statement like: "Looks like he is indeed a dirtbag."

Totally worth a thread on Revleft as well. Is this some amateur attempt at conditioning? That every time we read about Wikileaks, we think: "Oh yeah, dirtbag." :rolleyes:

I'm not sure why it is claimed that there has been a change of heart. That interview was specifically supposed to be about the recent release of documents about the wars, and that was why Assange decided to leave.

Yes exactly. It's more quality journalism. Arrange an interview about serious content, and then when the interview starts, just completely forget about it and talk about other stuff. In this case, trying to get someone to incriminate himself on national television. "So, did you spread her legs by force?" Tabloid schmuck indeed.

Again, it's also pure distraction from the content of Wikileaks. Governments around the world are certainly happy when all the media are gushing over all the nasty details of an alleged rape. Which I still think is utterly sick, by the way, that reporters get excited about the exact details of how the rape allegedly happened. I bet we will yet see them asking questions like, "How loudly did she scream?" or "Did you stick it in her pooper?" Complete madness and totally sick.

As a previous poster said, I care more for what is being released in the leaks than for Assange, but you can't expect a man who is part of the biggest oxy moron on the earth, the Free media, to be a leftist, can you?

I love the fact that he says he is doing it to give the people the truth, sure as fcuk he wouldn't be at it if he hadn't lined up the 1.5 million pounds book.

I hate it when they lie about fighting for the people,could he not just say, "Fcuk it, I want a lot of cash and pissing off the establishment might do the trick!". Id respect him more!

I read that the money was for the website, because PayPal, Mastercard and others are preventing people from donating.

Dimentio

31st December 2010, 11:46

Assange is not a leftist, or rather a leftist in the same way as Peter Joseph.

http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/assange-IQ.org_.pdf

He is simply the archetypical geek.
IanEpWajzsY

Crux

31st December 2010, 11:56

Yeah, it's a pretty free and self-serving interpretation. I do think this is quality journalism, though: selectively copy some quotes from another publication's work, and simply add a statement like: "Looks like he is indeed a dirtbag."

Totally worth a thread on Revleft as well. Is this some amateur attempt at conditioning? That every time we read about Wikileaks, we think: "Oh yeah, dirtbag." :rolleyes:

Yes exactly. It's more quality journalism. Arrange an interview about serious content, and then when the interview starts, just completely forget about it and talk about other stuff. In this case, trying to get someone to incriminate himself on national television. "So, did you spread her legs by force?" Tabloid schmuck indeed.

Again, it's also pure distraction from the content of Wikileaks. Governments around the world are certainly happy when all the media are gushing over all the nasty details of an alleged rape. Which I still think is utterly sick, by the way, that reporters get excited about the exact details of how the rape allegedly happened. I bet we will yet see them asking questions like, "How loudly did she scream?" or "Did you stick it in her pooper?" Complete madness and totally sick.

I read that the money was for the website, because PayPal, Mastercard and others are preventing people from donating.
To be honest I think the original interview in The Australian speaks volumes. Notice how he does not actually deny the rape charge. So why is this important? Because I seem to remember the left actually caring about rape and misogyny.

ZeroNowhere

31st December 2010, 11:59

I love the fact that he says he is doing it to give the people the truth, sure as fcuk he wouldn't be at it if he hadn't lined up the 1.5 million pounds book.

I hate it when they lie about fighting for the people,could he not just say, "Fcuk it, I want a lot of cash and pissing off the establishment might do the trick!". Id respect him more!I think that all that's happening here is that you're making up motives for people. This is because of repressed sexual tension.

Black Sheep

31st December 2010, 12:17

Wanted Man

31st December 2010, 12:41

To be honest I think the original interview in The Australian speaks volumes. Notice how he does not actually deny the rape charge.

I'm pretty sure that Assange has always said that he is innocent of rape. Where in the interview does he admit to rape?

So why is this important? Because I seem to remember the left actually caring about rape and misogyny.

So we should have extended commentary about every high-profile rape case? If Assange is guilty, which is a pretty big "if", he should go to jail and it makes him a criminal and quite probably a "dirtbag". But I don't see how this should be allowed to detract from the content of Wikileaks so much. And at the moment, there's absolutely no doubt that the alleged rape is being used to smear someone because of his Wikileaks activities.

So I don't really understand why we should act as extensions of the justice system in this one, even if you're a member of the "Socialist Justice Party" (what's in a name?).

RadioRaheem84

31st December 2010, 15:41

gorillafuck

31st December 2010, 16:04

Well I don't think anyone here thought of Assange as some sort of leftist hero. I figured he was doing it half for the publicity,fame, money and the other half because he wanted to piss off the establishment.
Because he isn't a corporate journalist, he must be in it for publicity, fame and money?:rolleyes:

He's not a leftist hero, but as of now his organization is better than 99% of all other media anyone has heard of.

Widerstand

31st December 2010, 16:18

for publicity, fame and money?:rolleyes:

Why do you think Marx wrote the Manifesto? :rolleyes:

malthusela

31st December 2010, 16:36

i honestly care more about wikileaks than assange. that being said, im still suspicious of the rape allegation, but his comments on it being a "hornets nest of revolutionary feminism" obviously does not place him as far left as many of us on this board, in the wold communist movements or others.

I wouldn't say that. The politician who orchestrated the whole thing (according to Assange) is a big proponent of men carrying a burden of everything that has happened to women.

I love the fact that he says he is doing it to give the people the truth, sure as fcuk he wouldn't be at it if he hadn't lined up the 1.5 million pounds book.

I hate it when they lie about fighting for the people,could he not just say, "Fcuk it, I want a lot of cash and pissing off the establishment might do the trick!". Id respect him more!

Because he did the book to pay for wikileaks, not so he can buy a big house. Unless the man has a brain disorder, he can work out that a man of his infamy can't really have the luxury of a permanent address anymore.

Well I don't think anyone here thought of Assange as some sort of leftist hero. I figured he was doing it half for the publicity,fame, money and the other half because he wanted to piss off the establishment.

He came out as the face of wikileaks to garner more publicity for the group. He isn't stupid, everyone loves a character. If you notice prior to all these large scale cables being released, he was notorious for avoiding press. As for wanting money, how is he going to use it? He has spent the past so many years moving from area to area.

RadioRaheem84

31st December 2010, 16:49

Because he isn't a corporate journalist, he must be in it for publicity, fame and money?

He's not a leftist hero, but as of now his organization is better than 99% of all other media anyone has heard of.

Well didn't I say that his organization is more important than him, making his motives largely irrelevant?

I merely speculated that maybe stardom (or infamy) might have influenced his intentions too among a sincere attempt to shed light on government secrecy.

What does being a corporate journalist have anything to do with it? So only they seek such things?

How did you gather that I thought that the wikileaks organization wasn't important or less important than 99% of the media out there?

I said Wikileaks is more important than Assange and that I was bit skeptical about him being this ultimate hero. Sincere as he may be, I thought of him as the arch-typical geek hacker who wants to see the cloud of secrecy of governments blown while at the same time carving himself a piece of history.

RadioRaheem84

31st December 2010, 16:50

Why do you think Marx wrote the Manifesto? :rolleyes:

Assange /= Marx

Widerstand

31st December 2010, 16:59

Assange /= Marx

What exactly is it that subjects Assange to the accusation of only doing it for publicity, fame and money but saves Marx from it?

RadioRaheem84

31st December 2010, 17:05

What exactly is it that subjects Assange to the accusation of only doing it for publicity, fame and money but saves Marx from it?

I didn't say that he only did it for the publicity.

I said that he probably does have a sincere wish to blow government secrecy from the water while at the same time trying to carve a piece of history for himself.

I said that were was nothing really wrong or relevant about his motives because Wikileaks is more important than Assange. I merely speculated about his intentions, but again this is irrelevant. I was actually trying to say that threads like this one do not make that much of a difference.

costello1977

31st December 2010, 22:28

I think that all that's happening here is that you're making up motives for people. This is because of repressed sexual tension.

What? He is releasing these leaks because of sexual tension, I am reading that aren't I?

I making up now motives for what Assange has or hasn't done, in fact the thrust of my argument is that he is of little concern to me. I believe I can still speculate as to what his motives for any of his actions were, but the only person who will know for sure....is.....YOU....

Only joking, its Assange!

Political_Chucky

31st December 2010, 22:31

I didn't say that he only did it for the publicity.

I said that he probably does have a sincere wish to blow government secrecy from the water while at the same time trying to carve a piece of history for himself.

I said that were was nothing really wrong or relevant about his motives because Wikileaks is more important than Assange. I merely speculated about his intentions, but again this is irrelevant. I was actually trying to say that threads like this one do not make that much of a difference.

All these julian assange threads do are point out his

Credibility(which has been good before these rape allegations came out)
How he is a sexual deviant,
Hes only in it for the money(not that he has to pay for wikileaks and his lawyers and all that right?)
That he looks pasty and is a nerd.

Now, I would of thought many people on this forum would use actual evidence to prove their points, but most of what everyone has said here is a matter of opinion. The only real opinion that we all seem to agree on is that wikileaks is a special thing. The vast majority of information that it has given us and how it has gave the media a big "fuck you" since it is without a doubt much more informative.

One thing I Would like to touch on again from previous threads though as I had no response last time, was that this is merely a smear campaign as Assange has stated. History seems to repeat itself. Just look at the Rosenburg trials and how they were executed, but then later proved of no wrong doing.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/rosenb.htm

And yet, it has been failed to really mention Bradley Manning, who has not been convicted and held under solitary confinement.

CMOSMlumpRU
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc82.html

Early attempts at submission and rehabilitation where far from perfect. The use of solitary confinement was originally designed to allow prisoners to rediscover their own conscience and better voice through spiritual conversion. Unfortunately, it was later discovered that no form of torture could have been worse than solitary confinement because it ended up causing within many prisoners adverse psychological effects such as: delusions, dissatisfaction with life, claustrophobia, depression, feelings of panic, And on many instances madness.

Im sorry, maybe I don't really care about those girls, but look at the bigger picture. Look at the crimes the government as a whole is doing, not one man.

Os Cangaceiros

31st December 2010, 23:24

I'm not sure how Assange could prove his innocence in regards to these charges. It seems like a classic case of character defamation to me.

Not that I particularly care about J.A. one way or the other.

Diello

1st January 2011, 02:24

I get the feeling that Assange is probably an asshole on some level, though A) that doesn't really affect my level of enthusiasm toward him and B) I don't think that a couple of these things-- for instance, referring to it as a "trophy picture"-- are necessarily indicative of assholeness. The description of a "trophy picture" may accurately indicate the spirit in which the picture was taken, and one can understand why he might be tactless and uncharitable if he's being pilloried due to false rape accusations.

As to whether or not JA should be of personal concern to us, I believe he should-- he's issued a challenge to the world's foremost capitalist power, and, whether or not the U.S. succeeds in realizing its desire to "get" him, it will set a precedent.

Rusty Shackleford

1st January 2011, 05:13

what i was saying is that assange is just a dude who happens to be the head of an organization that leaks an incredible amount of very notable government and corporate documents. the claim that he is a leftist are debased by some of his sayings and actions though.

~Spectre

1st January 2011, 08:53

I love the fact that he says he is doing it to give the people the truth, sure as fcuk he wouldn't be at it if he hadn't lined up the 1.5 million pounds book.

He's doing that to pay his legal fees. According to Greenwald, Assange already owes over $200,000.00 (or was it euros?) in legal expenses, and that most estimates put the final cost at well over 1 million. Assange is going to need every dollar he gets from that book.

You can't expect a capitalist writer, living in capitalism, to not write a book when he needs money.

~Spectre

1st January 2011, 09:00

Still waiting for the OP to point out where supposedly Assange confessed to rape.

Crux

1st January 2011, 11:21

I'm pretty sure that Assange has always said that he is innocent of rape. Where in the interview does he admit to rape?

So we should have extended commentary about every high-profile rape case? If Assange is guilty, which is a pretty big "if", he should go to jail and it makes him a criminal and quite probably a "dirtbag". But I don't see how this should be allowed to detract from the content of Wikileaks so much. And at the moment, there's absolutely no doubt that the alleged rape is being used to smear someone because of his Wikileaks activities.

So I don't really understand why we should act as extensions of the justice system in this one, even if you're a member of the "Socialist Justice Party" (what's in a name?).
"Mr Assange has also been accused of sexual assault by another young woman he slept with during his trip to Sweden.

According to him, the woman, named only as Miss W, arrived at a lunch in a revealing pink cashmere sweater, flirted with him, and took him home.

She says they had consensual sex but she woke up the next morning to find him having intercourse with her to which she had not consented.

When she asked him if he was wearing anything, he had allegedly said: "I am wearing you."
Something which he indeed has not denied, he just denies it's rape. And please inform me when we stopped caring about sexual assaults rape, misogyny, perpetration of rape-related myth's, pretty massiv campaigns of blaming the victim in rape cases and of course this little gem:
Mr Assange regards himself as a victim of radicalism. "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism," he said. "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism."

Yes, feminism did it. That does not at all make you seem dodgy as fuck.
Here in sweden some reactions to this case has spurred a campaign, unrelated to wikileaks, but very much related to the case which is called Talk About It, where several people, mostly women have written about the grey areas between consentual sex and sexual assault. You might find this completely unimportant but as a Wahabist, sorry, revolutionary feminist I find it pretty fucking important.

And yes, no, feminism is not an purely jucidial issue.

If we, the left, want to maintain any kind of credibility on this issue you do not sweep it under the rug.
Or else we might seem like a bunch of white guys on an internet forum. With a thing for Hero-Worship.

Dimentio

1st January 2011, 11:58

Most great persons are dirtbags.

redz

1st January 2011, 23:14

To be honest I think the original interview in The Australian speaks volumes. Notice how he does not actually deny the rape charge. So why is this important? Because I seem to remember the left actually caring about rape and misogyny.

Certainly, Julian Assange is no "revolutionary leftist", but Assange and WikiLeaks have done a very courageous act in exposing these mountains of otherwise secret documents, thus pinching the tail of the imperialist beast and delivering a slap from the working class. In retribution, the imperialists - in particular the US government - have launched a sinister, vicious vendetta aimed at making object lessons of WikiLeaks and Assange in particular. The leading edge of this attack is the trumped up "rape" and other sex charges now pursued by the Swedish capitalist authorities against Assange personally.

The Assange case has also cast a spotlight on the utterly reactionary "sex crime" laws of the Swedish state, in a context where authorities have been pursuing repression not merely against women but the population at large cloaked in the pretext of "protecting" women (this is also the rationale for some opponents of abortion rights here in the USA). This repression - which includes measures targeting sex workers as well as intrusion into the private consensual sexual relations of people in their bedrooms - serves a dual purpose of regimenting the population and enforcing nuclear-family-values-oriented capitalist morality, and providing a useful legal tool to be used against political adversaries when convenient - as in the Assange case.

For any ostensible "revolutionary leftists" to lend their support as happy little helpers to this outrageous campaign by the bourgeois state authorities to smear Assange as a "rapist", "misogynist", "dirtbag", etc. is reactionary, counter-revolutionary, obscene, and disgusting. It is furthermore astounding and outrageous that any self-styled "revolutionary leftists" in Sweden would applaud the reactionary anti-woman laws being wielded against Assange by the Swedish bourgeois state in this or any other case.

Other than the absurd interpretation by Swedish bourgeois law that two people in a consensual relationship arguing over condoms is "rape", there is not a shred of evidence that REAL rape has occurred anywhere except in the mind of the Swedish authorities (and perhaps their little assistants on the left). It should be crystal clear from the entire history of these charges - originating with the authorities, not the women involved, and zig-zagging on, off, on-again as global political convenience dictated - that they have nothing to do with "protecting" women's rights and everything to do with providing a pretext for taking custody of Assange in preparation for handing him over to the Obama regime for prosecution under "espionage" charges currently in preparation.

Leftists and women's rights advocates have no business lending any credibility to this vendetta against Assange and this de facto intensification of the Swedish state's attack on personal and women's rights.

Instead, revolutionary leftists - certainly, revolutionary Marxists - have elemental responsibility to denounce these charges for what they are, and demand: Hands off Assange! Stop the attacks on women's rights! Swedish state out of the bedroom!

Redz

Crux

2nd January 2011, 00:34

Certainly, Julian Assange is no "revolutionary leftist", but Assange and WikiLeaks have done a very courageous act in exposing these mountains of otherwise secret documents, thus pinching the tail of the imperialist beast and delivering a slap from the working class. In retribution, the imperialists - in particular the US government - have launched a sinister, vicious vendetta aimed at making object lessons of WikiLeaks and Assange in particular. The leading edge of this attack is the trumped up "rape" and other sex charges now pursued by the Swedish capitalist authorities against Assange personally.

The Assange case has also cast a spotlight on the utterly reactionary "sex crime" laws of the Swedish state, in a context where authorities have been pursuing repression not merely against women but the population at large cloaked in the pretext of "protecting" women (this is also the rationale for some opponents of abortion rights here in the USA). This repression - which includes measures targeting sex workers as well as intrusion into the private consensual sexual relations of people in their bedrooms - serves a dual purpose of regimenting the population and enforcing nuclear-family-values-oriented capitalist morality, and providing a useful legal tool to be used against political adversaries when convenient - as in the Assange case.

For any ostensible "revolutionary leftists" to lend their support as happy little helpers to this outrageous campaign by the bourgeois state authorities to smear Assange as a "rapist", "misogynist", "dirtbag", etc. is reactionary, counter-revolutionary, obscene, and disgusting. It is furthermore astounding and outrageous that any self-styled "revolutionary leftists" in Sweden would applaud the reactionary anti-woman laws being wielded against Assange by the Swedish bourgeois state in this or any other case.

Other than the absurd interpretation by Swedish bourgeois law that two people in a consensual relationship arguing over condoms is "rape", there is not a shred of evidence that REAL rape has occurred anywhere except in the mind of the Swedish authorities (and perhaps their little assistants on the left). It should be crystal clear from the entire history of these charges - originating with the authorities, not the women involved, and zig-zagging on, off, on-again as global political convenience dictated - that they have nothing to do with "protecting" women's rights and everything to do with providing a pretext for taking custody of Assange in preparation for handing him over to the Obama regime for prosecution under "espionage" charges currently in preparation.

Leftists and women's rights advocates have no business lending any credibility to this vendetta against Assange and this de facto intensification of the Swedish state's attack on personal and women's rights.

Instead, revolutionary leftists - certainly, revolutionary Marxists - have elemental responsibility to denounce these charges for what they are, and demand: Hands off Assange! Stop the attacks on women's rights! Swedish state out of the bedroom!

Redz

Leftists have no bussiness lending support to rape myths and blaming the victim. Of course the context is important. But content is pretty fucking important too. Unless this was actually a conspiracy, something yet to be proven, the left have no bussiness acting as usefull idiots for the worlds misogynists. Your remarks about swedish sex crime laws only shows a massive massive ignorance, and indeed such attitudes has been prevailed in the media, mingled with outright falsehoods. If this was indeed a conspiracy it has worked brilliantly in making portions of the left into "misogynists for wikileaks". If Assange did indeed committ these crimes, a crime which you are ballsy enough to downplay, you must be ready to accept that. Instead you go into a rant about swedish sex laws. Now, who's the usefull idiot? You just showed exactly why I felt a need to bring up this issue. Defend wikileaks, defend whistleblowers. Don't defend rape. And don't put it in quotes or talk about swedish sex laws unless you know anything at all about them.

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 00:44

Of course the context is important. But content is pretty fucking important too.

Two women went to police to implore about possible transmission of sexual diseases after one had unprotected intercourse. Police then filed against the man, independently of the women. Interpol then started searching for this person on grounds of rape despite none of the supposed victims indicating anything remotely comparable to rape.

Is this the content you are talking about?

Leftists have no business playing into the hands of those who seek to use rape laws against political enemies and relativizing the horrors of real rape.

Diello

2nd January 2011, 00:57

Two women went to police to implore about possible transmission of sexual diseases after a condom broke during intercourse.

Where'd you hear that Assange's accusers originally went to the police about STDs?

I don't ask in order to express skepticism, per se; it's that I've heard about a thousand different permutations of the story, and this is a slightly new one on me.

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 03:07

Where'd you hear that Assange's accusers originally went to the police about STDs?

According to the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, the photographer contacted the other woman two days after her assignation with Assange, and the two apparently had a conversation in which it became clear they had both had sex with Assange. The photographer was worried about having had unprotected sex and decided she wanted to go to the police.

The other woman accompanied her to the police station on Aug. 20 just to support her but then told the investigating officer on duty that she, too, had had sex with Assange, Aftonbladet reported.

Based on what was said to police, the on-call prosecutor, Marie Kjellstrand, decided to issue an arrest warrant on charges of rape and molestation, and the next day the story hit the Swedish paper Expressen and newspapers all over the world.

Kjellstrand's decision was overruled the following day by a higher-level prosecutor, Eva Finne, who withdrew the arrest warrant and said she did not see any evidence for rape allegations.

Then, on Sept. 1, a third prosecutor, Ny, re-opened the rape investigation, implying that she had new information in the case.

On Nov. 18, Swedish judicial officials approved a prosecutorial request that Assange be detained for questioning for alleged sex crimes, and on Nov. 30 Interpol issued a "red notice" against Assange for alleged sex crimes in Sweden. Despite what has happened, the woman who organized the event and had Assange stay at her apartment told Aftonbladet that she never intended that Assange be charged with rape.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/

According to a police source: ‘They had a discussion and decided it would be OK to share the living space, then went out together for dinner.
'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split.
'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
In her police statement, Woman B described how, in the wake of the Afghanistan leaks, she saw Assange being interviewed on television and became instantly fascinated - some might even say obsessed.

[...]

It was dark by the time they arrived in her suburb and the atmosphere between them had cooled.
‘The passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,’ she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.’
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
'The passion seemed to have disappeared'

This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. ‘I didn’t feel I knew him very well,’ she explained.
They ate in an atmosphere that was tense, though she said in her statement that she tried to lighten the mood by joking about the possibility that she might be pregnant.
They parted on friendly terms and she bought his train ticket back to Stockholm. When she asked if he would call, he said: ‘Yes, I will.’
But he did not and neither did he answer her calls.
The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.
The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.
The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.
Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.
And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.
Woman A said afterwards that she had not wanted to press charges but had gone to support the younger woman, who wanted police advice on how to get Assange to take a medical test.
In any event, the police woman at the reception and two male officers, one from the sex crimes unit, believed there was enough evidence to call the female duty prosecutor, who issued the warrants.
The story was leaked to a Swedish tabloid and Assange’s high profile led to the case being taken over by a senior female prosecutor who, after reading the statements, concluded there was no evidence of rape.
She agreed to the sexual molestation charge related to the first woman, but even that was watered down last week. Some legal observers now believe that will also disappear.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307137/Supporters-dismissed-rape-accusations-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange--women-involved-tell-different-story.html

During the party, Assange apparently phoned Jessica and a few hours later she was boasting to friends about her flirtation with him. At that point, according to police reports, her friends advised her ‘the ball is in your court’.
So it was that on the Monday, Jessica called Assange and they arranged to get together in Stockholm. When they did meet they agreed to go to her home in Enkoping, but he had no money for a train ticket and said he didn’t want to use a credit card because he would be ‘tracked’ (presumably, as he saw it, by the CIA or other agencies).
So Jessica bought both their tickets.
She had snagged perhaps the world’s most famous activist, and after they arrived at her apartment they had sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom. The following morning they made love again. This time he used no protection.
Jessica reportedly said later that she was upset that he had refused when she asked him to wear a condom.
Again there is scant evidence — in the public domain at least — of rape, sexual molestation or unlawful coercion.

[...]

What happened next is difficult to explain. The most likely interpretation of events is that as a result of a one-night stand, one participant came to regret what had happened.
Jessica was worried she could have caught a sexual disease, or even be pregnant: and this is where the story takes an intriguing turn. She then decided to phone Sarah — whom she had met at the *seminar, and with whom Assange had been staying — and apparently confided to her that she’d had unprotected sex with him.
At that point, Sarah said that she, too, had slept with him.
As a result of this conversation, Sarah reportedly phoned an acquaintance of Assange and said that she wanted him to leave her apartment. (He refused to do so, and maintains that she only asked him to leave three days later, on the Friday of that week.)
How must Sarah have felt to *discover that the man she’d taken to her bed three days before had already taken up with another woman? *Furious? Jealous? Out for revenge? Perhaps she merely felt aggrieved for a fellow woman in distress.
Having taken stock of their options for a day or so, on Friday, August 20, Sarah and Jessica took drastic action.
They went together to a Stockholm police station where they said they were seeking advice on how to proceed with a complaint by Jessica against Assange.
According to one source, Jessica wanted to know if it was possible to force Assange to undergo an HIV test. Sarah, the seasoned feminist warrior, said she was there merely to support Jessica. But she also gave police an account of what had happened between herself and Assange a week before.
The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the *second, concluded that both women were victims: that *Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html

More articles availabe here:

http://redkeyhole.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/more-new-disclosures-suggest-sex-crimes-case-against-wikileaks-founder-assange-is-fraudulent/

Crux

2nd January 2011, 06:45

Two women went to police to implore about possible transmission of sexual diseases after one had unprotected intercourse. Police then filed against the man, independently of the women. Interpol then started searching for this person on grounds of rape despite none of the supposed victims indicating anything remotely comparable to rape.

Is this the content you are talking about?

Leftists have no business playing into the hands of those who seek to use rape laws against political enemies and relativizing the horrors of real rape.
I hear they were also being flirty and wearing revealing clothing.
The women are pressing charges though. Media logic and establishment logic of course seizes on this opportunity, and would regardless. So, say he is actually guilty of what he is being accused of, do you think the media, interpol, the U.S would act any different than they are?

And no one questions Redz echoing Assange about "revolutionary feminism" being the cause for his charges in calling the swedish sex crime laws "reactionary", and here's a hint, no consentual sex is not illegal. However in some countries consent can be withdrawn during sex, legally. And if anyone on here thinks it is ok, as Assange allegedly did, to have sex with someone who is asleep without their consent I suggest they get restricted.

And true, this might not have become a case if this hadn't been Assange. That does not mean he did not do it, that just tells you something about how many sexual assualts go unreported and unprosecuted. They sure as hell wouldn't have brought in Interpol for any regular case.

But what you are doing, and indeed many are doing, is mixing up the issues, which I think is the very point of the media logic in this instance. You'd have to be blind not to see the downright reactionary attitudes expressed by Assange lawyers and indeed Assange himself. Yes, guys, anti-feminism is reactionary, no matter who expresses that opinion.

For any revolutionary leftist this shouldn't be a divisive issue at all. Indeed it is quite simple, ditch the Hero worship, stick to the real issue here.

And no the real issue isn't some blaming-the-victim using scare quotes around rape conspiracy theory.

The real issue is defending both wikileaks and women's rights. And if anyone wants to debate swedish sex crime laws I am all for it. But I suggest you don't base it on anything said by Assange's lawyers. They are lawyers, misogyny from lawyers in rape cases is about as common as there is trees in the woods.

I made this thread to address this issue specifically, so forgive for not going into great detail why wikileaks is great. I think we all know why, so please stick to what I am actually saying rather than claiming I hold opinions which I do not.

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 07:01

I hear they were also being flirty and wearing revealing clothing.

The second woman, yes. And this can be confirmed from her own account of events, not anything the media made up to blame it on her or portray her as "asking for it". She also had sex with him twice, once with and once without a condom, and she clearly wanted it the first time, judging from her account.

The women are pressing charges though. Media logic and establishment logic of course seizes on this opportunity, and would regardless. So, say he is actually guilty of what he is being accused of, do you think the media, interpol, the U.S would act any different than they are?

None of the women is pressing charges against him though, the police persecutor decided to do so independent of them. They just wanted to get him to test for STDs. One of the women even publicly stated she didn't want rape charges pressed against him.

And no one questions Redz echoing Assange about "revolutionary feminism" being the cause for his charges in calling the swedish sex crime laws "reactionary", and here's a hint, no consentual sex is not illegal. However in some countries consent can be withdrawn during sex, legally. And if anyone on here thinks it is ok, as Assange allegedly did, to have sex with someone who is asleep without their consent I suggest they get restricted.

Assange had sex with someone while they were asleep? Twice? Within four days? This is the first time I hear this. Sources?

Are then all the sources I cited above , which indicate he is accused of rape because he didn't use a condom and of molestation because a condom broke, wrong?

But what you are doing, and indeed many are doing, is mixing up the issues, which I think is the very point of the media logic in this instance. You'd have to be blind not to see the downright reactionary attitudes expressed by Assange lawyers and indeed Assange himself. Yes, guys, anti-feminism is reactionary, no matter who expresses that opinion.

That he is reactionary doesn't make him a rapist.

For any revolutionary leftist this shouldn't be a divisive issue at all. Indeed it is quite simple, ditch the Hero worship, stick to the real issue here.

You mean the real issue of rape charges only being followed through when they can be used as a political tool and neglected in other situation? I'm sure this will bring forward the fight against sexism.

And no the real issue isn't some blaming-the-victim using scare quotes around rape conspiracy theory.

What scare quotes?
What conspiracy theory?
Do you have anything to prove that he indeed did rape both of those women and that all contrary evidence is made up?

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 07:16

Crux

2nd January 2011, 07:24

The second woman, yes. And this can be confirmed from her own account of events, not anything the media made up to blame it on her or portray her as "asking for it". She also had sex with him twice, once with and once without a condom, and she clearly wanted it the first time, judging from her account.
Let me cut right to the point: Do you believe you can be raped by someone you love and are in a close, maybe even sexual, relationship with?

None of the women is pressing charges against him though, the police persecutor decided to do so independent of them. They just wanted to get him to test for STDs. One of the women even publicly stated she didn't want rape charges pressed against him.
At that time yes. Do you think all sexual assaults and rapes get reported? Are you aware of the stigma and social pressure of charging someone with sexual assault or rape for the victim? This is pretty basic thing's anyone talking about sexual crimes should be aware of.

Assange had sex with someone while they were asleep? Twice? Within four days? This is the first time I hear this. Sources?
With the second, younger, woman. And I thought you knew everything about the case already? How did this pretty essential part, which has been in quite a few articles (maybe not in the Daily Hail), get past you? Yes, the rape charge concerns that incident. It would do you well to read the OP and The Australian's article linked in it. If you're too lazy to do that you'll notice I quoted that very passage in this thread. So yes, if you manage to miss something right in front of you, well, you've proven yourself to be quite worthless at fact finding regarding this case.

Are then all the sources I cited above , which indicate he is accused of rape because he didn't use a condom and of molestation because a condom broke, wrong?
A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. If you think "having sex without a condom" is illegal in Sweden, that makes me wonder, do you know how babies are made?

That he is reactionary doesn't make him a rapist.
That he claims "revolutionary feminism" is after him suggests he does not consider what he did to be molestation and rape, not that it isn't molestation and rape. This is the entire logic between his lawyers and some of his defenders going on about the "outrageous" sex crime laws in sweden.
Misogyny is like a second skin to lawyers defending people accused of rape, or at least this is to case far too often. this is not an exception.

You mean the real issue of rape charges only being followed through when they can be used as a political tool and neglected in other situation? I'm sure this will bring forward the fight against sexism.
Yes. Do you believe rapes that do not get reported or does not get taken to court are not actually rape?

What scare quotes?
What conspiracy theory?
Do you have anything to prove that he indeed did rape both of those women and that all contrary evidence is made up?
Redz put rape in quotes. Several editorials defending Assange has as well, while questioning swedish sex crime laws. One of the earliest said that what he is charged with would not be a crime in the Uk. I think it would, but that's a pretty shitty point to make don't you think?

Conspiracy theorists are those who claim to know that the rape and molestations themself never occured.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 07:26

Assange as a person is irrelevant to the political work that Wikileaks is doing. Most attempts to bring up Assange's personal life are thinly veiled efforts to derail discussion of the significance of WL's important work.
So rape and molestation are "personal" issues we should sweep under the rug? Nice. And indeed, you are right, so why do people on here claim I am attacking wikileaks? Widerstand thanked you, yet he said just that.

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 07:33

So rape and molestation are "personal" issues we should sweep under the rug? Nice. And indeed, you are right, so why do people on here claim I am attacking wikileaks? Widerstand thanked you, yet he said just that.

I never said that rape and molestation should be swept under a rug. I said that that Assange's personal failings, whether they include criminal behavior or not, are irrelevant in determining the value of the political project Wikileaks is engaged in. I think every discussion on accusations against Assange must occur in this context.

Why are people attacking you for attacking Wikileaks? Probably because attempts to talk about Assange's personal issues as "political" (in the sense of relating to the transformation or preservation of major social institutions), which you've just tried to do, muddies the waters by obscuring the fine political work Wikileaks is doing by associating that work with the supposedly "political" abuses of Assange.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 07:44

I never said that rape and molestation should be swept under a rug. I said that that Assange's personal failings, whether they include criminal behavior or not, are irrelevant in determining the value of the political project Wikileaks is engaged in. I think every discussion on accusations against Assange must occur in this context.

Why are people attacking you for attacking Wikileaks? Probably because attempts to talk about Assange's personal issues as "political" (in the sense of relating to the transformation or preservation of major social institutions), which you've just tried to do, muddies the waters by obscuring the fine political work Wikileaks is doing by associating that work with the supposedly "political" abuses of Assange.

And am I using this to determine the value of Wikileaks? No, I have quite clearly said I am not, so if anyone else is thinking about trying this line, drop it.

So talking about apparent misogyny from Assange, his lawyers, many of his defenders is to "muddy the waters"? To discuss the actual case, which is about alleged rape and molestation is to muddy the waters? The waters were muddy to begin with.

Sex crimes and those who make excuses for it is certainly a political issue. Or maybe you think it is private who one rapes and molests? Those who do those thing's would certainly agree with you. We as the revolutionary left certainly can not.

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 07:48

Let me cut right to the point: Do you believe you can be raped by someone you love and are in a close, maybe even sexual, relationship with?

Obviously you can be.

At that time yes.

What do you mean "at that time", she said so after reporters inquired, which wasn't until it was already a big thing.

Do you think all sexual assaults and rapes get reported? Are you aware of the stigma and social pressure of charging someone with sexual assault or rape for the victim? This is pretty basic thing's anyone talking about sexual crimes should be aware of.

I am aware of it, so? The women wanted to force him to take a HIV test, and I think it's perfectly justifiable for them to do so, and perfectly unjustifiable for him to refuse.

With the second, younger, woman. And I thought you knew everything about the case already? How did this pretty essential part, which has been in quite a few articles (maybe not in the Daily Hail), get past you? Yes, the rape charge concerns that incident. It would do you well to read the OP and The Australian's article linked in it.
If you're too lazy to do that you'll notice I quoted that very passage in this thread. So yes, if you manage to miss something right in front of you, well, you've proven yourself to be quite worthless at fact finding regarding this case.

Okay so, this:

She says they had consensual sex but she woke up the next morning to find him having intercourse with her to which she had not consented.

When she asked him if he was wearing anything, he had allegedly said: "I am wearing you."

Is there ANY other source that confirms it? Not to say it's wrong, but it's the first time I read this.

If you think "having sex without a condom" is illegal in Sweden

But a breaking condom is?

That he claims "revolutionary feminism" is after him suggests he does not consider what he did to be molestation and rape, not that it isn't molestation and rape. This is the entire logic between his lawyers and some of his defenders going on about the "outrageous" sex crime laws in sweden.
Misogyny is like a second skin to lawyers defending people accused of rape, or at least this is to case far too often. this is not an exception.

Well what attitudes him and his lawyers have is largely irrelevant to whether or not he did rape or did not rape someone, no?

Yes. Do you believe rapes that do not get reported or does not get taken to court are not actually rape?

How do you take that from what I wrote? I'm saying that this does not bring forward women's rights in any way because the legal system will continue to neglect the rape cases that are not politically convenient.

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 07:51

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 07:53

And am I using this to determine the value of Wikileaks? No, I have quite clearly said I am not, so if anyone else is thinking about trying this line, drop it.

You can say all you want that you are not trying to undermine Wikileaks, but by focusing on Assange's personal conduct, and upgrading it to the status of political, you are doing precisely that. Assange's political work then potentially becomes not just his quest for gov transparency but also his crimes again various individuals. If the personal is political, and Assange is the leader of WL, then WL is connected with heinous political crimes. This is the meme that is being trotted out by all the anti-WL establishment. Now is it any coincidence that this same establishment is so fixated on Assange's allegedly criminal sexual conduct?

So talking about apparent misogyny from Assange, his lawyers, many of his defenders is to "muddy the waters"?Yes, it does. Whether Assange is sexist or not, whether he mistreats women or not, whether he is an asshole hated by his coworkers or not, has not one shred of relevance in assessing the political importance or desirability of WL. Why talk about it then? Why not talk about the sexism of Andrew Dice Clay or Bill O'Reilly or Berlusconi?

To discuss the actual case, which is about alleged rape and molestation is to muddy the waters? The waters were muddy to begin with. They were not. The waters are actual quite clear: WL is scaring the shit out of the political establishment of over a dozen states thorughout the world, including the most powerful one. Its work is of almost unprecedented value, yet all some people want to talk about is Assange's sex life. And that's not muddying the waters?

Sex crimes and those who make excuses for it is certainly a political issue. Or maybe you think it is private who one rapes and molests? I don't see anybody here making excuses for or trying to "sweep under the rug" criminal behavior. I do see people who are annoyed about disproportionately focusing on the personal life of a person leading a major and ever so valuable political project under the guise of being concerned about the so-called political nature of personal behavior.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 08:07

Obviously you can be.
Great, then you agree that they could well have been molested and raped by him despite having also had consensual sex with him.

What do you mean "at that time", she said so after reporters inquired, which wasn't until it was already a big thing.
Are you claiming they, the women, are not pressing charges currently?

I am aware of it, so? The women wanted to force him to take a HIV test, and I think it's perfectly justifiable for them to do so, and perfectly unjustifiable for him to refuse.

Which means they, like in most of these cases, would be reluctant to report it. Forcing someone to take an STD test is not, by light years, even remotely as stigmatizing, and you can hardly blame them for wanting to avoid STDs.

Is there ANY other source that confirms it? Not to say it's wrong, but it's the first time I read this.
http://www.slate.com/id/2278906/ which contains several additional sources, including directly from the women's statements to the police.

But a breaking condom is?
No. Having sex in a way that is not with mutual consent is.

Well what attitudes him and his lawyers have is largely irrelevant to whether or not he did rape or did not rape someone, no?
Not at all, their definition of rape is entirely relevant when they are claiming he is innocent of it.

How do you take that from what I wrote? I'm saying that this does not bring forward women's rights in any way because the legal system will continue to neglect the rape cases that are not politically convenient.
Indeed, this case seem to have sown some very regressive seeds in the mainstream left-of-center. But that wasn't what you meant was it?

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 08:24

Great, then you agree that they could well have been molested and raped by him despite having also had consensual sex with him.

Yes.

Are you claiming they, the women, are not pressing charges currently?

I'm claiming that the first woman said she didn't want rape charges pressed against him, yes.

Which means they, like in most of these cases, would be reluctant to report it. Forcing someone to take an STD test is not, by light years, even remotely as stigmatizing, and you can hardly blame them for wanting to avoid STDs.

I don't think there's anything wrong with them wanting to force him to take a STD test.

http://www.slate.com/id/2278906/ which contains several additional sources, including directly from the women's statements to the police.

Very well, if he indeed did this then he is indeed a rapist.

No. Having sex in a way that is not with mutual consent is.

So how is the first case relevant at all then? Or is breaking a condom molestation?

Indeed, this case seem to have sown some very regressive seeds in the mainstream left-of-center. But that wasn't what you meant was it?

Obviously it wasn't what I meant, no. This case is not bringing forward feminism but only the use of rape as a political tool. If this wasn't Assange, none of the authorities would have cared. And just because they care now doesn't mean they'll care in the future. The fact that you portray this as somehow a feminist milestone is quite perplexing, because it's clear that the charges against him, whether or not they are true, are only a followed through because they are convenient way to get him out of the way.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 08:24

You can say all you want that you are not trying to undermine Wikileaks, but by focusing on Assange's personal conduct, and upgrading it to the status of political, you are doing precisely that. Assange's political work then potentially becomes not just his quest for gov transparency but also his crimes again various individuals. If the personal is political, and Assange is the leader of WL, then WL is connected with heinous political crimes. This is the meme that is being trotted out by all the anti-WL establishment. Now is it any coincidence that this same establishment is so fixated on Assange's allegedly criminal sexual conduct? Rape is not political? Again, you keep saying this then deny it as soon as I pose the question. Assange's possible sex crimes are irrelevant, why do you feel so threatened by the suggestion that he might have done it?
Truth is saying they are "irrelevant" can only mean two thing's, either "irrelevant" is code word for "he is innocent" or it means you do not care about rape. Is it relevant to Wikileaks? Well, call me a radical but if any leading members in my organization committed rape I will not let previous merits make me look the other way.

Yes, it does. Whether Assange is sexist or not, whether he mistreats women or not, whether he is an asshole hated by his coworkers or not, has not one shred of relevance in assessing the political importance or desirability of WL. Why talk about it then? Why not talk about the sexism of Andrew Dice Clay or Bill O'Reilly or Berlusconi?

Because of the sexism and misogyny of his defenders is what is muddying the issue of free information and whistleblowing.

They were not. The waters are actual quite clear: WL is scaring the shit out of the political establishment of over a dozen states thorughout the world, including the most powerful one. Its work is of almost unprecedented value, yet all some people want to talk about is Assange's sex life. And that's not muddying the waters?
I am not talking about his sex life I am talking about rape and molestation. Do you have even a shred of an idea what these crimes can do to a victim? I think you do, so why play ignorant? I want to talk about WikiLeaks too, but I won't turn a blind eye to rape and misogyny, and I think those that do are either making a serious misjudgement or, to one degree or another, complicit in the misogyny.

I don't see anybody here making excuses for or trying to "sweep under the rug" criminal behavior. I do see people who are annoyed about disproportionately focusing on the personal life of a person leading a major and ever so valuable political project under the guise of being concerned about the so-called political nature of personal behavior.
Under the guise of? Please say plainly what you are insinuating. And being "annoyed" that the issue is raised at all, and say it should not be discussed, is pretty much the definition of sweeping it under the rug. or wait here it is:
Definition

To hide a problem. When something is overlooked and forgotten.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 08:33

Yes.
Then why did you imply so?

I'm claiming that the first woman said she didn't want rape charges pressed against him, yes.
Which is not what I asked. Are you saying they are not currently pressing charges?

I don't think there's anything wrong with them wanting to force him to take a STD test.
But you think there is something wrong with them reporting a case of rape and molestation? I think you missed my point.

Very well, if he indeed did this then he is indeed a rapist.
Glad to be of service. Unfortunately the reporting on this case have been downright horrible. But misogyny in the media, who would have thought?

So how is the first case relevant at all then? Or is breaking a condom molestation?
She says he did it on purpose as well as continuing having sex with her. This was the rape charge that was changed to molestation.

Obviously it wasn't what I meant, no. This case is not bringing forward feminism but only the use of rape as a political tool. If this wasn't Assange, none of the authorities would have cared. And just because they care now doesn't mean they'll care in the future. The fact that you portray this as somehow a feminist milestone is quite perplexing, because it's clear that the charges against him, whether or not they are true, are only a followed through because they are convenient way to get him out of the way.
Not a feminist high point, but a feminist low-point for you, and many others.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 08:39

Let me pose this question, hypothetically, if Assange had been accused of a violent hate crime against an ethnic, religious or sexual minority and afterwards he and his lawyers had said blamed the "overzealous hate crime laws" would you have been as forgiving? If he had violently assaulted someone for being say a jew and followed it up by implying that sweden was "controlled by jews" and the "jewish eqvivalent of saudi arabia" would you have been as forgiving? If there had been rampant anti-semitic overtones in the articles about it as well as widespread misinformation (for example claims that the jewish person had provoked Assange first so that he would attack him or that it really was the jew who hit first)? If commentators to articles would have written "If you are a non-jew, don't go to sweden you may get charged with a hate crime" would you still look the other way and claim this is not a discussion we should be having?

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 08:39

Rape is not political? Again, you keep saying this then deny it as soon as I pose the question.

You really should pay closer to attention to what I write. I have never said that rape is political. I have said that it should not be ignored or swept under the rug, which is what you have continuously implied I have said.

No, rape is not political. Feminists were correct to identify that personal as "political" in the sense that personal relationships often involve power and coercion, but that is not my understanding of political. As I iterated in a previous post, I consider political activity to be activities with the potential to undermine or reinforce major social, political, and economic institutions. It's easy to see how Wikileaks' activities qualify as political. It is a lot more difficult to see how Assange having unseemly sexual relationships with a couple of women might qualify as political.

Assange's possible sex crimes are irrelevant, why do you feel so threatened by the suggestion that he might have done it?Why do you think I feel threatened at all? What I am is annoyed that you don't realize that the entire sex case against Assange is almost certainly a sham. The women who made the complaint aren't even cooperating with the Swedish government anymore, and have fled Sweden to other parts of Europe. The sex accusations were nothing more than a way for European governments to detain Assange on holding charges so that the US could find some rationale for charging him in the United States while not having to worry about Assange going into hiding.

Truth is saying they are "irrelevant" can only mean two thing's, either "irrelevant" is code word for "he is innocent"I am not absolutely certain that he is innocent, though if I had to put money on it, I would say yes. My point is that his guilt or innocence has no bearing on the political value of WL as an organization, and that the work of WL is what merits discussion. Let Sweden sort out Assange's alleged wrong-doing. Why do we have to turn into a topic of the day here on RevLeft?

or it means you do not care about rape.This isn't even deserving of a response, so I won't give it one.

Is it relevant to Wikileaks? Well, call me a radical but if any leading members in my organization committed rape I will not let previous merits make me look the other way.Nobody is asking you to look the other way. All you have to do is look at the thousands of articles written by establishment journalists trying to smear WL if you want to contemplate Assange's sex life. Why bring it here on Revleft?

Because of the sexism and misogyny of his defenders is what is muddying the issue of free information and whistleblowing.First, where is this supposed sexism? I would like to see some evidence for this accusation. Second, Assange's personal behavior not conducted in his capacity as a member of wikileaks has no relevance for the politics of WL. So there is no connection or muddying of waters, apart from people trying to make Assange's personal behavior out to be political in the sense I described above.

I am not talking about his sex life I am talking about rape and molestation.Since when were rape and molestation not sexual acts?

Do you have even a shred of an idea what these crimes can do to a victim?Yes. Do you have a shred of an idea of what false accusations of these crimes can do to a victim?

I want to talk about WikiLeaks too, but I won't turn a blind eye to rape and misogyny, and I think those that do are either making a serious misjudgement or, to one degree or another, complicit in the misogyny.Really? So where is the thread you started commending all the great work WL has done in increasing government transparency and revealing government abuse? Or does that topic not merit a thread from you, while Assange's sex life does?

Under the guise of? Please say plainly what you are insinuating. And being "annoyed" that the issue is raised at all, and say it should not be discussed, is pretty much the definition of sweeping it under the rug. or wait here it is:
Definition

To hide a problem. When something is overlooked and forgotten.The problem is not being hidden. It is being over-exposed in the media, given disproportionate attention so that it distracts from the content of the leaks. You are contributing to this. Your behavior and mine can only be judged rationally by taking into consideration the larger context.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 09:14

You really should pay closer to attention to what I write. I have never said that rape is political. I have said that it should not be ignored or swept under the rug, which is what you have continuously implied I have said.

No, rape is not political. Feminists were correct to identify that personal as "political" in the sense that personal relationships often involve power and coercion, but that is not my understanding of political. As I iterated in a previous post, I consider political activity to be activities with the potential to undermine or reinforce major social, political, and economic institutions. It's easy to see how Wikileaks' activities qualify as political. It is a lot more difficult to see how Assange having unseemly sexual relationships with a couple of women might qualify as political.
I am sorry, but I thought on a leftist forum I would not have to say that sexual violence and coercion and misogyny are systemic problems and do indeed play a part in propping up major social, political and economic institutions.

Why do you think I feel threatened at all? What I am is annoyed that you don't realize that the entire sex case against Assange is almost certainly a sham. The women who made the complaint aren't even cooperating with the Swedish government anymore, and have fled Sweden to other parts of Europe. The sex accusations were nothing more than a way for European governments to detain Assange on holding charges so that the US could find some rationale for charging him in the United States while not having to worry about Assange going into hiding.
Why do I think you feel threatened? I think it's the "annoyed you don't realize the rape never happened" part. That they have fled sweden is fully understandable given that their personal information has been leaked and they are under very real physical threats as well as having an almost unprecedented cyberbullying going on against them. I doubt you would dispute this if you've seen any comment field about this.
If Assange would be threatened with extradition to the U.S, for an entirely different charge I'd be be ready to chain myself to the airplane. For the principle, not for Assange.

I am not absolutely certain that he is innocent, though if I had to put money on it, I would say yes. My point is that his guilt or innocence has no bearing on the political value of WL as an organization, and that the work of WL is what merits discussion. Let Sweden sort out Assange's alleged wrong-doing. Why do we have to turn into a topic of the day here on RevLeft? I am absolutely certain he is a misogynist, which makes me question his definition of rape and thus consequently his claims to innocence. Consider my hypothetical example before you answer. Would you trust an racist to be truthfull in a case of violent hate crime?

This isn't even deserving of a response, so I won't give it one.
I am sorry, I should have said "is ignorant of the ABC of feminism" instead. My bad.

Nobody is asking you to look the other way. All you have to do is look at the thousands of articles written by establishment journalists trying to smear WL if you want to contemplate Assange's sex life. Why bring it here on Revleft?
You don't know what the sentence "look the other way" means, it seems.

First, where is this supposed sexism? I would like to see some evidence for this accusation. Second, Assange's personal behavior not conducted in his capacity as a member of wikileaks has no relevance for the politics of WL. So there is no connection or muddying of waters, apart from people trying to make Assange's personal behavior out to be political in the sense I described above.
The Australian's article that is linked in the OP would be a good start. Then you can look for, basically, any statement made by Assange's lawyers.
And as I countered above.

Since when were rape and molestation not sexual acts?
Since when is cannibalism not just a choice of cuisine?

Yes. Do you have a shred of an idea of what false accusations of these crimes can do to a victim?
Are you implying that this would be equally prevalent? Less then 1% of all sexual charges get thrown out for being fake in sweden. And the number of sexual crimes that get reported, let alone leads to a court case are in minority in comparison to all the sex crimes that are actually happening. this isn't guessing, there is solid science behind it.

Really? So where is the thread you started commending all the great work WL has done in increasing government transparency and revealing government abuse? Or does that topic not merit a thread from you, while Assange's sex life does?
What are you insinuating? Where's is your thread protesting the extraditions of roma from france? I am being sarcastic of course. I have stated my opinion in post form clearly enough. I am not obliged to quote myself.

The problem is not being hidden. It is being over-exposed in the media, given disproportionate attention so that it distracts from the content of the leaks. You are contributing to this. Your behavior and mine can only be judged rationally by taking into consideration the larger context.
Being exposed and being correctly reported is two entirely different thing's. You may have noticed I never said no one is taking advantage of the alleged rape and molestation. Quite the opposite. So please, again, no strawmanning.

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 09:26

I am sorry, but I thought on a leftist forum I would not have to say that sexual violence and cohersion and misogyny are systemic problems and do indeed play a part in propping up major social, political and economic institutions.

Of course they do, but does railroading Assange on charges of not telling his lovers about popped condoms really threaten to overturn patriarchy? In fact, does it involve patriarchy at all? Do you think Assange felt emboldened not to tell his lovers about the protection issue because he is a male, and his lovers female? Weak case, comrade. Sorry, but the case is not political, though it has the capacity to have serious political ramifications.

If Assange would be threatened with extradition to the U.S, for an entirely different charge I'd be be ready to chain myself to the airplane. For the principle, not for Assange.

Don't you think this is precisely the point of using sex allegations for the holding charges?

I am absolutely certain he is a misogynist, which makes me question his definition of rape and thus consequently his claims to innocence. Consider my hypothetical example before you answer.

Ok, and? Is Assange heading an organization lobbying governments to ban women from owning property? Is he lobbying for the repeal of marital rape laws? How is his misogyny relevant to anybody besides whatever alleged victims there might be of his sexual antics, and to people who want to harpoon WL?

You don't know what the sentence "look the other way" means, it seems.

It's obvious what it means. It means that I am somehow trying to place a shroud of secrecy over Assange's crimes. That's a bullshit charge. Assange's supposed sex crimes have been reported on more than the content of the leaked documents in the United States. I am hardly capable of sweeping anything under the rug even if I wanted to. What I am doing is calling you out on how you are jumping onto the establishment dogpile trying to destroy WL by smearing Assange, facts be damned.

It's called totality, mate. Things cannot be understood in isolation from other things. You want to pretend this discussion is taking place in an 18th century French salon. It's not. It's taking place in the context of media outlets giving disproportionate attention to the allegations of Assange. Why contribute to that?

What are you insinuating? Where's is your thread protesting the extraditions of roma from france? I am being sarcastic of course. I have stated my opinion in post form clearly enough. I am not obliged to quote myself.

I am not insinuating anything. I am stating flatly and explicitly that your participation on this forum re: wikileaks has focused disproportionately on making and defending a thread calling Assange a "dirtbag." Readers can draw their own conclusions on what agenda you might or might not have.

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 09:32

Which is not what I asked. Are you saying they are not currently pressing charges?

Well, no I'm not, it seems that at least the second woman is indeed pressing charges.

But you think there is something wrong with them reporting a case of rape and molestation? I think you missed my point.

Were they, though?

She says he did it on purpose as well as continuing having sex with her. This was the rape charge that was changed to molestation.

She said he did it on purpose, he said he didn't. If she didn't consent to him continuing to have sex with her, that's his wrongdoing obviously.

Not a feminist high point, but a feminist low-point for you, and many others.

I still fail to see how? Just because we have legitimate skepticism about these allegations?

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 09:37

I still fail to see how? Just because we have legitimate skepticism about these allegations?

Yes, don't you know? You have to automatically believe all rape allegations made by women are true, especially ones in which the accused is a high-profile political target. Otherwise you are a misogynist reactionary. :bored:

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 09:40

Yes, don't you know? You have to automatically believe all rape allegations made by women are true, especially in the case in which the accused in a high-profile political target. Otherwise you are a misogynist reactionary. :bored:

Ah, I see. Well I guess I'll just suck it up with the other reactionary misogynists then.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 09:49

Of course they do, but does railroading Assange on charges of not telling his lovers about popped condoms really threaten to overturn patriarchy? In fact, does it involve patriarchy at all? Do you think Assange felt emboldened not to tell his lovers about the protection issue because he is a male, and his lovers female? Weak case, comrade. Sorry, but the case is not political, though it has the capacity to have serious political ramifications.
Lovers can not be raped? You do know most rape occur inside stable relationships, right? And your entire description of the charges reveals an almost willfull ignorance. Those are not the charges, read what I have written and stop bullshitting. I think he felt emboldened to disregard a consensual agreement as well as he felt entitled to have sex with someone who is asleep, and thus can not give consent, because they had had sex before.

Don't you think this is precisely the point of using sex allegations for the holding charges?
See i don't assume they are lying, just as I don't assume Michael Jackson was not a paedophile, no matter if I think he's the King of Pop or not.

Ok, and? Is Assange heading an organization lobbying governments to ban women from owning property? Is he lobbying for the repeal of marital rape laws? How is his misogyny relevant to anybody besides whatever alleged victims there might be of his sexual antics, and to people who want to harpoon WL?
Well, it is relevant because it has been widespread in the media and by various editorials. There have been varying degrees of this, but apart from the usual right wing scum that inhabit the commentator fields Assange's public statement on the issue is one of the worst I've seen. You call it "sexual antics" because you refuse to even consider Assange might have raped someone. This makes it difficult to discuss with you, because you are about as receptive as your average super Michael Jackson fan when it comes to the paedophilia charges. A bit ironic really.

It's obvious what it means. It means that I am somehow trying to place a shroud of secrecy over Assange's crimes. That's a bullshit charge. Assange's supposed sex crimes have been reported on more than the content of the leaked documents in the United States. I am hardly capable of sweeping anything under the rug even if I wanted to. What I am doing is calling you out on how you are jumping onto the establishment dogpile trying to destroy WL by smearing Assange, facts be damned.

yet you're the one lacking in facts, and having an opinion that is frankly completely irrational. What is irrational is not that you think there might be a conspiracy and that others have been involved in making the charges prominent. I am convinced of this too. What is irrational is your claim to know that Assange did in fact not committ the actual crimes, regardless of the media hype.

It's called totality, mate. Things cannot be understood in isolation from other things. You want to pretend this discussion is taking place in an 18th century French salon. It's not. It's taking place in the context of media outlets giving disproportionate attention to the allegations of Assange. Why contribute to that?
if thing's are to be taken in it's totality why to you disregard it as irrelevant? If a rape occured in that imagined 18th century salon you would suggest I make a discussion about salons and how this is really just brought up to discredit the french salon industry in the 18th century? Oh right because you a) is completely convinced it did not happen b) obviously don't even know the basics about sex crimes, from a left wing standpoint anyway.

I am not insinuating anything. I am stating flatly and explicitly that your participation on this forum re: wikileaks has focused disproportionately on making and defending a thread calling Assange a "dirtbag." Readers can draw their own conclusions on what agenda you might or might not have.
He is a dirtbag for claiming sweden to be like a feminist version of saudi arabia, and thus saying wahabist fundamentalist islam and feminism is basically equal. So I should remove the probably in the thread title really.

Now, would you please like to adress the hypothetical "what if he had comitted a hatecrime", instead of "living out his sex life" (yes I am mocking you for calling rape "sex life" in reality I am appalled but I am trying to keep it civil)?

Crux

2nd January 2011, 09:58

Well, no I'm not, it seems that at least the second woman is indeed pressing charges.

Were they, though?

She said he did it on purpose, he said he didn't. If she didn't consent to him continuing to have sex with her, that's his wrongdoing obviously.

I still fail to see how? Just because we have legitimate skepticism about these allegations?
How is it legitimate when, even though it has been feature prominently in the media (which has indeed also contained many falsehoods) you do not even know the basics of the case? Perhaps you do not want to, because you've already decided that the women are lying? Certainly me even bringing it up upsets you. Comrade, that's not "skepticism".

But you at least have conceeded that the women's clothing or who they had sex with do not matter, as well as being willing to read up on the facts when having them directly presented to you. A minor progress at least.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 10:00

Since you seemed to have missed this let me post it again:

Let me pose this question, hypothetically, if Assange had been accused of a violent hate crime against an ethnic, religious or sexual minority and afterwards he and his lawyers had said blamed the "overzealous hate crime laws" would you have been as forgiving? If he had violently assaulted someone for being say a jew and followed it up by implying that sweden was "controlled by jews" and the "jewish eqvivalent of saudi arabia" would you have been as forgiving? If there had been rampant anti-semitic overtones in the articles about it as well as widespread misinformation (for example claims that the jewish person had provoked Assange first so that he would attack him or that it really was the jew who hit first)? If commentators to articles would have written "If you are a non-jew, don't go to sweden you may get charged with a hate crime" would you still look the other way and claim this is not a discussion we should be having?

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 10:05

How is it legitimate when, even though it has been feature prominently in the media (which has indeed also contained many falsehoods) you do not even know the basics of the case?

Well here you assume that the media you cited has less falsehoods than the media I cited.

Perhaps you do not want to, because you've already decided that the women are lying?

I have in fact not once said the women were lying. I have mentioned that it seems as if the authorities construct accusations not congruent with what the women said.

Perhaps you have already decided that all rape charges are always right and that they can not be used as a political tool?

Certainly me even bringing it up upsets you. Comrade, that's not "skepticism".

How does it upset me? It's possible that Assange is a rapist, yes. And?

But you at least have conceeded that the women's clothing or who they had sex with do not matter, as well as being willing to read up on the facts when having them directly presented to you. A minor progress at least.

Now you're just purposely insulting.

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 10:07

Lovers can not be raped? You do know most rape occur inside stable relationships, right? And your entire description of the charges reveals an almost willfull ignorance. Those are not the charges, read what I have written and stop bullshitting. I think he felt emboldened to disregard a consensual agreement as well as he felt entitled to have sex with someone who is asleep, and thus can not give consent, because they had had sex before.

Um, where did I make any claims in any of my posts about the definition of rape?

See i don't assume they are lying, just as I don't assume Michael Jackson was not a paedophile, no matter if I think he's the King of Pop or not.I didn't say you did assume that they were lying. I am not assuming they are lying either. I think we are both making good-faith judgments given the facts on hand. We can agree to disagree.

My disagreement is with your characterization that if I have a problem with your adding onto the excessive coverage in the mainstream media about these allegations that I am somehow a knuckle-dragging misogynist who just doesn't get feminism.

Well, it is relevant because it has been widespread in the media and by various editorials.Exactly. It's relevant only because the establishment has used the case to try to smear WL. And here you are repeating the accusations under the pretense of making sure the allegations are not "swept under the rug." Give me a break.

You call it "sexual antics" because you refuse to even consider Assange might have raped someone.Let's set aside the fact that "sexual antics" does not necessarily preclude the possibility of rape. Your comment implies that if I don't think Assange raped the women that I just haven't considered the possibility. Did it occur to you that people might have considered the possibility, and just do not think it happened?

if thing's are to be taken in it's totality why to you disregard it as irrelevant?I said that the charges are irrelevant in determining the political value of WL, and what opinion one should have of the organization. I stand by that statement.

My comment about totality was intended to emphasize that your charges of my "sweeping under the rug" the allegations is bogus. In your view, I want to sweep something under the rug if I have a problem with your further blowing out of proportion something that has been blown way out of proportion already in terms of the media coverage it has gotten.

He is a dirtbag for claiming sweden to be like a feminist version of saudi arabia, and thus saying wahabist fundamentalist islam and feminism is basically equal. So I should remove the probably in the thread title really.I didn't ask for you to explain why you thought he was a dirtbag. I simply stated that your constantly defending that position, while not saying anything positive about Wikileaks, speaks loud and clear about what your agenda is.

Now, would you please like to adress the hypothetical "what if he had comitted a hatecrime", instead of "living out his sex life" (yes I am mocking you for calling rape "sex life" in reality I am appalled but I am trying to keep it civil)?You can substitute the allegations against Assange with allegations of murder. It doesn't change anything about my view that the allegations, whether they are true or not, are totally irrelevant in assessing the value of Wikileaks. And that by trying to portray the alleged crimes as equally political, people are trying to undermine Wikileaks. And that you are, unwittingly or not, contributing to this process.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 10:25

Well here you assume that the media you cited has less falsehoods than the media I cited.The Daily Heil vs the actual police report. Yes this is truly a case of two completely equal sources.

I have in fact not once said the women were lying. I have mentioned that it seems as if the authorities construct accusations not congruent with what the women said.
Then why do you back up someone who is convinced they do? And why did you mention the women's clothing, for example at all?

Perhaps you have already decided that all rape charges are always right and that they can not be used as a political tool?
No. If you start reading what I write instead of having some kind of bromance on the side with lucretia here you might find that I have been clear on this from the begining. But bringing up the rape charges, that's taboo.

How does it upset me? It's possible that Assange is a rapist, yes. And?
And, you can't pretend there has also been misogyny out in the press and even among the left that needs to be addressed.

Now you're just purposely insulting.
There is no shame in not knowing thing's, widerstand. You just assume too much.

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 10:33

The Daily Heil vs the actual police report. Yes this is truly a case of two completely equal sources.

The actual police report? Nowhere in anything you linked have I seen the actual police report. Even if then, the actual police report still is just the authorities version, which may well be biased, no?

Then why do you back up someone who is convinced they do?

Guilt by association?

And why did you mention the women's clothing, for example at all?

Actually you were first to mention that, in fact you did it in the OP.

No. If you start reading what I write instead of having some kind of bromance on the side with lucretia here you might find that I have been clear on this from the begining.

But bringing up the rape charges, that's taboo.

Where was it treated as such?

[quote]
And, you can't pretend there has also been misogyny out in the press and even among the left that needs to be addressed.[quote]

I assume you missed a "not" after "has?" There certainly has been misogyny amongst the press, yes. Amongst the left, possibly too, yes. But where exactly?

Os Cangaceiros

2nd January 2011, 10:42

I'd still like to know how his innocence or guilt can be proven in regards to this matter.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 10:53

I'd still like to know how his innocence or guilt can be proven in regards to this matter.
Hence the interest in the sexist scumbag and misogynist angle he and his lawyers have taken. Calling it an attack from "radical feminism" ought to make his credibility to sink like a led zeppelin.

Os Cangaceiros

2nd January 2011, 11:00

Hence the interest in the sexist scumbag and misogynist angle he and his lawyers have taken. Calling it an attack from "radical feminism" ought to make his credibility to sink like a led zeppelin.

He very well may be a scumbag. That doesn't go very far in proving whether such-and-such incident actually took place in the manner that the prosecution said it did, though.

As far as I can tell this case boils down to a he-said-she-said situation. Those kinds of cases usually never go far in American courts, unless there's some kind of collabarating evidence in the form of third-party witnesses, DNA evidence or the defendant's past criminal history. Does the prosecution have anything like this?

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 11:04

As far as I can tell this case boils down to a he-said-she-said situation. Those kinds of cases usually never go far in American courts, unless there's some kind of collabarating evidence in the form of third-party witnesses, DNA evidence or the defendant's past criminal history. Does the prosecution have anything like this?

Considering that both women said they had consensual sex with him at one point but not at another, I don't think DNA evidence would go very far in this.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 11:05

The actual police report? Nowhere in anything you linked have I seen the actual police report. Even if then, the actual police report still is just the authorities version, which may well be biased, no?

Guilt by association?

Actually you were first to mention that, in fact you did it in the OP.

Where was it treated as such?

[quote]
And, you can't pretend there has also been misogyny out in the press and even among the left that needs to be addressed.[quote]

I assume you missed a "not" after "has?" There certainly has been misogyny amongst the press, yes. Amongst the left, possibly too, yes. But where exactly?
I am just noting on the fact that I, as indeed lucretia allegded, seem to be the only one speaking up on this. If some one else has well respect where respect is due.

And why, because some people, even though they claim the contrary can't separate Assange person and allegded rape and molestations from the work Wikileaks do.

Seriously. The Daily fucking Mail. Hardly a shining beacon of gender-equal journalism.

And I am sorry, but such articles are more common than rare. Just google it. counterpunch has had them, to take a left example.

Os Cangaceiros

2nd January 2011, 11:06

Considering that both women said they had consensual sex with him at one point but not at another, I don't think DNA evidence would go very far in this.

Yeah. It was a rhetorical question.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 11:14

He very well may be a scumbag. That doesn't go very far in proving whether such-and-such incident actually took place in the manner that the prosecution said it did, though.

As far as I can tell this case boils down to a he-said-she-said situation. Those kinds of cases usually never go far in American courts, unless there's some kind of collabarating evidence in the form of third-party witnesses, DNA evidence or the defendant's past criminal history. Does the prosecution have anything like this?
He compared feminism to fundamentalist islam. His lawyer quipped that "if thing's continue this way soon people will have to sign contracts to have sex". This is obviously sexism. A man that has been framed would not have taken that angle.

Would you trust a racist in a violent hatecrime case, or would you say that once his racism becomes apparent, and indeed implies that what he has done should not be a crime and that hate crime laws are overzealous, wouldn't that turn you against him?

Assange is, with the statements he made in The Australian, appealing to the anti-feminist sexist scum.

Dimentio

2nd January 2011, 11:18

Certainly, Julian Assange is no "revolutionary leftist", but Assange and WikiLeaks have done a very courageous act in exposing these mountains of otherwise secret documents, thus pinching the tail of the imperialist beast and delivering a slap from the working class. In retribution, the imperialists - in particular the US government - have launched a sinister, vicious vendetta aimed at making object lessons of WikiLeaks and Assange in particular. The leading edge of this attack is the trumped up "rape" and other sex charges now pursued by the Swedish capitalist authorities against Assange personally.

The Assange case has also cast a spotlight on the utterly reactionary "sex crime" laws of the Swedish state, in a context where authorities have been pursuing repression not merely against women but the population at large cloaked in the pretext of "protecting" women (this is also the rationale for some opponents of abortion rights here in the USA). This repression - which includes measures targeting sex workers as well as intrusion into the private consensual sexual relations of people in their bedrooms - serves a dual purpose of regimenting the population and enforcing nuclear-family-values-oriented capitalist morality, and providing a useful legal tool to be used against political adversaries when convenient - as in the Assange case.

For any ostensible "revolutionary leftists" to lend their support as happy little helpers to this outrageous campaign by the bourgeois state authorities to smear Assange as a "rapist", "misogynist", "dirtbag", etc. is reactionary, counter-revolutionary, obscene, and disgusting. It is furthermore astounding and outrageous that any self-styled "revolutionary leftists" in Sweden would applaud the reactionary anti-woman laws being wielded against Assange by the Swedish bourgeois state in this or any other case.

Other than the absurd interpretation by Swedish bourgeois law that two people in a consensual relationship arguing over condoms is "rape", there is not a shred of evidence that REAL rape has occurred anywhere except in the mind of the Swedish authorities (and perhaps their little assistants on the left). It should be crystal clear from the entire history of these charges - originating with the authorities, not the women involved, and zig-zagging on, off, on-again as global political convenience dictated - that they have nothing to do with "protecting" women's rights and everything to do with providing a pretext for taking custody of Assange in preparation for handing him over to the Obama regime for prosecution under "espionage" charges currently in preparation.

Leftists and women's rights advocates have no business lending any credibility to this vendetta against Assange and this de facto intensification of the Swedish state's attack on personal and women's rights.

Instead, revolutionary leftists - certainly, revolutionary Marxists - have elemental responsibility to denounce these charges for what they are, and demand: Hands off Assange! Stop the attacks on women's rights! Swedish state out of the bedroom!

Redz

Honestly, about Swedish courts. To be called before a Swedish court is like playing bingo.

Sweden has generally quite restrictive laws, but the judges (there are always two judges who make decisions together) are free to interpret the laws basically how they want, which means that the same crime could lead to both six months and a dozen years dependent on who the perperator or the victim was.

One example is Mihailo Mihailovic, the mentally unstable killer of the previous foreign minister Anna Lindh, who received a high prison sentence (while other murders generally could lead to two to five years in prison).

Recently, there was a case in a small town in eastern Sweden where a popular jock (we have a quite large jock community in Sweden) raped two girls in his primary school. He was sentenced to some community service for one of the rapes, and completely unpunished for the other. Then, at the end of the school year, he was given an applause for having endured so much by his classmates, on the order to the priest and the teachers.

A case where it stroke the other direction was Sture Bergwall/Thomas Quick, who is a mentally insane drug-addict. He was arrested in the early 1990's for a bank robbery, and under influence of drugs, he started to confess various heinous crimes. The police started to guide him around the crime scenes and give him access to their information, so that he could come into contact with his "repressed memories".

He was convicted for 8 murders, even two of which there was not one slight chance in the universe that he could have committed.

Recently, he appealed for a re-trial, and now all the cases are collapsing, since there are no evidence at all apart from his own confessions.

Recently (2002), one man was sentenced (and later freed) to several years of prison because his daughter, who was a self-harming drug-addict living in a community home claimed that he had raped her together with powerful men who were part of a male-satanist conspiracy. Yet again no evidence, and all evidence the case could bring up was discarded.

Swedish justice is like a combination between some kind of weird psychology and mob justice.

Os Cangaceiros

2nd January 2011, 11:29

He compared feminism to fundamentalist islam. His lawyer quipped that "if thing's continue this way soon people will have to sign contracts to have sex". This is obviously sexism. A man that has been framed would not have taken that angle.

Would you trust a racist in a violent hatecrime case, or would you say that once his racism becomes apparent, and indeed implies that what he has done should not be a crime and that hate crime laws are overzealous, wouldn't that turn you against him?

Assange is, with the statements he made in The Australian, appealing to the anti-feminist sexist scum.

Well, I don't think that serious criminal matters can be pursued on the basis of "Is this person an asshole or not?" I think that there has to be some kind of evidence pointing in the favor of either the accuser or the accused, which there doesn't really seem to be here.

It reminds me of that case in which a stripper falsely accused those two lacrosse players in North Carolina of raping her. Both of them were rich douchy college kids, and one had gotten into trouble in the past for violence and anti-homosexual actions. Both of them were probably assholes. But that doesn't change the fact that neither of them were even in the same area as the accuser when the supposed rape took place. I don't think that the prosecution of a criminal matter should be more or less zealously prosecuted simply because the perp may have such-and-such opinion.

ZeroNowhere

2nd January 2011, 11:32

'Innocent until proven to have said something I don't like much.'

Crux

2nd January 2011, 11:32

Honestly, about Swedish courts. To be called before a Swedish court is like playing bingo.

Sweden has generally quite restrictive laws, but the judges (there are always two judges who make decisions together) are free to interpret the laws basically how they want, which means that the same crime could lead to both six months and a dozen years dependent on who the perperator or the victim was.

One example is Mihailo Mihailovic, the mentally unstable killer of the previous foreign minister Anna Lindh, who received a high prison sentence (while other murders generally could lead to two to five years in prison).

Recently, there was a case in a small town in eastern Sweden where a popular jock (we have a quite large jock community in Sweden) raped two girls in his primary school. He was sentenced to some community service for one of the rapes, and completely unpunished for the other. Then, at the end of the school year, he was given an applause for having endured so much by his classmates, on the order to the priest and the teachers.

A case where it stroke the other direction was Sture Bergwall/Thomas Quick, who is a mentally insane drug-addict. He was arrested in the early 1990's for a bank robbery, and under influence of drugs, he started to confess various heinous crimes. The police started to guide him around the crime scenes and give him access to their information, so that he could come into contact with his "repressed memories".

He was convicted for 8 murders, even two of which there was not one slight chance in the universe that he could have committed.

Recently, he appealed for a re-trial, and now all the cases are collapsing, since there are no evidence at all apart from his own confessions.

Recently (2002), one man was sentenced (and later freed) to several years of prison because his daughter, who was a self-harming drug-addict living in a community home claimed that he had raped her together with powerful men who were part of a male-satanist conspiracy. Yet again no evidence, and all evidence the case could bring up was discarded.

Swedish justice is like a combination between some kind of weird psychology and mob justice.
I think you are exagerating. That Mihajlo Mihajlovic got a heavier sentence is a no brainer. You don't kill ministers in the government. Say one country where this would not give a higher sentence.

The example with the jock though is not an example of arbitrariness, but of sexism in court. Something which there are countless examples of. At the very least judges allow lawyers to come with sexist remarks and questions that are irrelevant to the case without throwing them out, at worst they too accept that logic, i e if you dress slutty and was drunk you should blame yourself if you get raped.

The later rape case is of course tricky, but you should check the statstics on rape cases.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 11:44

Well, I don't think that serious criminal matters can be pursued on the basis of "Is this person an asshole or not?" I think that there has to be some kind of evidence pointing in the favor of either the accuser or the accused, which there doesn't really seem to be here.

It reminds me of that case in which a stripper falsely accused those two lacrosse players in North Carolina of raping her. Both of them were rich douchy college kids, and one had gotten into trouble in the past for violence and anti-homosexual actions. Both of them were probably assholes. But that doesn't change the fact that neither of them were even in the same area as the accuser when the supposed rape took place. I don't think that the prosecution of a criminal matter should be more or less zealously prosecuted simply because the perp may have such-and-such opinion.
Yes but this isn't some guy with a previous known history. This is his idea of "appealing to the public opinion". And I do think that is significant. Unless the lacrosse players implied that the law they were charged under should be changed there is no comparison at all.

Dimentio

2nd January 2011, 12:26

I think you are exagerating. That Mihajlo Mihajlovic got a heavier sentence is a no brainer. You don't kill ministers in the government. Say one country where this would not give a higher sentence.

The example with the jock though is not an example of arbitrariness, but of sexism in court. Something which there are countless examples of. At the very least judges allow lawyers to come with sexist remarks and questions that are irrelevant to the case without throwing them out, at worst they too accept that logic, i e if you dress slutty and was drunk you should blame yourself if you get raped.

The later rape case is of course tricky, but you should check the statstics on rape cases.

And the cases with people getting sentenced on wild confessions without any proof or on hearsay?

Sentinel

2nd January 2011, 13:00

I agree with comrade Majakovskij here. The correct approach to take should be to defend wikileaks, which are extremely useful for us, but condemn any proven sexist behavior or sex crimes. While the charges do seem convenient for his enemies and thusly there's a motive for framing him, he's clearly not a leftist either -- in fact his own statements tell of a contempt for womens struggle -- so I'm not sure who to believe. In a perfect world, this whole mess should be properly investigated by an impartial instance.

As for Sweden being the 'saudi-arabia of feminism', well if we actually had managed to implement feminism here as ardently as those fanatics their religion*, I'd be proud of our accomplishments. There is nothing wrong with having a conviction for something -- as long as its something progressive like feminism.

But unfortunately the struggle is still far from won here, nor anywhere else.

* Obviously by different methods, but with the same commitment.. :lol:

Os Cangaceiros

2nd January 2011, 13:20

Unless the lacrosse players implied that the law they were charged under should be changed there is no comparison at all.

You're right. In one case at least one of the defendants had a history of commiting violent acts. In the other case a defendant made stupid comments.

Clearly much more scrutiny should be given to the latter defendant. :closedeyes:

Dimentio

2nd January 2011, 14:18

The questions is whether or not non-leftists are more or less believable than leftists.

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 14:23

The questions is whether or not non-leftists are more or less believable than leftists.

But Assange is not a leftist.

Dimentio

2nd January 2011, 14:36

But Assange is not a leftist.

Exactly. But why does that make him somewhat less credible?

Widerstand

2nd January 2011, 14:41

Exactly. But why does that make him somewhat less credible?

'cos he's a "dirtbag."

Dimentio

2nd January 2011, 14:54

Crux

2nd January 2011, 15:51

From what I understand the situation, one of the women who had sex with Assange said that she was reluctant to some of the things he wanted, and showed it to him with her body language. He on his side claimed that she did not resist.
Nothing unusual in cases of sexual coercion.

Meanwhile I think those that call his comments "stupid" downplay them something significant. Why does it seem like sexism is more acceptable than racism? Or would a racist also get the ambigous "non-leftist" stamp?

Crux

2nd January 2011, 16:03

And the cases with people getting sentenced on wild confessions without any proof or on hearsay?
That happens to rape victims all the time. That's why so few people dare to try and take it to court, because they know they will get senteced on hearsay, about their sexual lifestyle, if they had been drinking, what they were wearing, if they said no clearly enough for the other person to understand it. The list goes on. And relatively speaking the situation is better in sweden in this reagard, so, yeah. Or what "wild confessions" were you thinking of?

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 17:52

From what I understand the situation, one of the women who had sex with Assange said that she was reluctant to some of the things he wanted, and showed it to him with her body language. He on his side claimed that she did not resist.

Yes, apparently in Sweden you have to draw up a written contract before having sex with somebody explaining exactly what is going to be done, how it is going to be done, and for how long. Then you must have it notarized. Then, if at any time you deviate from that contract in the course of having sex, even if neither participant expresses any audible protest, you have to carefully interpret body language to determine if your partner is actually withdrawing from the contract. Slumped shoulders? It might just mean that you're a lousy fuck, but in Sweden, it might make you a rapist also!

Yeah, that actually sounds like radical feminism run amok, regardless of what happened in the Assange case. And don't give me that shit about how this post makes me a sexist. The same kind of garbage could easily happen in gay male relations, and would be equally stupid.

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 18:07

good posts on this thread comrade

im undecided on the whole thing myself, i don't think these rape allegations should be dismissed out of hand, undoubtedly there's a political motivation that some people have in wanting him to be found guilty, but that doesn't mean that he isn't guilty and the fact that people are dismissing these allegations purely because he is the leader of an organisation that has done a lot of good is rather worrying, if we can't criticise and examine the actions critcally of people "on our side" then what hope do we actually have of anything progressing further

look at gerry healy for example, dunno if anyone's heard of him here but he's a prime example of a sexual predator who happened to have "good politics"

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 18:15

but that doesn't mean that he isn't guilty and the fact that people are dismissing these allegations purely because he is the leader of an organisation that has done a lot of good is rather worrying, if we can't criticise and examine the actions critcally of people "on our side" then what hope do we actually have of anything progressing further

A couple of points that bear repeating here. I don't think anybody here is saying that Julian Assange could not possibily be guilty of these alleged crimes just because he's Julian Assange, an important person in Wikileaks. I find the allegations suspicious because of a host of factors, Assange's relationship to Wikileaks and the timing of the accusations being only one of the factors. Another one being the refusal to cooperate now by the plaintiffs (though some posters here seem to think that their cooperating with authorities is a sign that Assange is guilty, just like their refusal to cooperate is also a sign that he's guilty--guess he's damned if they do, damned if they don't).

FInally, my main point of criticism in no ways bears on whether Assange is guilty. What I am criticizing is the decision to devote an entire thread to it on this forum in the name of making sure it is not "swept under the rug" when the thing is already getting such serious and blanket media attention that it is actually overshadowing wikileaks itself.

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 18:20

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 18:24

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 18:29

so because something is reported in the mainstream media it means that it can't be discussed on forums? and actually most of the liberal media, at least wher i live, have taken the line of defending assange, with the only people saying he might be guilty from the right or the extreme right, so there is a worrying potential of falling into a trap and not examining the issues critically because of this, and ending up defending the guy by default

I am not saying it cannot be discussed at all. And I do not think your characterization of the Assange rape allegations as "something reported in the mainstream media" accurately conveys the thrust of my argument, which is that it's being loudly promoted as the most important story about Assange and wikileaks. If you want to bring up such a story under the guise of not sweeping it under the rug, don't be surprised when people point out that it's not being swept under the rug but is being blared loudly throughout the land in an attempt to undermine wikileaks. It is misleading to try to leave this out of the discussion, and to pretend that it's a purely noble defense of rape victims that only a sexist asshole would dare to question.

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 18:29

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/healy/chap11.html

i think that if something is only being discussed from a right-wing perspective and the majority of the left is uncritically going along with one position it is essential that the other side of the story also get examined

Because clearly if something is being said by a right-winger, it is by definition wrong. Right-wingers cannot possibly be right about anything.

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 18:31

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 18:35

I am not saying it cannot be discussed at all. And I do not think your characterization of the Assange rape allegations as "something reported in the mainstream media" accurately conveys the thrust of my argument, which is that it's being loudly promoted as the most important story about Assange and wikileaks. If you want to bring up such a story under the guise of not sweeping it under the rug, don't be surprised when people point out that it's not being swept under the rug but is being blared loudly throughout the land in an attempt to undermine wikileaks. It is misleading to try to leave this out of the discussion, and to pretend that it's a purely noble defense of rape victims that only a sexist asshole would dare to question.

where did i do any of those things then, for what it's worth, i actually don't know what to think about it and think that he may be innocent, he may be guilty, neither me or majakovskij are saying he is guilty, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed and the fact that he leaked some important material to the internet doesn't mean that he couldn't also be a rapist

and i think that there's a danger of adopting an uncritical perspective on people that have done good things and we want to agree with

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 18:35

which is precisely my point - most of the allegations are being discussed from a right-wing position. the "liberal" and centre-left media as well as the majority of the left are reporting these allegations as if they are untrue, but what i am saying is that it's dangerous just to dismiss all of the allegations around him just because right-wing people are at present, making the most of them

I think you missed the sarcasm of my remark. Discounting something just because it is said by a right winger is as stupid as discounting rape allegations against Julian Assange just because he's Julian Assange.

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 18:36

where did i do any of those things then, for what it's worth, i actually don't know what to think about it and think that he may be innocent, he may be guilty, neither me or majakovskij are saying he is guilty, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed and the fact that he leaked some important material to the internet doesn't mean that he couldn't also be a rapist

and i think that there's a danger of adopting an uncritical perspective on people that have done good things and we want to agree with

You don't do any of these things, but others in this thread have. And you seem to be offering a tentative defense of that poster.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 18:47

Yes, apparently in Sweden you have to draw up a written contract before having sex with somebody explaining exactly what is going to be done, how it is going to be done, and for how long. Then you must have it notarized. Then, if at any time you deviate from that contract in the course of having sex, even if neither participant expresses any audible protest, you have to carefully interpret body language to determine if your partner is actually withdrawing from the contract. Slumped shoulders? It might just mean that you're a lousy fuck, but in Sweden, it might make you a rapist also!

Yeah, that actually sounds like radical feminism run amok, regardless of what happened in the Assange case. And don't give me that shit about how this post makes me a sexist. The same kind of garbage could easily happen in gay male relations, and would be equally stupid.

Oh the horror of having to have consentual sex. I know I tried to say it before but let's be plain here you know absolutely nothing about how rape or sexual abuse works, you defintely are clueless about the swedish legal system and I would be very curious to hear your definition of "radical feminism".

Really, if I had seen your post anywhere else I would've just assumed it's another right-wing troll.

Yes, abuse happen in same sex relations too. So? You believe that makes you less of a sexist? Hint, no, no it doesn't. And if you are completely incapable of reading body language and find that an absurd concept, for your partners sake, I hope you haven't been too much of a "lousy fuck" with them. You seem to be aware that you're being ignorant, so really, what's your excuse?

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 18:49

I think you missed the sarcasm of my remark. Discounting something just because it is said by a right winger is as stupid as discounting rape allegations against Julian Assange just because he's Julian Assange.

good so we're agreed

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 18:51

You don't do any of these things, but others in this thread have. And you seem to be offering a tentative defense of that poster.

I don't think that he is. I don't think there is any harm in discussing a story if it is in the news and in fact not wanting to discuss it because it might "undermine" wikileaks might do more damage to wikileaks than discussing it openly and critically

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 18:51

Oh the horror of having to have consentual sex. I know I tried to say it before but let's be plain here you know absolutely nothing about how rape or sexual abuse works, you defintely are clueless about the swedish legal system and I would be very curious to hear your definition of "radical feminism".

Really, if I had seen your post anywhere else I would've just assumed it's another right-wing troll.

Yes, abuse happen in same sex relations too. So? You believe that makes you less of a sexist? Hint, no, no it doesn't. And if you are completely incapable of reading body language and find that an absurd concept, for your partners sake, I hope you haven't been too much of a "lousy fuck" with them.

This is about the kind of response I expected of you. I simply must define consent as spelling out every aspect of every act taking place between two people having sex, and as having to verbally reaffirm every aspect of this agreement in the process of having sex (or how else do we not know that cry was not one of pleasure, but instead of withdrawing from the contract?). Otherwise, I think rape is totally okay and don't believe that sex should be consensual. How intellectually honest of you. My disagreement is with your idea that this unbelievably ridiculously stringent set of guidelines must be met for a sexual act to be considered non-abusive of consensual. I am beginning to wonder if you've ever had sex. Because if you did, you'd realize that virtually every sexual encounter is like a choreographed dance involving negotiation, concessions, etc, with very little to no verbal discussion about any of it besides the initial "Wanna have sex? Sure!". The assumption everybody I've had sex with (a reasonable assumption, I might add) is that if somebody has a problem with a particular act or technique or movement, they'll stop the presses and say something. Goodness knows I've done this a number of times. If we assume non-consensuality in the specifics of sexual acts in a sexual encounter, and call it consensual only if every single aspect is verbally consented to, we're left with a constant verbal contractual negotiation while trying to have a good time. Yes that reeks of patriarchy-themed radical feminism where sex is viewed only as a tool of female oppression rather than empowerment, and therefore needs to be strongly regulated with such ridiculous guidelines.

And trust me when I say that my knowledge of feminism, including marxist feminism, socialist feminism, liberal feminism, radical feminism, ecofeminism, third wave feminism, third world feminism, existentialist feminism, and all the rest, far surpasses anything you might aspire to. Don't even try to challenge me on that front unless you're prepared to be seriously embarrassed.

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 18:59

Actually i will say I think that the assumption that these women must be lying, that it must all be a CIA cover up, etc, are deeply worrying, for what it's worth it might all be true, I'm undecided on it, but promoting this idea that he coiuldn't possibly be a rapist and so these women must be lying, is very dangerous. Likewise the "concept" that these women withdrew the allegations of rape and then later re-instated them so they must be lying, as we know many women make accusations of rape and then withdraw them for various reasons, because they can't go through with the stress of the trial, because they can't bear seeing the rapist in court, because they are scared (and often rightfully so) that they will not be believed, whatever ...

Lucretia

2nd January 2011, 19:06

Actually i will say I think that the assumption that these women must be lying, that it must all be a CIA cover up, etc, are deeply worrying,

And I would like to add that your assumption that conclusions about Assange's innocence are mere "assumptions" is even more troubling.

Crux

2nd January 2011, 23:05

This is about the kind of response I expected of you. I simply must define consent as spelling out every aspect of every act taking place between two people having sex, and as having to verbally reaffirm every aspect of this agreement in the process of having sex (or how else do we not know that cry was not one of pleasure, but instead of withdrawing from the contract?). Otherwise, I think rape is totally okay and don't believe that sex should be consensual. How intellectually honest of you. My disagreement is with your idea that this unbelievably ridiculously stringent set of guidelines must be met for a sexual act to be considered non-abusive of consensual. I am beginning to wonder if you've ever had sex. Because if you did, you'd realize that virtually every sexual encounter is like a choreographed dance involving negotiation, concessions, etc, with very little to no verbal discussion about any of it besides the initial "Wanna have sex? Sure!". The assumption everybody I've had sex with (a reasonable assumption, I might add) is that if somebody has a problem with a particular act or technique or movement, they'll stop the presses and say something. Goodness knows I've done this a number of times. If we assume non-consensuality in the specifics of sexual acts in a sexual encounter, and call it consensual only if every single aspect is verbally consented to, we're left with a constant verbal contractual negotiation while trying to have a good time. Yes that reeks of patriarchy-themed radical feminism where sex is viewed only as a tool of female oppression rather than empowerment, and therefore needs to be strongly regulated with such ridiculous guidelines.

And trust me when I say that my knowledge of feminism, including marxist feminism, socialist feminism, liberal feminism, radical feminism, ecofeminism, third wave feminism, third world feminism, existentialist feminism, and all the rest, far surpasses anything you might aspire to. Don't even try to challenge me on that front unless you're prepared to be seriously embarrassed.
So let's see here, you think it's impossible to read body language, or in any case enough to know if what you are doing is with the consent of your partner, and indeed you ridicule the concept, as well as cursing "radical feminism", as well as making fantasy based statements on the swedish judicial system and the particular case. And you don't see why sexual violence would be political or perpetuate any fundamental social, economic or political institutions. Plus you continually refer to the rape charges as "private" and "his sexlife". Yeah, so you said this had something to do with Wikileaks? It seems it has far more to do with your own misogyny. Oh and congratulations you've found wikipedia.

And your curiosity about my sexlife is amusingly machismo of you. How unexpected. It's frequent and consentual, and well to be honest it worries me that you're not sure if you're having consentual sex or not. But I'm not here to help solve your misogyny, throughout this thread you've done a terrific jo of exposing yourself. It wouldn't suprise you don't think an "opinion is wrong because it's from a right winger" (of course not. I like Hegel, for example) but so far your opinions are indistingushable from the right. I also maintain that if you had expressed similar opinions in regards to race you would probably have been restricted by now.

Oh and one more thing, that straw man thing I told you about before, did you look it up on wikipedia? Because your own made up version of what consensual means is pretty much textbook example. Just thought you wanted to know.

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 23:09

And I would like to add that your assumption that conclusions about Assange's innocence are mere "assumptions" is even more troubling.

at the moment we don't know for sure if he's innocent or guilty so anything anyone says about the trial is going to be an assumption

electro_fan

2nd January 2011, 23:29

Diello

2nd January 2011, 23:39

IN MY VERY REASONABLE AND MODERATE OPINION, what evidence has emerged seems to exonerate Assange more than it condemns him, but it wouldn't be reasonable to draw a definite conclusion until it goes to trial, assuming it ever does, or the evidence is brought to light in some other way.

It's not counterwhatever to say that Assange is a "dirtbag," because one can back him politically without liking him personally.

Political_Chucky

3rd January 2011, 00:23

how can they be anything else based on the fact that he hasn't been found guilty? as i said, i have no idea if he's guilty or innocent, and what i'm saying is that these allegations shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, just because we don't want to believe there could be any truth in them

Well there stems the problem. Would you risk Assange being extradited to the U.S. for him showing up for questioning on behalf of the rape allegations? At this point, you have to ask, which crimes are more important, the crimes Assange may have done against the women, or the crimes the U.S. will do to assange in their attempt to charge him.

I just say look at common sense however. Why do you think Bradley Manning is in solitary without being charged for the past 7-8 months? Why is there still no charges against Assange if he is in fact guilty?

Personally, I would rather have Assange walk away from any type of questioning if its going to risk him being extradited to the U.S. A cause for transparency VS. an allegation of rape that is even questioned by the evidence at hand.

Lucretia

3rd January 2011, 02:12

So let's see here, you think it's impossible to read body language, or in any case enough to know if what you are doing is with the consent of your partner,

Where did I say it's impossible to read body language? It's possible, but when having sex, it can be pretty difficult. Certainly I would not know what "body language," apart from the person resisting, moving to walk out of the room, or flatly telling me to stop, would be sufficient to convey to me that the person does not consent to additional sexual activity. Is this what occurred in the Assange case? Or did the female partner wink three times with her right eye instead of four times? Did she slump her right shoulder instead of her left shoulder? Gee, well I guess it's time throw Assange in the slammer and throw away the key.

and indeed you ridicule the concept,Yes, I ridicule the idea that a person involved in what at least starts as a consensual sexual counter could potentially be guilty of crime not because he forcibly raped somebody, not because he continued having intercourse with a person who verbally expressed that he/she no longer wanted to continue with it, not because he lied about whether he was HIV positive, but because he did not pass the Majakovskij school of reading sexual body language. The idea is idiotic prima facie. And that somebody who claims to be a leftist would support it is alarming.

as well as cursing "radical feminism"Radical feminism, with its ahistorical theories about patriarchy, is antithetical to Marxism. Why should I be ashamed for "cursing" it, whatever that means?

as well as making fantasy based statements on the swedish judicial system and the particular case.Which fantasy based statements about the Swedish judicial system have I made? I don't think I've made any claims about the Swedish judicial system.

And you don't see why sexual violence would be political or perpetuate any fundamental social, economic or political institutions.I never said that acts of sexual violence by definition could not perpetuate any fundamental social, economic, or political institutions. I said that given the circumstances of this specific case, I don't see how the accusations leveled against Assange would constitute a political crime.

Plus you continually refer to the rape charges as "private" and "his sexlife".So now I have to claim that, if Assange raped somebody, that it's not a part of his sex life? What kind of idiotic feminist lithmus test is this you are trying to foist on me? Yes, people's sex lives are personal issues. This doesn't mean that they are not subject to criminal sanctions, and it doesn't mean they are unimportant. It means precisely what the word says: the act in this case has relevance only to the persons involved and no larger political significance, apart from what consequences might ensue indirectly by Assange being discharged from his position at WL. Contrary to what you seem to believe, women everywhere are not going to wake up tomorrow free from oppression because Julian Assange is in custody for not reading his sexual partners' body language correctly.

Yeah, so you said this had something to do with Wikileaks? It seems it has far more to do with your own misogyny. Oh and congratulations you've found wikipedia.Ask me any theoretical question you want about feminism, and see if I can answer it. I was reading Mary Daly before you were an itch in your father's pants.

And your curiosity about my sexlife is amusingly machismo of you.I don't care one bit about your sex life. You know why? It's personal. I simply stated that judging from your comments I am almost certain you've never had sex. The standards you wish to impose on every single sex act to ensure it's consensual would basically make sex impracticable or at the very least an unenjoyable technical legal affair.

to be honest it worries me that you're not sure if you're having consentual sex or not.Where did I make this statement? You just invent things left and right. Did you recently stop taking some sort of medication?

But I'm not here to help solve your misogyny,Oh, good. That was a close call. I love my misogyny so much. :laugh:

It wouldn't suprise you don't think an "opinion is wrong because it's from a right winger" (of course not. I like Hegel, for example) but so far your opinions are indistingushable from the right.This, coming for the person who wants to micromanage people's sex lives to the point where a notary public practically has to be in the room watching so that people don't get thrown in prison. That's quite rich.

synthesis

3rd January 2011, 07:14

I also maintain that if you had expressed similar opinions in regards to race you would probably have been restricted by now.

How exactly would one "express similar opinions in regards to race" on this issue? I really have no idea.

redz

4th January 2011, 03:27

The focus in this discussion on Assange and his (consensual) escapade with two female admirers has taken the spotlight off the equally important issue of Sweden's reactionary "sexual offense" laws, now being wielded against Assange and WikiLeaks.

The issue of these laws is discussed in an interesting blog entry asking "Do Sweden's Rape Laws Infantilise Women?":

http://www.redroom.com/blog/sunny-singh/do-swedens-rape-laws-infantilise-women-regardless-julian-assange

The excerpts below are of particular interest to the discussion in this forum...

Redz

>>
What worries me more is a strange silence on part of journalists about a more bizarre twist in this tale. That twist is about Sweden's distinctly odd rape laws and the generally uncritiqued but dangerous corollary of the infantilisation of women by those laws.What worries me more is a strange silence on part of journalists about a more bizarre twist in this tale. That twist is about Sweden's distinctly odd rape laws and the generally uncritiqued but dangerous corollary of the infantilisation of women by those laws.
<<

>>
...what is more worrying are the epic twists and turns of Sweden's rape laws which appear to be applied at discretion. Already this case has gone from being upgraded to rape, then downgraded to molestation, changed to rape by surprise, rape because the condom broke, and finally, yesterday's he "used his body weight to hold her down," (which is definitely rape, but strangely brought out only three months in to the legal process).

Of more concern is a rather odd point, not discussed in the ad nauseum articles about rape in the mainstream media: that the Swedish prosecutors themselves have asserted that the consent of the women is not in question. Over the past week, as a result, my feeble feminine brain has been trying to understand how consensual sex is rape. Surely the term applies to lack of consent?

Then the accusers' lawyer Claes Bergstrom explained the contradiction of a crime of non-consent committed with consent by declaring: "they (the accusers) are not jurists." As one of Assange's lawyers (and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt) pointed out: "How the Swedish authorities propose to prosecute for victims who neither saw themselves as such nor acted as such is easily answered: You're not a Swedish lawyer so you wouldn't understand anyway."

The problem here is more worrying than simply of the prosecutor or even the entire Swedish government caving into foreign (presumably US) pressure. The issue here is of a supposedly developed, socially progressive nation - which can't stop itself from taking on the mantle of moral superiority on all global issues - assuming that a rape victim cannot decide whether she has been raped.

Isn't this precisely the sort of infantilisation that feminism fought against? Isn't this infantilisation insulting and demeaning to all women, and not only those who have been raped?

As a long time feminist, a sometime volunteer for abused women, and most importantly, a woman myself, I need to say this loud and clear: a woman KNOWS when she is raped. Taking the power to identify her own rape from a rape victim is the most derogatory act that any state can perpetrate.

There is another under-reported aspect to Sweden's worrisome infantilising of women in context of its rape laws. Assange's lawyer, Michael Caitlin points out that the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny is also involved in "reforming" Swedish rape laws.

Already, as part of that infantilising women as creatures who obviously need to be protected by their nanny state against men, the Swedish rape law apparently considers consensual (albeit regretful in the morning) sex without condom a "sex crime." Not agreeing to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases - as far as I can make out from press reports - is also a "sex crime." But apparently, these laws are not strict enough for the Swedes. (An aside: are we surprised they have such a high suicide rate? With little sunlight, cold climate and state regulated strictly conformist sex, what else would they do?)

More seriously, the impending "reform" would apparently "introduce a test of whether the unequal power relations between the parties might void the sincerely expressed consent of one party." In principle that sounds good, right?

But how will this "unequal power relation" be established? Is it money? If a man buys me dinner, is he coercing me? Or will a Swedish man, by dint of history, gender, race, all of which position him as "more powerful" be considered a rapist simply for having sex with a non-European woman like me, despite my express consent? Or will the imbalance be because of age? Shall Sweden prosecute all couples who are not exactly equal in age? What happens to not only men who like younger women, but the newly emergent breed of cougars?

Perhaps it shall be based on intelligence, with a surgeon accused of rape should she have sex with a carpenter?

Or is it temperament? Will all of us going to Sweden be required to carry insta-psychometric tests to see if each partner is of the same psychological ability? What if a woman had sex with her partner while the latter is suffering from the horrific man-flu, would the Swedes believe that she were being coerced by his whinging?

On a more serious note, are these "reforms" actually yet another racist law meant for immigrants but couched in "liberal, protect European culture" vocabulary?

Back in my riotous days of student protests in the US, we demanded that "government get out of my womb." But in Sweden, it seems that the government is present in the beds, vaginas and wombs! All in such a benign big brotherly fashion that even Orwell would have trouble imagining it.

To be absolutely honest, Sweden is welcome to infantilising its women. This isn't the feminism I fought for, definitely is not the feminism I support, and will not be one I will teach to the young girls of my family.
<<

redz

5th January 2011, 14:04

As for Sweden being the 'saudi-arabia of feminism', well if we actually had managed to implement feminism here as ardently as those fanatics their religion*, I'd be proud of our accomplishments. There is nothing wrong with having a conviction for something -- as long as its something progressive like feminism.

This attitude, shared by several contributors in this discussion, ignores the highly conflicted character of "feminism", including its conflicts with Marxism and indeed elemental "progressive" issues, its usurpation and manipulation as a RIGHTWING ideology by the ruling class, and its role as a weapon to attack women's rights and other issues involved in the struggle for workingclass liberation. (This ideological character prevails despite the role of "revolutionary feminists" and other leftist tendencies within feminism that erroneously equate feminism with the women's liberation movement.)

It is plausible to speculate that rightwing feminist ideology and political tendencies have influenced the escalating campaign against women's rights in Sweden, including the "sex crimes" laws involved in the Assange case.

Relevant to these issues, I've posted below excerpts from the Women's Liberation section of the Programmatic Statement of the Spartacist League/U.S. (1999-2000), which I regard as an excellent summary analysis of women's oppression and the revolutionary path to achieve liberation.

Redz

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/pamph/slusdop/progstat.html

For Women’s Liberation Through Socialist Revolution!

1. The Spartacist League reaffirms that the struggle against women’s oppression is integral to the emancipation of labor itself. The oppression of women is rooted in the original division of society into classes. As Friedrich Engels explained in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, the monogamous patrilineal family arose to “make the man supreme in the family, and to propagate, as the future heirs to his wealth, children indisputably his own.” As Lenin noted, “the abolition of private ownership of land and the factories...opens up the way towards a complete and actual emancipation of woman, her liberation from ‘household bondage’ through transition from petty individual housekeeping to large-scale socialized domestic services” (V.I. Lenin, “International Working Women’s Day” [March 1921]).

Under capitalism, the institution of the family remains the central source of women’s oppression. For the proletariat, the institutionalized family—buttressed and promoted by religion and the state—means the burden of raising the next generation of workers, caring for the sick and aged, and instilling bourgeois codes of “morality” and obedience to authority. Doubly oppressed proletarian women also play a key economic role as part of the reserve army of the unemployed, drawn into wage labor in boom times and wars and fired at the next downturn.

2. The right to abortion, achieved nationally in 1973 as the result of the social struggles which cracked the reactionary domestic climate of the post-World War II Cold War, came under attack almost immediately, first and foremost for poor and working women. More generally, the bourgeoisie, starting with the Democratic Carter administration, soon launched an anti-sex witchhunt aimed at “moral rearmament” and social regimentation, the domestic reflection of a renewed war drive against the Soviet Union. The American imperialists cultivated religious reaction abroad (the Catholic church in Poland, Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan) and at home as a weapon in the anti-Soviet war drive. The climate of bourgeois triumphalism following capitalist counterrevolution in the Soviet Union in turn fueled an escalating offensive against the right to abortion and social programs benefiting poor and minority women in particular.

In the name of reactionary “family values,” hundreds have been victimized and imprisoned in a fabricated hysteria over “child abuse” at day-care centers, buttressing the powers of the bourgeois state with new laws and an apparatus of sex cops. Gay people and abortion providers are subjected to murderous terror. Religion is a bulwark of reaction in general and of the institutionalized oppression of women in particular.

3. In seeking to forge a Leninist party as a tribune of the people championing the rights of all the exploited and oppressed, we fight for the workers movement to take up the struggle for women’s rights. We call for mass mobilizations backed up by the social power of the labor movement to defend abortion clinics against rightist mobs. We place no reliance on the bourgeois state, the enemy of women’s rights, to defend the clinics. We fight for free abortion on demand as part of the necessary struggle for free, quality health care for all, in order to ensure that legal abortion can become a reality for working, minority and immigrant women. We demand equal pay for equal work and call for free, 24-hour childcare.

We oppose efforts to regulate the manifold expressions of human sexuality. Our guiding principle is simply that of mutual effective consent. Down with reactionary “age of consent” and “statutory rape” laws which criminalize consensual sexual activity of youth! We oppose the reactionary crusade against pornography and the “date rape” hysteria, spearheaded by bourgeois feminists in league with puritanical bigots. Government out of the bedrooms!

Anti-gay bigotry flows from the stereotyping decreed by the sexual division of labor in the family. We fight for full democratic rights for homosexuals and oppose in particular the rabidly discriminatory measures which have accompanied the witchhunt against people with AIDS.

4. American feminism was born as a separate movement in its post-Civil War split with the abolitionists; its founders embraced white supremacy and campaigned against voting rights for black freedmen. Feminism is the anti-proletarian, anti-egalitarian ideology of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois women who support the capitalist status quo and who seek only their own power and privilege within the old boys’ club. The evolution of feminist ideology over the past period, from the radical sectoralism of the 1970s New Left to today’s unashamed devotion to the capitalist state and U.S. imperialist militarism, only shows feminism’s reversion to its historic norm.

The bankruptcy of feminism, nationalism and other sectoralist (bourgeois) outlooks is glaring in the case of black working women, subjected to racial, sexual and class oppression. Black feminists can offer no solution for triply oppressed black women workers, because such reformists are beholden to the Democratic Party, which pushes the same “family values” reaction as the right-wing Republicans or the Nation of Islam. With an authority derived from generations as one of the few social organizations allowed in the black community, the church (mainly in the form of Christianity) serves as an instrument of social control and a political transmission belt to the bourgeois Democratic Party. For our part, we recall that the vanguard of the abolitionist movement against slavery—John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and the Grimké sisters—stood for the commonality of all the oppressed. As Frederick Douglass proclaimed, “Right is of no sex—Truth is of no color.” In our struggle for socialist revolution to eliminate black and women’s oppression, we stand on the tradition of these radical democratic revolutionaries.

5. The emancipation of women requires a socialist revolution and the creation of a planned economy in which women will have full access to participation in the productive forces of society, and the institution of the family will be replaced with collective childcare and housework. Understanding that the liberation of women is the task of the proletarian party as a whole, our perspective is to build a women’s section of the vanguard party aimed at extending its influence to layers of working-class and minority women and drawing them into the revolutionary movement.

Crux

5th January 2011, 16:23

Lucretia

5th January 2011, 17:40

Jesus fuck, so anti-feminism is even more widespread than I feared? Alright I am very glad I posted this thread to expose people like you. I'll get to you after branch meeting. But it's intresting to see at least two user's obviously have problems with "consensual" and indeed that, rather than any care for the public image of wikileaks, is the root of their standpoint. They support the acts themselfes.

Yes, everybody who opposes your authoritarian definition of consent, which you seem to forget applies to homosexual and heterosexual activity and therefore does not even necessarily involve women, is clearly a sexist and misogynist and anti-feminist. Thankfully all this is now cleared up and we can move on to less hysterical matters.

Crux

6th January 2011, 19:45

Yes, everybody who opposes your authoritarian definition of consent, which you seem to forget applies to homosexual and heterosexual activity and therefore does not even necessarily involve women, is clearly a sexist and misogynist and anti-feminist. Thankfully all this is now cleared up and we can move on to less hysterical matters.
You are the only one that has given a definition and this is it: "Yes, I ridicule the idea that a person involved in what at least starts as a consensual sexual counter could potentially be guilty of crime not because he forcibly raped somebody, not because he continued having intercourse with a person who verbally expressed that he/she no longer wanted to continue with it" and "It's possible, but when having sex, it can be pretty difficult.". So you oppose anti-rape laws in general? And you fail to explain why violence against women suddenly isn't a feminist issue just because it happens in same-sex relationships. You are older than me? And you think that speaks in your favour? hah. I suggest this thread gets moved to the discrimination forum.

Crux

6th January 2011, 19:50

Meridian

6th January 2011, 19:53

Innocent until proven guilty. However, of course one could not dismiss something as serious as a rape allegation, no matter the probability of it being a part of some orchestration of negative publicity.

It is even odd to point out the above, though, given how much attention the case has been given.

Lucretia

6th January 2011, 22:36

You are the only one that has given a definition and this is it: "Yes, I ridicule the idea that a person involved in what at least starts as a consensual sexual counter could potentially be guilty of crime not because he forcibly raped somebody, not because he continued having intercourse with a person who verbally expressed that he/she no longer wanted to continue with it"

What the hell is this stupidity? If you're going to quote a sentence of mine, quote the whole thinking so that people can actually see the meaning of what I wrote. What I said, in its entirety there, is: Yes, I ridicule the idea that a person involved in what at least starts as a consensual sexual counter could potentially be guilty of crime not because he forcibly raped somebody, not because he continued having intercourse with a person who verbally expressed that he/she no longer wanted to continue with it, not because he lied about whether he was HIV positive, but because he did not pass the Majakovskij school of reading sexual body language.

You see all those little clauses prefaced with the word "not"? That means that I think those activities should be criminalized because they do violate the canons of consent. Why would you quote that, as if to imply that's an outrageous position to take? Are you trying to tell us that if one person holds another person down, it shouldn't be rape? I guess your definition of consent is becoming clearer with every post, even as you remain totally ignorant about my definition.

and "It's possible, but when having sex, it can be pretty difficult.". So you oppose anti-rape laws in general? And you fail to explain why violence against women suddenly isn't a feminist issue just because it happens in same-sex relationships.You're an idiot. You quote a line of mine which clearly shows that I think forced sexual activity should be illegal, even that having sex without first telling somebody you have an STD should be illegal, then you question whether I think rape should be illegal. Where the hell did you go to school? Sweden? I guess that clears up the mystery of why they have such idiotic rape laws there.

And, no, your definition of consent isn't strictly a feminist issue because it relates to every sexual relationship including same-sex relationships between men. Are you trying to say that everything related to subject of sexuality is now by definition feminist? So is masturbation a strictly feminist issue? What about male-on-male fisting? Yes, "consent" is a feminist issue when it involves relations between men and women, or when it in some way relates to power relations between men and women. But we're not discussing the definition of consent strictly as it pertains to heterosexual relationships. We're discussing whether having sex with somebody, after initiating sexual contact through verbal consent, should be illegal if the other partner starts showing the wrong kind of "body language" (unspecified what that means: slumping shoulders? yawning?), regardless of the sex of those partners. This is why your decision to try to delegitimize my position on this issue by calling me misogynist or anti-sexist is stupid. My problem with your position does not pertain to the question of gender relations at all. It pertains to your idea that having sex with somebody might suddenly constitute rape if the sex partner's body language isn't "right" (again, unclear on what this means), which of course might just reflect the fact that the partner might be bored and isn't enjoying himself/herself as much as he/she thought he/she would. You basically support a law that is so far-reaching that it criminalizes boring consensual sex, and that's just wrong.

Ocean Seal

6th January 2011, 22:46

The whole rape thing,regardelss if it's true or not, is a part of a smear campaing to try to undermine the leaks - stop caring about Assange's personal integrity and concentrate on the material leaked.

I don't care if he's a fetus cannibal, i only care about the leaks.
Hit the nail right on the head. And also we need to stop with the he's not a leftist crap. We understand that, and its not important. These leaks can be extremely beneficial to us. Throw out your dogmas and realize that help can come even from those who do not wish to help us. We are a very small minority in most places and most people have hostile attitudes towards us, and we have to work against decades of stigma.

Lucretia

6th January 2011, 22:59

Hit the nail right on the head. And also we need to stop with the he's not a leftist crap. We understand that, and its not important. These leaks can be extremely beneficial to us. Throw out your dogmas and realize that help can come even from those who do not wish to help us. We are a very small minority in most places and most people have hostile attitudes towards us, and we have to work against decades of stigma.

Becareful: you might be added to Majakovski's list of misogynists!

Crux

6th January 2011, 23:00

What the hell is this stupidity? If you're going to quote a sentence of mine, quote the whole thinking so that people can actually see the meaning of what I wrote. What I said, in its entirety there, is: Yes, I ridicule the idea that a person involved in what at least starts as a consensual sexual counter could potentially be guilty of crime not because he forcibly raped somebody, not because he continued having intercourse with a person who verbally expressed that he/she no longer wanted to continue with it, not because he lied about whether he was HIV positive, but because he did not pass the Majakovskij school of reading sexual body language.

You see all those little clauses prefaced with the word "not"? That means that I think those activities should be criminalized because they do violate the canons of consent. Why would you quote that, as if to imply that's an outrageous position to take? Are you trying to tell us that if one person holds another person down, it shouldn't be rape? I guess your definition of consent is becoming clearer with every post, even as you remain totally ignorant about my definition.

You're an idiot. You quote a line of mine which clearly shows that I think forced sexual activity should be illegal, even that having sex without first telling somebody you have an STD should be illegal, then you question whether I think rape should be illegal. Where the hell did you go to school? Sweden? I guess that clears up the mystery of why they have such idiotic rape laws there.

And, no, your definition of consent isn't strictly a feminist issue because it relates to every sexual relationship including same-sex relationships between men. Are you trying to say that everything related to subject of sexuality is now by definition feminist? So is masturbation a strictly feminist issue? What about male-on-male fisting? Yes, "consent" is a feminist issue when it involves relations between men and women, or when it in some way relates to power relations between men and women. But we're not discussing the definition of consent strictly as it pertains to heterosexual relationships. We're discussing whether having sex with somebody, after initiating sexual contact through verbal consent, should be illegal if the other partner starts showing the wrong kind of "body language" (unspecified what that means: slumping shoulders? yawning?), regardless of the sex of those partners. This is why your decision to try to delegitimize my position on this issue by calling me misogynist or anti-sexist is stupid. My problem with your position does not pertain to the question of gender relations at all. It pertains to your idea that having sex with somebody might suddenly constitute rape if the sex partner's body language isn't "right" (again, unclear on what this means), which of course might just reflect the fact that the partner might be bored and isn't enjoying himself/herself as much as he/she thought he/she would. You basically support a law that is so far-reaching that it criminalizes boring consensual sex, and that's just wrong.
No I think it contitutes rape if consent is withdrawn, and I believe consent can be withdrawn more ways than verbally. Stop making stuff up.

Crux

6th January 2011, 23:01

Hit the nail right on the head. And also we need to stop with the he's not a leftist crap. We understand that, and its not important. These leaks can be extremely beneficial to us. Throw out your dogmas and realize that help can come even from those who do not wish to help us. We are a very small minority in most places and most people have hostile attitudes towards us, and we have to work against decades of stigma.
Yeah well, he's quotes speak for themselfes. Lucretia here however agree with them so, yeah I agree he's not a leftist.

Lucretia

6th January 2011, 23:07

No I think it contitutes rape if consent is withdrawn, and I believe consent can be withdrawn more ways than verbally. Stop making stuff up.

Ok, now let's be more specific. What specific acts of body language do you think demonstrate that consent is withdrawn? I agree that there are some acts that clearly show that consent is withdrawn. These including attempting to push your partner away, and attempting to interfere with the sexual act that is taking place so as to disrupt it. But it is my understanding that the alleged "rape" in question did not include either of these physical acts.

The question, then, is which kinds of body language do you group under the "withdrawn consent" rubric? Do you think that slumping shoulders shows that consent has been withdrawn? Should it now be against the law to continue to have sex with somebody whose shoulders begin to slump? What about a person's head turning to the side? Is that sign that the partner think he/she has bad breath? Or is it a sign of withdrawing consent?

I think you're beginning to get the picture of what's wrong with a law drawn up to be so ambiguous and all-encompassing. Or, judging by the lack of mental acuity you've shown in your previous posts, you might not be getting the picture. The problem with a law that criminalizes such a broad variety of body language is that it covers far more sexual behavior than can reasonably be called rape. And the problem with this, in case you can't tell from this case, is that it allows prosecutors massive discretion in applying the law selectively, perhaps for political reasons -- like wanting to nab Assange on a holding charge until the US plucks him. Opposing such a law isn't a sign of anti-feminism or misogyny. It's a sign of common sense and basic human decency.

synthesis

6th January 2011, 23:15

I also maintain that if you had expressed similar opinions in regards to race you would probably have been restricted by now. How exactly would one "express similar opinions in regards to race" on this issue? I really have no idea.

I'm still interested in an answer to this question. Anyone?

Lucretia

6th January 2011, 23:22

I'm still interested in an answer to this question. Anyone?

Don't hold your breath. A similar case in my opinion would be where two people are driving in cars going the same direction on a freeway. The person driving the first car, a white person, is going the speed limit, while the person driving the second car, a black person, is eating a sandwich and not paying close attention. The first person slams on his brakes because it appeared that a deer was about to run into the middle of the road. The person in the second car, not paying close enough attention, slams into the back of the first car.

Now, according to the same kind of logic presented by Majakovskij in this thread, because I don't think the white driver is at fault for the accident, I must be a racist who wants to punish the black person for being black. In reality, it is every driver's responsibility to follow cars ahead of them at a safe enough distance to allow for sudden stops. That's the principle dictating my view, and perhaps it's one that can be debated, but it has nothing to do with race.

It's the same with this discussion about Assange. I am opposed to the idea that somebody could be charged with rape for not reading body language the right way, when that body language isn't something (like physically trying to stop the act or push away the sex partner) that might obviously suggest a person is withdrawing consent. That's the principle. We can debate it, but my holding that principle in no way makes me an anti-leftist or an anti-feminist or a misogynist.

Crux

7th January 2011, 00:10

I'm still interested in an answer to this question. Anyone?
Again: Let me pose this question, hypothetically, if Assange had been accused of a violent hate crime against an ethnic, religious or sexual minority and afterwards he and his lawyers had said blamed the "overzealous hate crime laws" would you have been as forgiving? If he had violently assaulted someone for being say a jew and followed it up by implying that sweden was "controlled by jews" and the "jewish eqvivalent of saudi arabia" would you have been as forgiving? If there had been rampant anti-semitic overtones in the articles about it as well as widespread misinformation (for example claims that the jewish person had provoked Assange first so that he would attack him or that it really was the jew who hit first)? If commentators to articles would have written "If you are a non-jew, don't go to sweden you may get charged with a hate crime" would you still look the other way and claim this is not a discussion we should be having?

Crux

7th January 2011, 00:17

Don't hold your breath. A similar case in my opinion would be where two people are driving in cars going the same direction on a freeway. The person driving the first car, a white person, is going the speed limit, while the person driving the second car, a black person, is eating a sandwich and not paying close attention. The first person slams on his brakes because it appeared that a deer was about to run into the middle of the road. The person in the second car, not paying close enough attention, slams into the back of the first car.

Now, according to the same kind of logic presented by Majakovskij in this thread, because I don't think the white driver is at fault for the accident, I must be a racist who wants to punish the black person for being black. In reality, it is every driver's responsibility to follow cars ahead of them at a safe enough distance to allow for sudden stops. That's the principle dictating my view, and perhaps it's one that can be debated, but it has nothing to do with race.

So you compare being raped with being a careless driver? Nice.

It's the same with this discussion about Assange. I am opposed to the idea that somebody could be charged with rape for not reading body language the right way, when that body language isn't something (like physically trying to stop the act or push away the sex partner) that might obviously suggest a person is withdrawing consent. That's the principle. We can debate it, but my holding that principle in no way makes me an anti-leftist or an anti-feminist or a misogynist.
You're indicating consent can only be withdrawn in ways defined by you, amusingly whil criticizing laws you know nothing about. I do believe you are a sexist, but even if that wasn't the case you are dreaddfully misinformed. Do you also think having sex with someone who is asleep, without having recieved consent beforehand, is not rape? Assange is accused of that too, in case you didn't know or forgot. I mean I did say so in this thread, but you seem to be god at "forgetting" things.

synthesis

7th January 2011, 00:19

OK, good explanation but I don't think your analogy works in that the accusations against Assange are not comparable to violent hate crimes. The actual nature of the crime itself remains ambiguous, which seems to be the major source of disagreement here. In your analogy, it would be more comparable to whether or not Assange had denied the Holocaust in a friend's living room in Germany.

Crux

7th January 2011, 00:36

No, if he has done what he is being accused of there is nothing ambigous about that. The news media reporting seems to have been pretty shit abroad though. As I explained before there is no such thing as sex without a condom or sex by suprise being illegal in sweden. What he is accused of, if he has indeed done it he is a rapist. In the first case there is the compunded facts that he, allegedly delibaretely broke the condom even though she had sepcifically demanded a condom as well as ignoring her physical indications, and yeah those count. In the second case he had sex with someone who was sleeping, without using a condom, no consent given, which is the rape case. I don't claim, unlike some other people here, to know whetever he is guilty or not. I do however think it is established he is a sexist.

Lucretia

7th January 2011, 01:02

So you compare being raped with being a careless driver? Nice.

You really don't comprehend written English very well, do you? I am not comparing anything with rape, for I do not think that Assange raped anybody. I am taking your attempts to characterize my principled objections to your definition of "demonstrating sexual consent" as a sign of misogny, and showing how your approach to this topic would translate into the sphere of race. Even though it doesn't relate to principle being demonstrated, feel free to add in my example that the driver of the first car died. Perhaps then you can stop distracting from the topic at hand instead of playing the outraged victim in every single post.

You're indicating consent can only be withdrawn in ways defined by you, amusingly whil criticizing laws you know nothing about.Wrong. I listed ways that I think body language would demonstrate the withdrawing of consent, then asked you if you could think of any other ways. Instead, as we can all see, you've chosen to respond to things I haven't written.

I do believe you are a sexist,I do believe you're an idiot, but notice how I am stating that not as a substitute for my arguments. I am stating it in addition to them. Where is your argument about other forms of body language besides the ones I already mentioned constituting a sign of withdrawing consent to sex? We're all waiting with great anticipation.

Lucretia

7th January 2011, 01:04

Again: Let me pose this question, hypothetically, if Assange had been accused of a violent hate crime against an ethnic, religious or sexual minority and afterwards he and his lawyers had said blamed the "overzealous hate crime laws" would you have been as forgiving? If he had violently assaulted someone for being say a jew and followed it up by implying that sweden was "controlled by jews" and the "jewish eqvivalent of saudi arabia" would you have been as forgiving? If there had been rampant anti-semitic overtones in the articles about it as well as widespread misinformation (for example claims that the jewish person had provoked Assange first so that he would attack him or that it really was the jew who hit first)? If commentators to articles would have written "If you are a non-jew, don't go to sweden you may get charged with a hate crime" would you still look the other way and claim this is not a discussion we should be having?

It depends on how the hate crimes law is written. If it is written so broadly to encompass things that are clearly not hate crimes, then yes, I would blame the law for being stupidly written. Just as I would fault rape laws that are written to be so broad that they encompass things that no reasonable person could interpret to be rape.

Crux

7th January 2011, 03:18

You really don't comprehend written English very well, do you? I am not comparing anything with rape, for I do not think that Assange raped anybody. I am taking your attempts to characterize my principled objections to your definition of "demonstrating sexual consent" as a sign of misogny, and showing how your approach to this topic would translate into the sphere of race. Even though it doesn't relate to principle being demonstrated, feel free to add in my example that the driver of the first car died. Perhaps then you can stop distracting from the topic at hand instead of playing the outraged victim in every single post.
So am I to understand you you do not think Assange raped anyone even if he did what he is accused of? And, uh yeah, you did, stop being so fucking dishonest.

Wrong. I listed ways that I think body language would demonstrate the withdrawing of consent, then asked you if you could think of any other ways. Instead, as we can all see, you've chosen to respond to things I haven't written.
I am not a jurist. And no, wrong you listed ways you thought might as well indicate you are being a "lousy fuck". I do not claim to know the details of this case and I do not wish to speculate. Suffice to say I believe consent can be withdrawn non-verbally. You have clearly indicated you have problems believing this.

I do believe you're an idiot, but notice how I am stating that not as a substitute for my arguments. I am stating it in addition to them. Where is your argument about other forms of body language besides the ones I already mentioned constituting a sign of withdrawing consent to sex? We're all waiting with great anticipation.
Don't refer to yourself in the royal we, one might get the sense you're delusional. It took me this long to drag out of you your, shall we say, peculiar views on sex crime legislation and that being your key point in the Assange case. I expect about as much inanity and back and forths with you before I get an actual argument out of you.

Crux

7th January 2011, 03:20

It depends on how the hate crimes law is written. If it is written so broadly to encompass things that are clearly not hate crimes, then yes, I would blame the law for being stupidly written. Just as I would fault rape laws that are written to be so broad that they encompass things that no reasonable person could interpret to be rape.
Which brings me to a key question in this case, what do you know about the sex crime laws in question? Anything? Anything you can back up with a reference to the relevant law text?

Lucretia

7th January 2011, 03:37

SNIP

Are you going to answer my question from three cycles ago, or should I just conclude you're not prepared to have a good-faith exchange?

What physical (not verbal) acts or gestures, besides the ones I mentioned above, would suggest to you that a person was withdrawing consent for sex?

Lucretia

7th January 2011, 03:43

I am not a jurist. And no, wrong you listed ways you thought might as well indicate you are being a "lousy fuck". I do not claim to know the details of this case and I do not wish to speculate. Suffice to say I believe consent can be withdrawn non-verbally. You have clearly indicated you have problems believing this.

I am not asking you to interpret specific laws. I am asking you to answer a basic question. What non-verbal forms of body language, besides the ones I already mentioned, would suggest to you that a person is withdrawing consent to sexual activity? (Note: I did not use the language "lousy fuck" in the post where I alluded to the two forms of body language in question. And the fact that I have already mentioned two forms of non-verbal communication indicating withdrawal of consent shows how full of shit your comment is that I have "problems believing" such forms of communication might convey withdrawal of consent.) We're approaching the point now where your claims are so baseless, accusations so inflammatory, that you are basically trolling and flame baiting. By the way, learn the difference between an analogy and a comparison. An English-to-Swedish dictionary might be useful in this regard.

Crux

7th January 2011, 05:06

I am not asking you to interpret specific laws. I am asking you to answer a basic question. What non-verbal forms of body language, besides the ones I already mentioned, would suggest to you that a person is withdrawing consent to sexual activity? (Note: I did not use the language "lousy fuck" in the post where I alluded to the two forms of body language in question. And the fact that I have already mentioned two forms of non-verbal communication indicating withdrawal of consent shows how full of shit your comment is that I have "problems believing" such forms of communication might convey withdrawal of consent.) We're approaching the point now where your claims are so baseless, accusations so inflammatory, that you are basically trolling and flame baiting. By the way, learn the difference between an analogy and a comparison. An English-to-Swedish dictionary might be useful in this regard.
Could have something to do with you being a dodgy fucker, bro, and dodging the essential of this debate. You do not believe Assange is a rapeist even if he has committed what he is being accused of? There are plenty of ways to withdraw consent non-verbally none of which are relevent to this thread, make a thread on it if it interests you so. I suggest you get back on topic. Oh and I see you want to avoid talking about the legal side of thing's. How convenient, so again, what do you know about swedish sex crime legislation? If you believe it to be "radical feminist" and at fault you ought to at least know something about it.

Allow me to quote your earlier post just to push the point about you shall we say, not being completely honest about what even you yourself write: "But it is my understanding that the alleged "rape" in question did not include either of these physical acts."

"I think you're beginning to get the picture of what's wrong with a law drawn up to be so ambiguous and all-encompassing. Or, judging by the lack of mental acuity you've shown in your previous posts, you might not be getting the picture. The problem with a law that criminalizes such a broad variety of body language is that it covers far more sexual behavior than can reasonably be called rape. And the problem with this, in case you can't tell from this case, is that it allows prosecutors massive discretion in applying the law selectively"

Lucretia

7th January 2011, 05:16

Could have something to do with you being a dodgy fucker, bro, and dodging the essential of this debate. You do not believe Assange is a rapeist even if he has committed what he is being accused of? There are plenty of ways to withdraw consent non-verbally none of which are relevent to this thread, make a thread on it if it interests you so. I suggest you get back on topic. Oh and I see you want to avoid talking about the legal side of thing's. How convenient, so again, what do you know about swedish sex crime legislation? If you believe it to be "radical feminist" and at fault you ought to at least know something about it.

Stop dodging the question and trying to derail the discussion. If you refuse to answer the question, the discussion will not continue. Which forms of body language besides the two I mentioned above would be a sign that a sex partner is withdrawing consent?

Crux

7th January 2011, 05:27

Crux

7th January 2011, 05:31

Well there stems the problem. Would you risk Assange being extradited to the U.S. for him showing up for questioning on behalf of the rape allegations? At this point, you have to ask, which crimes are more important, the crimes Assange may have done against the women, or the crimes the U.S. will do to assange in their attempt to charge him.

I just say look at common sense however. Why do you think Bradley Manning is in solitary without being charged for the past 7-8 months? Why is there still no charges against Assange if he is in fact guilty?

Personally, I would rather have Assange walk away from any type of questioning if its going to risk him being extradited to the U.S. A cause for transparency VS. an allegation of rape that is even questioned by the evidence at hand.
Even if he would be guilty? And no I do not think we have to ask which crimes are more important. Assange is not some Super Hero and whistleblwoing will go on without him. And yeah, if he does get charged in the U.S I'd be ready to defend him on principle. In a rape case, not so much.

Lucretia

7th January 2011, 05:52

Stop dodging the question and trying to derail the discussion. If you refuse to answer the question, the discussion will not continue. Which forms of body language besides the two I mentioned above would be a sign that a sex partner is withdrawing consent?

The ones Julian Assange's possible victim said she did. I do not claim to know the specifics.

I think the fact that you mentioned Assange in the second sentence of your response shows that we are perfectly on topic. Let's be clear. What we have here is you claiming that certain forms of body language are obvious signals that a person is withdrawing consent to sex, not specifying in any way what this body language might consist of, and not being able to connect it to any of Assange's behavior because of your admitted ignorance of what body language that accuser supposedly manifested. Yet, in the end, you insist that Assange is a sexist dirtbag guilty of rape if he did the things he's accused of doing, things which you finally are now being honest enough to admit you don't know the specifics of. And if anybody calls you on this bullshit, if anybody doesn't immediately agree with you that Assange is a rapist if he did what he's accused of doing (again, you don't really know what this is since you "do not claim to know the specifics"), he/she is automatically a labeled a sexist misogynist baby-eating homophobic spawn of satan creep.

What a piece of work you are.

Political_Chucky

7th January 2011, 06:28

Even if he would be guilty? And no I do not think we have to ask which crimes are more important. Assange is not some Super Hero and whistleblwoing will go on without him. And yeah, if he does get charged in the U.S I'd be ready to defend him on principle. In a rape case, not so much.

I see how much you care about people's actual well-being and rights just to prove something that may or may not be true, regardless of what happens to the perpetrator. Anyways, Your pissin' in the wind.

And if he is not guilty? Would you risk putting somebody in the extreme cruel and unusual punishment he WILL go through just as Bradley Manning has? If any common sense is in that brain of yours, and you can connect how the U.S. has treated Manning, by what means they will try and get Assange, and the lack of evidence there is against him(evidence which includes no actual charges), its pointless to want to pursue him. Lets say he is guilty however. What then? His sentencing will not be for the rape charges, but he will then be extradited to the U.S. and charged with espionage and that does/should not be put on top of the rape charges But we will see exactly what will happen starting Jan 11.

:lol::lol::lol:You'll be ready to defend him? What exaclty would you do if/when he is extradited?

redz

7th January 2011, 13:05

I am opposed to the idea that somebody could be charged with rape for not reading body language the right way, when that body language isn't something (like physically trying to stop the act or push away the sex partner) that might obviously suggest a person is withdrawing consent. That's the principle. We can debate it, but my holding that principle in no way makes me an anti-leftist or an anti-feminist or a misogynist.

Unless the "body language" is forceful physical resistance, it's not rape. There's a wide range of grey area with respect to "body language" and what amounts to the rituals of courtship, and in their revved-up campaign to regiment public behavior and push the eyes and hands of the state into private bedrooms and intimate relationships, the capitalist authorities (among whom Swedish authorities are at the leading edge, goaded and abetted by bourgeois feminists) are trying to revise it all into black-and-white, legislatively regulated behavior.

In this process, Swedish capitalist state authorities (again, abetted by stiff-necked bourgeois feminists with a somewhat similar agenda) seem to be leading the way into watering down the ugly, vicious, violent concept of rape into covering an array of sexual behaviors, from sex play to arguments over condoms. Ominously, Sweden's "sex crime" laws (including those targeting sex work) are being proposed as a model for the USA.

This dilution of the actual reality of rape is patronizing to women and demeaning to actual rape victims, who know very well the horror of this crime.

Curiously, much of this discussion would seem to be a candidate for migration to the Women's Struggle forum, but the Assange case keeps pulling it back into a broader context - the "sex crimes" attack on Assange by the Swedish bourgeois state is but the convenient spearhead of the even more sinister attack on WikiLeaks and press freedom orchestrated by the US imperialist authorities.

Redz

Dimentio

7th January 2011, 13:11

Assange could probably not even read body language.

If you look at his public appearances, he seems like he is having a mild case of Asperger's.

eMif5YxXRqY

Also the mail exchange with the 19-year old student Elizabeth is indicating Asperger's.

Not to uncommon amongst hackers.

Crux

7th January 2011, 21:04

Unless the "body language" is forceful physical resistance, it's not rape. There's a wide range of grey area with respect to "body language" and what amounts to the rituals of courtship, and in their revved-up campaign to regiment public behavior and push the eyes and hands of the state into private bedrooms and intimate relationships, the capitalist authorities (among whom Swedish authorities are at the leading edge, goaded and abetted by bourgeois feminists) are trying to revise it all into black-and-white, legislatively regulated behavior.

In this process, Swedish capitalist state authorities (again, abetted by stiff-necked bourgeois feminists with a somewhat similar agenda) seem to be leading the way into watering down the ugly, vicious, violent concept of rape into covering an array of sexual behaviors, from sex play to arguments over condoms. Ominously, Sweden's "sex crime" laws (including those targeting sex work) are being proposed as a model for the USA.

This dilution of the actual reality of rape is patronizing to women and demeaning to actual rape victims, who know very well the horror of this crime.

Curiously, much of this discussion would seem to be a candidate for migration to the Women's Struggle forum, but the Assange case keeps pulling it back into a broader context - the "sex crimes" attack on Assange by the Swedish bourgeois state is but the convenient spearhead of the even more sinister attack on WikiLeaks and press freedom orchestrated by the US imperialist authorities.

Redz
You missed the part where I showed you you know fuck all about swedish sex crime legislation?

I suggest you read that post instead of just going on in your obvious ignorance.

Crux

7th January 2011, 21:09

I see how much you care about people's actual well-being and rights just to prove something that may or may not be true, regardless of what happens to the perpetrator. Anyways, Your pissin' in the wind.

And if he is not guilty? Would you risk putting somebody in the extreme cruel and unusual punishment he WILL go through just as Bradley Manning has? If any common sense is in that brain of yours, and you can connect how the U.S. has treated Manning, by what means they will try and get Assange, and the lack of evidence there is against him(evidence which includes no actual charges), its pointless to want to pursue him. Lets say he is guilty however. What then? His sentencing will not be for the rape charges, but he will then be extradited to the U.S. and charged with espionage and that does/should not be put on top of the rape charges But we will see exactly what will happen starting Jan 11.

:lol::lol::lol:You'll be ready to defend him? What exaclty would you do if/when he is extradited?
I am sorry I don't defend rape, as some on here obviously do. You see, like Lucretia said, but obviously he does not, I think it is irrelevant to wikileaks whetever Assange is a rapist or not. We'd be ready to blockade the airport and/or the detention center. We've done this with other extraditions. I find that the be a quite more principled way to defend wikileaks than ignoring rape. And yes, as I said early early on I do believe this case is getting the attention it is getting because of involvement by the CIA, but not because Assange is by default innocent.

Also if you had a brain it might do you good to look up the actual facts in the case. You and lucretia here seem to be purposly unaware of a lot of thing's pertaining to this case.

Crux

7th January 2011, 21:15

I think the fact that you mentioned Assange in the second sentence of your response shows that we are perfectly on topic. Let's be clear. What we have here is you claiming that certain forms of body language are obvious signals that a person is withdrawing consent to sex, not specifying in any way what this body language might consist of, and not being able to connect it to any of Assange's behavior because of your admitted ignorance of what body language that accuser supposedly manifested. Yet, in the end, you insist that Assange is a sexist dirtbag guilty of rape if he did the things he's accused of doing, things which you finally are now being honest enough to admit you don't know the specifics of. And if anybody calls you on this bullshit, if anybody doesn't immediately agree with you that Assange is a rapist if he did what he's accused of doing (again, you don't really know what this is since you "do not claim to know the specifics"), he/she is automatically a labeled a sexist misogynist baby-eating homophobic spawn of satan creep.

What a piece of work you are.
He is a sexist, obvious from the quotes in the OP, but unlike you I do not claim to know whetever he is guilty or not. I know the specifics of the charges yes, I do not know the specifcs of what body language was used. Huge difference there, my little ignorant friend. You obviously revel in your ignorance because if you didn't you would have seen that I have in fact written some rather damning details, as well as some being included in the OP something I suppose you forgot about completely when going on your crusade against feminism.
So let me restate he, allegedly, continued to have sex with someone after the condom broke even though they specifically had agreed to use a condom and she showed with body langauge that she did not want to continue. Allegedly he broke the condom on purpose. This is the case that was initially designated rape but then changed to molestation. The second case concern, again, having sex with someone without a condom, only this time she was asleep and had not consented to sex. This is the rape case. If this is what you would consider his "sex life" I am, yet again, worried about what actions you might have comitted. That you defend these acts is nothing short of despicable.

Political_Chucky

7th January 2011, 21:22

Also if you had a brain it might do you good to look up the actual facts in the case. You and lucretia here seem to be purposly unaware of a lot of thing's pertaining to this case.

Such as?

Crux

7th January 2011, 21:23

Such as?
You're cool with people fucking people who are asleep without their consent? I know I am not.

Political_Chucky

7th January 2011, 21:25

You're cool with people fucking people who are asleep without their consent? I know I am not.

Wtf, that has nothing to do with the "facts" that I supposedly don't know... What don't I know pertaining to the case?

Crux

7th January 2011, 21:27

Wtf, that has nothing to do with the "facts" that I supposedly don't know... What don't I know pertaining to the case?
This is one of the thing's Assange is being accused of, and that you are ready to excuse.

Political_Chucky

7th January 2011, 21:29

This is one of the thing's Assange is being accused of, and that you are ready to excuse.

exactly, one of the things hes being accused of which neither of the women are charging him on...the police are... and they haven't even charged him, they have called him in for questioning.... is that the only thing I "do not know"?

Crux

7th January 2011, 21:42

exactly, one of the things hes being accused of which neither of the women are charging him on...the police are... and they haven't even charged him, they have called him in for questioning.... is that the only thing I "do not know"?
Clutching for straws I see. Or you think he is not going to be charged? There is an investigation, you know, you usually have investigations before you charge people. I don't see what is so difficult here.

Political_Chucky

7th January 2011, 22:01

Clutching for straws I see. Or you think he is not going to be charged? There is an investigation, you know, you usually have investigations before you charge people. I don't see what is so difficult here.

Clutching for straws? 1. You said I didn't know the facts and you keep avoiding an answer to my question. What do I not know, or where have I shown an ignorance to the facts? I just wanted an answer which you can't give me.

Yes, usually there are investigations you are correct. But there are two problems for which we have already pointed out. One, he has not been CHARGED. There is no reason for him to risk his life to go to a country where he is easily extradited to the U.S. if the Swedish Police do not want to press charges. If there is no one pursuing him on charges, especially the WOMEN, the party that should and would be trying to press charges if he were guilty of rape.

It seems like your assuming he is guilty right off the bat because of your own personal vendetta you have against him being a "dirt bag," a "Creep" or whatever it is. But you do see some type of fishy things going on if the only people pursuing him are the police and government no? Wouldn't it be MORE likely that they are trying to exploit a situation to have Assange arrested? I'm assuming your on the left since your not restricted, so with that, don't you believe the government has been guilty of doing similar things in the past?:rolleyes:

Crux

7th January 2011, 22:11

Clutching for straws? 1. You said I didn't know the facts and you keep avoiding an answer to my question. What do I not know, or where have I shown an ignorance to the facts? I just wanted an answer which you can't give me.

Yes, usually there are investigations you are correct. But there are two problems for which we have already pointed out. One, he has not been CHARGED. There is no reason for him to risk his life to go to a country where he is easily extradited to the U.S. if the Swedish Police do not want to press charges. If there is no one pursuing him on charges, especially the WOMEN, the party that should and would be trying to press charges if he were guilty of rape.

It seems like your assuming he is guilty right off the bat because of your own personal vendetta you have against him being a "dirt bag," a "Creep" or whatever it is. But you do see some type of fishy things going on if the only people pursuing him are the police and government no? Wouldn't it be MORE likely that they are trying to exploit a situation to have Assange arrested? I'm assuming your on the left since your not restricted, so with that, don't you believe the government has been guilty of doing similar things in the past?:rolleyes:
I am not assuming he is guilty, but, unlike you, I am not assuming he is innocent. And he is no doubt going to be charged, what has been showed is that they initially did not want to pursue charges, they certainly are now. Again there is an ongoing investigation. furthermore any extradition from sweden has to be approved by the UK, so hopefully this will not happen. In any case I will not cover for a potential rapist, but I will oppose any extradtion. I have already made this very very clear, so stop trying to pin opinions on me I do not hold. This has happened from the very beginning. This thread itself has also showed why I made it, an apparent ignorance not just of swedish sex crime legislation but feminism in general, that sadly has a presence on the left as well. And why exactly should I be restricted? You can not read or something?

Political_Chucky

8th January 2011, 01:29

I am not assuming he is guilty, but, unlike you, I am not assuming he is innocent. And he is no doubt going to be charged, what has been showed is that they initially did not want to pursue charges, they certainly are now. Again there is an ongoing investigation. furthermore any extradition from Sweden has to be approved by the UK, so hopefully this will not happen.

In any case I will not cover for a potential rapist, but I will oppose any extradtion. I have already made this very very clear, so stop trying to pin opinions on me I do not hold. This has happened from the very beginning.

I am not assuming he is guilty or innocent, but I don't think the actions Sweden would like to take(him going to Sweden where he is to possibly be extradited on espionage charges) would be beneficial to Assange, or wikileaks at all(because the media will associate what ever happens to Assange with wikileaks, whether it is valid or not). With one person's word against another, and no real evidence to prove that a condom was purposely damaged or that forcible sex while sleeping had occurred, this case will not be successful. However, it does serve its intended purpose- damaging Mr. Assange's reputation and turning public opinion against him.

Also, I don't know anything about how the UK must approve the extradition, but in either case I think your very naive to believe they wouldn't. I'm not accusing you of wanting him to be extradited, but he will be whether or not he is guilty if he is sent to Sweden. Whether you want that or not is not yours, Sweden's, or the UK's choice because the pressure the U.S. will put on these countries far out weighs the rationality of any given situation.

This thread itself has also showed why I made it, an apparent ignorance not just of swedish sex crime legislation but feminism in general, that sadly has a presence on the left as well.I don't see how in this context how anybody here has disregard rape as a serious issue and only proves most people can think a little bit outside the box because of the situation at hand. If you'd like to delve deeper in The Swedes and their initial response to sex crimes, then you know that

** Sweden has the HIGHEST per capita number of reported rapes in Europe.
** This number of rapes has quadrupled in the last 20 years.
** The conviction rates? They have steadily DECREASED.
http://www.gn.apc.org/network/news/sweden-has-worst-rape-conviction-record-europe

The statistics are certainly alarming. Results from the annual, government commissioned National Safety Survey (NTU), which is conducted by BRÅ, indicate that the actual number of rapes in Sweden in 2006 was estimated to be close to 30,000.

If this figure is correct, then it indicates that as few as 5-10 percent of all rapes are reported to the police.

Equally disturbing is the statistic from BRÅ stating that in 2007, less than 13 percent of the 3,535 rape crimes reported resulted in a decision to start legal proceedings.http://www.thelocal.se/19124/20090428/

Just the fact the Sweden has not had a great history on sex crimes before this shows that there is huge hidden agenda behind this. Also, the fact the women are still anonymous is still a very large issue at hand. Who they are and potential motives could be swaying evidence on the defense's side.

And why exactly should I be restricted? You can not read or something?I did not request or state that you should be restricted. My point was that since you indeed are a leftist, then you should recognize that the state is very capable of crime and using the justice system to their legal advantage. One example off the top of my head which is very similar and relevant to this case(considering they were charge for espionage):

Rosenburgs
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/rosenb.htm

FreeEire

8th January 2011, 02:00

I don't think anyone had Assange down as a "Leftist" in the RevLeft sense of the word. I've always only cared about the leaks and the Wikileaks idea, the over reliance on Assange was always doomed to failure, as people are infinitely fallible.

I'm no legal expert (however I am starting a major in that field) but what I have so far discerned about the particulars of the case is that it would not be prosecutable in most other jurisdictions, which indicates that Sweden may have laws which are too rigid in these cases. For instance, this so-called "sex by surprise" offence is punishable only by a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715, not jail.

I read a few weeks ago on a news site that one of the alleged victims is a organiser for a Swedish mainstream political party who lauded her encounter with Assange as something of a sexual triumph (obviously I don't know how objective the story was) and only afterwards did things move on.

Lets not forget that the incident had been forgotten about until Marianne Ny opened a case on a far lesser charge in the wake of the major leaks. The reason there's such a big issue about the case is because the US might use it to extradite Assange for charging with the leaks.

feraliagenitalia

8th January 2011, 02:41

I am not assuming he is guilty or innocent, but I don't think the actions Sweden would like to take(him going to Sweden where he is to possibly be extradited on espionage charges) would be beneficial to Assange,

If you are accused of a crime, the actions of a countrys legal system aint supposed to be beneficial for you.

or wikileaks at all(because the media will associate what ever happens to Assange with wikileaks, whether it is valid or not)

If media associates wikileaks with espionage then there is no difference from the situation today.

With one person's word against another, and no real evidence to prove that a condom was purposely damaged or that forcible sex while sleeping had occurred, this case will not be successful. However, it does serve its intended purpose- damaging Mr. Assange's reputation and turning public opinion against him.

1) How do you know of the intended purpose?

2) Are you honestly saying that you shouldnt try this case (or other cases of alleged rape for that matter) because of what you say is lack of evidence? Are you serious?

Just the fact the Sweden has not had a great history on sex crimes before this shows that there is huge hidden agenda behind this.

Once again you prove that you know jack shit.

Sadly i didnt save the URL to a very good response to michael moores bullshit letter, but hopefully i'll make do.

We DO have a liberal definition of the word rape here in sweden. Not nearly as liberal as some of you claim here, with bullshit like "sex by surprise" and "sex without a condom" but a liberal definition non the less, which i am assured is matched by very few countries around the world.

I could bring up other more hands on examples but my point is this: The main reason we have high rape statistiscs in sweden is because of the progress we've made in womens- and equality issues, not despite of it. With less social stigma and with less of bullshit rapist apologists it's pretty logical that more women report and press charges in rape cases.

Also, the fact the women are still anonymous is still a very large issue at hand. Who they are and potential motives could be swaying evidence on the defense's side.

Last time i checked, this was not the case.

My point was that since you indeed are a leftist, then you should recognize that the state is very capable of crime and using the justice system to their legal advantage.

Julian Assange blames swedens "revolutionary feminist movement", not the CIA. This makes him a dirtbag even if he's innocent.

Crux

8th January 2011, 02:42

Political_Chucky

8th January 2011, 03:12

I read a few weeks ago on a news site that one of the alleged victims is a organiser for a Swedish mainstream political party who lauded her encounter with Assange as something of a sexual triumph (obviously I don't know how objective the story was) and only afterwards did things move on..

And this kinda reiterates more on that

She's a 31-year-old blond academic and member of the Social Democratic Party who's known for her radical feminist views, once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men and was once thrown out of Cuba for subversive activities.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/

I'd like to see more on the possible motives and less anonymity with the women.

Crux

8th January 2011, 03:19

And this kinda reiterates more on that

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/

I'd like to see more on the possible motives and less anonymity with the women.
I don't. I know their names and specifics. For obvious reasons I will not divulge that information. I can say this though the Woman A is a CIA spy line, at least going by what we know so far, is very very thin.
They need to have motives to get raped? I never knew.
But yeah if you are really interested the information is already out there.

redz

8th January 2011, 03:22

You missed the part where I showed you you know fuck all about swedish sex crime legislation?
I suggest you read that post instead of just going on in your obvious ignorance.

While some members of the Swedish section of the CWI appear to be happily cheerleading the actions of the Swedish capitalist state authorities in their efforts to capture Julian Assange (while enforcing Sweden's campaign against women's rights) and tailing the bourgeois feminists who are assisting this crusade, it may be helpful to understand that there are women's rights advocates in Europe and in Sweden that are vigorously opposing the state anti-sex/anti-women crusade, defending women's rights, and defending Assange.

One of these is the noted European leftist women's rights activist Laura Agustin (who also campaigns for the rights of sex workers). A recent posting from her blog, relevant to these issues, is posted below.

Redz

http://www.lauraagustin.com/is-rape-rampant-in-gender-equal-sweden

Laura Agustín, the Naked Anthropologist

Border Thinking on Migration, Trafficking and Commercial Sex

Is rape rampant in gender-equal Sweden? Re Assange and Wikileaks

8 December 2010 by laura agustin | 23 comments | print print

Given the considerable confusion about Julian Assange’s sex with a couple of women in Sweden, perhaps what I wrote last year about Swedish rape law can be clarifying.

As regular readers know, I’m trying to figure out how the lovely utopian goal of Gender Equality landed us in a future I never expected, where ‘progressive’ and ‘feminist’ could be associated with policies that position women as innately passive victims. Activists interested in sex-industry legislation usually cite Swedish prostitution law as the fount of all evil, with its criminalisation of the buying of sexual services. This law is a cornerstone of an overall Swedish policy to foment Gender Equality, and so is rape legislation that has led to bizarre statistics commented on in this story published in Sweden’s English-language daily The Local.

The Local, 11 May 2009

Is rape rampant in gender-equal Sweden?

Laura Agustín

from okejsex.nu

Rape is a complicated crime. A research project funded by the European Commission’s Daphne programme reveals that Sweden leads Europe in reports of rape. At 46.5 per 100,000 members of the population, Sweden far surpasses Iceland, which comes next with 36, and England and Wales after that with 26. At the same time, Sweden’s 10 percent conviction rate of rape suspects is one of Europe’s lowest.

The report’s comparative dimension should probably be ignored. Instead of assuming that there are four times as many rapes in Sweden as in neighbouring Denmark or Finland, as the figures suggest, to understand we would have to compare all the definitional and procedural differences between their legal systems. It is significant that Sweden counts every event between the same two people separately where other countries count them as one. Most of Sweden’s rapes involve people who know each other, in domestic settings.

The countries reporting highest rates of rape are northern European with histories of social programming to end violence against women. In Sweden, Gender Equality is taught in schools and reinforced in public-service announcements. Should we believe that such education has no effect, or, much worse, an opposite effect? Raging anti-feminist men think so, and raging anti-immigrant Swedes blame foreigners. Amnesty International says patriarchal norms are intransigent in Swedish family life. Everyone faults the criminal justice system.

In contemporary Sweden, women and girls are encouraged to speak up assertively about gender bias and demand their rights. Public discussions have revolved around how to achieve equal sex: Gender Equality in the bedroom. We can consult okejsex.nu, an official campaign whose homepage shows pedestrians obliviously passing buildings full of scenes of violence, suggesting it is ubiquitous behind closed doors. Okejsex defines rape as any situation where sex occurs after someone has said no.

In many countries, and in many people’s minds, rape means penetration, usually by a penis, into a mouth, vagina or anus. In Swedish rape law, the word can be used for acts called assault or bodily harm in other countries.

That may be progressive, but it’s also confusing. You don’t have to be sexist or racist to imagine the misunderstandings that may arise. If younger people (or older, for that matter) have been out drinking and dancing and end up in a flat relaxing late at night, we are not surprised that the possibility of sex is raised. The process of getting turned on – and being seduced – is often vague and strange, involving looks and feelings rather than clear intentions. It is easy to go along and actively enjoy this process until some point when it becomes unenjoyable. We resist, but feebly. Sometimes we give in against our true wishes.

Sweden is also proud of its generous policy towards asylum-seekers and other migrants who may not instantly comprehend what Gender Equality means here, or that not explicitly violent or penetrative sex acts are understood as rape. That doesn’t mean that non-Swedes are rapists but that a large area exists where crossed signals are likely, for instance, amongst people out on the town drinking.

Discussions of rape nowadays use examples of women who are asleep, or have taken drugs or drunk too much alcohol, in order to argue that they cannot properly consent to sex. If they feel taken advantage of the next day, they may call what happened rape. The Daphne project’s Sweden researchers propose that those accused of rape ought to have to ‘prove consent’, but attempts to legislate and document seduction and desire are unlikely to succeed.

What isn’t questioned, in most public discussions, is the idea that the problem must be addressed by more laws, ever more explicit and strict. Contemporary society insists that punishment is the way to stop sexual violence, despite evidence suggesting that criminal law has little impact on sexual behaviour.

We want to think that if laws were perfectly written and police, prosecutors and judges were perfectly fair, then rapes would decrease because a) all rapists would go to jail and b) all potential rapists would be deterred from committing crime. Unfortunately, little evidence corroborates this idea. Debates crystallise in black-and-white simplifications that supposedly pit politically correct arguments against the common sense of regular folk. Subtleties and complications are buried under masses of rhetoric, and commentaries turn cynical: ‘Nothing will change’, ‘the police are pigs’, immigrants are terrorists, girls are liars.

Is it realistic or kind to teach that life in Sweden can always be safe, comfortable and impervious to outside influences? That, in the sexual sphere, everything disagreeable should be called rape and abuse? Although the ‘right’ to Gender Equality exists, we cannot expect daily life to change overnight because it does.

–-Laura Agustín, the Naked Anthropologist

Political_Chucky

8th January 2011, 03:23

I don't. I know their names and specifics. For obvious reasons I will not divulge that information. I can say this though the Woman A is a CIA spy line, at least going by what we know so far, is very very thin.
They need to have motives to get raped? I never knew.

No, they don't NEED to. But if there are possible motives then that clearly is evidence.

You love to paraphrase people incorrectly don't you?

Crux

8th January 2011, 03:37

While some members of the Swedish section of the CWI appear to be happily cheerleading the actions of the Swedish capitalist state authorities in their efforts to capture Julian Assange (while enforcing Sweden's campaign against women's rights) and tailing the bourgeois feminists who are assisting this crusade, it may be helpful to understand that there are women's rights advocates in Europe and in Sweden that are vigorously opposing the state anti-sex/anti-women crusade, defending women's rights, and defending Assange.

One of these is the noted European leftist women's rights activist Laura Agustin (who also campaigns for the rights of sex workers). A recent posting from her blog, relevant to these issues, is posted below.

Redz
"Sweden's campaign against women's rights"? Do explain the details. Yes sweden has more reported rapes. This is a positive thing. However the inherent sexism in the police corps and the judicial system in general does have some pretty horrible effects. And yes, not I nor anyone else has claimed that laws are the end all for feminist struggle. This is all beside the issue however.

Political_Chucky

8th January 2011, 03:48

"Sweden's campaign against women's rights"? Do explain the details. Yes sweden has more reported rapes. This is a positive thing. However the inherent sexism in the police corps and the judicial system in general does have some pretty horrible effects. And yes, not I nor anyone else has claimed that laws are the end all for feminist struggle. This is all beside the issue however.

They have more reported rapes, yet less convictions. How is that a positive thing?

redz

8th January 2011, 12:52

I am sorry I don't defend rape, as some on here obviously do. You see, like Lucretia said, but obviously he does not, I think it is irrelevant to wikileaks whetever Assange is a rapist or not.

According to the article below, Assange isn't actually being charged with rape - but rather other new Swedish laws that seem to try to regulate other subtleties of male-female interaction. Meanwhile, it claims that Assange is just being smeared by the "rape" charge.

Redz

http://www.fastcompany.com/1707146/wikileaks-assange-wanted-for-sex-by-surprise-but-the-internet-thinks-hes-a-rapist

Fast Company
Fri Dec 3, 2010

Anatomy of a Smear: WikiLeaks' Assange Wanted for "Sex by Surprise," Not Rape

BY Kit Eaton

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is facing arrest for violating a Swedish law about sex without condoms, rather than a mainstream interpretation of "rape." Yet that's the charge reports often levy against him. Behold the smear campaign.

The New York Times wrote about the case on Thursday, noting that Swedish authorities were hunting Assange on charges of "rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion." It commented on the alleged offense, stating claims by two women that "each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual."

The Swedish charges aren't exactly new, though. Some of the media had reported "rape" allegations back in August, and the Daily Mail even asserted the first alleged illegal act occurred when a condom broke, and the woman concerned "whatever her views about the incident," then "appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day." At this seminar, Assange met the second alleged victim and "a source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one."

Assange has questioned the "veracity" of the two women's statements, as the Times report notes. Assange's former lawyer yesterday "confirmed" the charges were to do with sexual misconduct concerning sex without condoms. Assange's current lawyer then revealed Swedish prosectors had told him they were not seeking Assange for "rape" at all, instead the alleged crime is "sex by surprise," which carries a penalty of a fine, although the details of the allegations haven't been revealed yet.

Then came the Interpol warrant, and with it, a new life for the previous rape accusations.

But few outlets are as concerned as the Times with nuance. Washington's Blog, to its credit, does report that the Swedish arrest warrant--and the following Interpol alert, adding Assange to its "most wanted" list--makes no reference to "rape." Instead Assange is being sought for sexual "coercion," after engaging in what was an allegedly non-consensual sex act with two women on two separate occasions within a short space of time. The act in question was sex without a condom, seemingly without the consent of the two women involved. Assange is also alleged to have been reluctant to submit to medical tests for sexually transmitted diseases. The two women reported him to the police, together, leading to the first arrest warrant for "rape," from a duty prosecutor, which was quickly canceled, then a later warrant for "sexual coercion."

A Google search for "Julian Assange rape" returns over 445,000 responses. See the above wordcloud generated from the top 50. The stand-out word is obvious. And while some of these results include Assange's statements alleging a "dirty tricks" campaign, there are more damning mainstream links, such as a September 1st story from the Associated Press, picked up by the Huffington Post and headlined, "Julian Assange Rape Investigation Reopened: Sweden Probing Wikileaks Founder." The body of the text mentions Sweden's chief prosecutor's comments noting there was "no reason to suspect that Assange, an Australian citizen, had raped a Swedish woman who had reported him to the police," and the AP notes that the new warrant was for "sexual coercion and sexual molestation" which "overruled a previous decision to only investigate the case as 'molestation,' which is not a sex offense under Swedish law." In other words, the AP's text implies no mention of "rape" but the hot eye-grabbing headline does--it's an old libel loophole. The "rape" part technically describes the investigation, not what Assange allegedly did.

We're absolutely not condoning non-consensual sex acts in any way, but arguably this story isn't about subtleties of semantics and centers on the labyrinthine--and seemingly nation-specific--laws Assange has violated. Yet the very Internets that Assange is using to crusade against government secrecy have enabled an almost unavoidable link between the words "Assange" and "rape" regardless of the precise nature of the allegations against him. Assange's character is thus extensively digitally smeared whether or not he is actually found guilty in court.

Call it a trial by Internet, a jury of Assange's peers.

feraliagenitalia

8th January 2011, 14:55

According to the article below, Assange isn't actually being charged with rape - but rather other new Swedish laws that seem to try to regulate other subtleties of male-female interaction. Meanwhile, it claims that Assange is just being smeared by the "rape" charge.

Redz

Seriously, dont you read what people write here? Once again: There is NO SUCH THING AS SEX BY SURPRISE IN THE SWEDISH LEGAL SYSTEM!

feraliagenitalia

8th January 2011, 15:00

it may be helpful to understand that there are women's rights advocates in Europe and in Sweden that are vigorously opposing the state anti-sex/anti-women crusade, defending women's rights, and defending Assange.

One of these is the noted European leftist women's rights activist Laura Agustin (who also campaigns for the rights of sex workers). A recent posting from her blog, relevant to these issues, is posted below.

Redz

Did you actually read the quote? First of all she does a pretty good job explaining why the rape statistics are so high in sweden, and second of all, nowhere in the text is she "opposing the [alleged] state anti-sex/anti-women crusade"

Not very smart trying to make a point with a source that confirms that your idea of rape in sweden is utter bull.

feraliagenitalia

8th January 2011, 15:07

Political_Chucky

9th January 2011, 00:16

I would still like to hear your opinion on the fact that Assange himself neither blames the CIA nor laws "made to infantilize women" but rather swedens "revolutionary feminist"-movement. Obviously according to Assange, women have it to good in sweden. Thus, he's a dirtbag.

metro.se/2010/12/28/30419/assane-gar-till-hart-angrepp-mot-sver

Assange is not attacking women in general, he is attacking the strong feminist movement in Sweden that apparently is very militant.

In addition, Borgstrom has already proved himself a force to be reckoned with in the Assange case. As the lawyer for the two accusers, he sharply criticized prosecutor Eva Finne's decision to dismiss the rape case against Assange on Aug. 21 because she felt the claims lacked "substance." Borgstrom appealed the decision and within a week, another prosecutor, Marianne Ny, was brought in and re-opened it.

Borgstrom has been associated with some of the more militant feminist Swedish politicians, like Gudrun Schyman (http://www.schyman.se/en), a former member of the Swedish Parliament who now runs the Feminist Initiative (http://www.feministisktinitiativ.se/engelska.php), a political party.

Schyman once compared all men to the Taliban and proposed what was called a "man tax" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article581663.ece) to cover the cost of domestic violence and sexual harassment of women. Borgstrom reportedly agreed with her idea for a man tax.

Borgstrom spent several years as the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman of Sweden, in which he acted as a watchdog ensuring gender equality all over the country. He was also the spokesman on gender equality issues for the Social Democratic Party.

Schyman's Feminist Initiative and Sweden's feminist movement took a hit in 2005 when a TV documentary about Swedish feminism, "The Gender War," shocked the country.

The respected head of Sweden's government-run network of women's shelters, Ireen von Wachenfeldt, was asked on camera if she agreed with a statement printed on some shelter literature saying: "To call a man an animal is to flatter him: he's a machine, a walking dildo."

Wachenfeldt said, "Yes. Men are animals. Don't you think so?"

The documentary also focused on Eva Lundgren (http://genderingviolence.soc.uu.se/Keynotes/Eva_Lundgren/), a prominent feminist and professor at Uppsala University, where one of Assange's accusers has been working as a research assistant.

Lundgren claimed in the documentary that at least half of all Swedish women have been the victims of male violence. She also said that a number of Swedish men involved with Satanic groups had murdered hundreds of babies as part of bizarre rituals.

A university inquiry into her claims formally discredited them, but she still works there.

Jenny Westerstrand, a researcher at Uppsala, was part of the university's well-known feminist research department with Lundgren until it was closed down two years ago. She said that Sweden has benefited from pressure from feminists on women's issues.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/08/lawyer-assange-faces-tough-climate-in-feminist-friendly-swede/

THIS is why we need less anonymity with the accusers. They, and the lawyer, clearly have political motives.

It doesn't suprise me that some revlefters on here jump on the idea that Assange is some rapist or idiot just because his systematic views don't align with ours. He is clearly doing something progressive with Wikileaks and has shown nothing but the contray that he is a rapist or against women's rights.

It also makes me wonder whether Majakovskij is just arguing against Assange for the sake of some personal ideas about Assange rather then using rationality since you have said you do know more about the women and it is indeed on the internet, but you will not say anything concerning them. This, in my opinion, shows more inequality towards men then women.

Dimentio

9th January 2011, 00:25

Eva Lundgren is a shame for the feminist movement and I hope people ignore her and her insane accusations. The "satanist pedophile network"-conspiracy theories are for the feminist movement what 9/11 conspiracies are for the anti-war movement. At the same time, I find it opportunistic by the Swedish government to create a case out of this. Even if sleep sex is not something to be condoned and is rape, the second woman don't seem to have treated that as a problem, but rather that Julian did it without a condome.

I am thinking this is hurtful to both the women and to Julian Assange. They did not want to press charges. They just wanted advice.

As for Gudrun Schyman. She is... ehm... special. But I do believe that she is sincere, and I don't think she is hating men. After all, she was at one point together with two at the same time.

Dimentio

9th January 2011, 00:33

As for Claes Borgstrom, his feminist credentials are - if taken alone - pretty impressive.

Sadly, he is striking me as an opportunistic broiler. That is not because of anything he has done in relation to his political activism, but because of his role as the defense attorney for Thomas Quick, a mentally ill drug-abuser who confessed a dozen murders he hadn't committed (or could have committed), and was sentenced for live incarceration. He consistently adviced Thomas to confess, just because the establishment right then craved for a Swedish serial killer.

That built his career. He is a guy who have committed perjury in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Quick

The Swedish justice system is bizarre, and exactly identical crimes could have totally different outcomes depending on who is the victim, who is the perpetrator, who is the judge. It is almost totally random.

redz

9th January 2011, 00:51

Seriously, dont you read what people write here? Once again: There is NO SUCH THING AS SEX BY SURPRISE IN THE SWEDISH LEGAL SYSTEM!

This characterization was given by Assange's attorney after a briefing from the prosecutors, of whom the chief, Marianne Ny, is credited as one of the authors of the "sex crimes" laws in question. My suspicion is that this was her interpretation of the meaning of the law and she conveyed that to Assange's lawyer.

The most significant feature of the article that I just posted, in my opinion, is that it makes the contention that "rape" is not actually mentioned in the charges released by the Swedish prosecutors (and, as far as I know, Assange is merely "wanted for questioning" on these charges - there is no indictment - yet, on this basis, an international All Points Bulletin and "Red Notice" from Interpol were issued!).

Redz

redz

9th January 2011, 01:37

Did you actually read the quote? First of all she does a pretty good job explaining why the rape statistics are so high in sweden, and second of all, nowhere in the text is she "opposing the [alleged] state anti-sex/anti-women crusade"

Augustin's remarks clearly criticized the web of Swedish "sex crime" laws - e.g., "I’m trying to figure out how the lovely utopian goal of Gender Equality landed us in a future I never expected, where ‘progressive’ and ‘feminist’ could be associated with policies that position women as innately passive victims."

Augustin has mainly been involved in criticizing Sweden's draconian attack on sex work (either demonizing sex workers or disparaging them as helpless "victims"). Altogether, this campaign by the Swedish capitalist state (backed by bourgeois feminists) represents both a direct and a backdoor attack on sexual behavior and women's rights, with the objective of regimenting social behavior and enforcing a trend back toward a more "family-oriented" cultural climate.

Augustin's criticism of Sweden's rape statistics suggests that these are so high because Sweden has such a broader definition of "rape" than do most other countries.

Redz

Crux

9th January 2011, 12:57

This characterization was given by Assange's attorney after a briefing from the prosecutors, of whom the chief, Marianne Ny, is credited as one of the authors of the "sex crimes" laws in question. My suspicion is that this was her interpretation of the meaning of the law and she conveyed that to Assange's lawyer.

Redz
Your "suspicions" lays on a solid foundation a thin air and our own prejudice. Whereas it is clearly shown this was the charecterization given by his attorney, why should be obvious. This is what lawayers do in rape cases. Blame the victim.

Crux

9th January 2011, 13:04

Assange is not attacking women in general, he is attacking the strong feminist movement in Sweden that apparently is very militant.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/08/lawyer-assange-faces-tough-climate-in-feminist-friendly-swede/

THIS is why we need less anonymity with the accusers. They, and the lawyer, clearly have political motives.

It doesn't suprise me that some revlefters on here jump on the idea that Assange is some rapist or idiot just because his systematic views don't align with ours. He is clearly doing something progressive with Wikileaks and has shown nothing but the contray that he is a rapist or against women's rights.

It also makes me wonder whether Majakovskij is just arguing against Assange for the sake of some personal ideas about Assange rather then using rationality since you have said you do know more about the women and it is indeed on the internet, but you will not say anything concerning them. This, in my opinion, shows more inequality towards men then women.
I have no "personal ideas" about Assange. His statements are clear. And the whole "men are animals" thing is old hat, right wing blackpainting and attack on the feminist movement. Which side are you on? "Inequality towarss men"? No it's about defending the right of rape victims. Ideally no information should have been leaked about either part in this case.

Fabrizio

9th January 2011, 13:10

who cares if he's a "dirtbag"?

Also the OP is talking rubish about him "choosing" the court of public opinion. You may notice that the media started attackign him as a "dirtbag" before he took hsi case to the media. And you may noticve that he's been treted unbelievably heavy handedly by the courts, giving him no place to go but to appeal to public opinion, as he's got no chance of fair treatment by the state otherwise.

Amazing how all you have to do is throw ina few sexual allegations against a man, and ostensible "revolutionaries" show their ouritanical side, and become attack dogs of the establishment.

I support Assnage all the way, hes done more against the right, imperialism and war than any shitty far-left sect.

Crux

9th January 2011, 18:38

FreeEire

9th January 2011, 18:51

There is no such thing. Simply spin created by Assange's lawyer. (http://www.tressugar.com/Sex-Surprise-Swedish-Law-12475176)
Thank you for that. I'm sorry if a lot of Swedish comrades are getting annoyed by this misunderstanding, but this was the main story carried in English about the case which a large number of people have saw. Unfortunately its a difficult case to follow over here, and only gets coverage when Assange releases or gives a statement about something.

As I said previously, I'm only interested in Wikileaks and the documents. Hinging it all on one personality was a big mistake and I'm certain that while I view Assange's actions as wrong, there is definitely another hand at play in this situation which is keeping it moving along to destroy Wikileaks by attacking the characters on the surface rather than its "underground" volunteers. They're hoping to cut off the head of Wikileaks in other words, hoping it will fall too.

One of the women (edit: Anna Ardin) is definately out for blood on political motivations, she was detained and removed from Cuba on sabotage allegations (which to me, means American Intelligence involvement at some level). On a more human note, what Assange was thinking going near her is beyond me when he should have known this?

Crux

9th January 2011, 20:05

Thank you for that. I'm sorry if a lot of Swedish comrades are getting annoyed by this misunderstanding, but this was the main story carried in English about the case which a large number of people have saw. Unfortunately its a difficult case to follow over here, and only gets coverage when Assange releases or gives a statement about something.

As I said previously, I'm only interested in Wikileaks and the documents. Hinging it all on one personality was a big mistake and I'm certain that while I view Assange's actions as wrong, there is definitely another hand at play in this situation which is keeping it moving along to destroy Wikileaks by attacking the characters on the surface rather than its "underground" volunteers. They're hoping to cut off the head of Wikileaks in other words, hoping it will fall too.

One of the women (edit: Anna Ardin) is definately out for blood on political motivations, she was detained and removed from Cuba on sabotage allegations (which to me, means American Intelligence involvement at some level). On a more human note, what Assange was thinking going near her is beyond me when he should have known this?
As far as I understand it she was extradited from Cuba fopr being there to meet with the White Ladies, an oppositional group. I wish it was solid evidence for CIA involvement, but really I don't think it is. No doubt however is that various agencies leaked the issue to media and took advantage of it. But yeah, it*s not all about Assange. The sooner people realize this the better.

FreeEire

9th January 2011, 20:30

As far as I understand it she was extradited from Cuba fopr being there to meet with the White Ladies, an oppositional group. I wish it was solid evidence for CIA involvement, but really I don't think it is. No doubt however is that various agencies leaked the issue to media and took advantage of it. But http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1983059yeah, it*s not all about Assange. The sooner people realize this the better.
One Leftist blog (not sure how reliable) called the "Cuban dissident" group which she met as "CIA funded" but obviously such claims are generally impossible to prove.

Personally from what I've saw of her, I wouldn't like her one bit. She seems to be a centre-right careerist type who wouldn't hesitate to destroy lives if it benefited her in any way. Either way Assange is responsible for his own behaviour and should have known this if he has any intelligence at all.

According to other blogs, Ardin's brother is involved with the Swedish intelligence services comparable to the CIA or Britain's MI5.

But yeah, its not all about Assange. There are hundreds of concerning stories within the leaks, whether about Afghanistan, Iraq or the Diplomatic Cables which need coverage.

Dimentio

9th January 2011, 21:22

Why haven't the Swedish prosecutor moved for him to be extradited yet? It has been a month now.

Political_Chucky

11th January 2011, 03:16

Why haven't the Swedish prosecutor moved for him to be extradited yet? It has been a month now.

Julian Assange faces a hearing in court tomorrow regarding extradition

Majakovskij

I have no "personal ideas" about Assange. His statements are clear. And the whole "men are animals" thing is old hat, right wing blackpainting and attack on the feminist movement. Which side are you on? "Inequality towarss men"? No it's about defending the right of rape victims. Ideally no information should have been leaked about either part in this case.
Obviously I'm on the side of having a fair prosecution for both sides, which is not the case on this situation. Just the fact the prosecution has these motives is makes it pretty obvious why this case of rape is being sought after.

FreeEire

Personally from what I've saw of her, I wouldn't like her one bit. She seems to be a centre-right careerist type who wouldn't hesitate to destroy lives if it benefited her in any way. Either way Assange is responsible for his own behaviour and should have known this if he has any intelligence at all.Whether he has intelligence at all, (which is only an argument against his character that is not even the case) just shows how extremely likely he is innocent in these accusations.

Meh, I'm done with this argument. You'll want to believe whatever you want to believe, even if the truth is right in front of you. Just makes you naive for not questioning the motives of somebody prosecuting an important figure in this transparency movement and a cause for freedom of the press.

Pretty Flaco

11th January 2011, 03:36

Please tell me that I'm not the only one who thought this thread was funny because the title says Julian Assange is "probably" a dirt bag. :lol:

Wikileaks might be evil and some cables could possibly maybe be slightly revealing about other unnecessary uses of certain words in some sentences.

redz

11th January 2011, 22:55

The Red Keyhole blog has a new article on the WikiLeaks case, excerpting comments from Dr. Susan Block ("Dr. Suzy"), perhaps America's most leftwing libertine women's rights activist. Here's the intro to the main article with the comments from Dr. Suzy:

http://redkeyhole.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/dr-suzy-weighs-in-support-wikileaks-free-julian-assange/

Red Keyhole
10 January 2011

Dr. Suzy weighs in: Support WikiLeaks! Free Julian Assange!

Ultra-liberated women’s rights sex maven Dr. Susan Block, aka “Dr. Suzy” (possibly the best answer from the left to the likes of stiffnecked “family values” champions like Dr. Laura and Dr. Phil) has weighted in on the WikiLeaks issue and Julian Assange “sex crimes” case – and definitely on the right (i.e., left) side. Besides her website, Dr. Suzy publishes her comments in an online blog, Dr. Block’s Journal, and the following excerpt from her most recent posting focuses on the WikiLeaks affair, Sweden’s “sex crimes” attack on Julian Assange, Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” selection of Facebook mogul Mark Zuckerberg instead of Assange, and the plight of Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of (courageously) leaking the damaging
US government documents to WikiLeaks.

Dr. Suzy makes the interesting observation that the reason that “most organized religions and authoritarian regimes try to confine sex to procreation” is “because recreation leads to revolution.” Gee, there might be something to that…

Especially refreshing is Dr. Suzy’s characterization of US imperialism setting its target sights to take down Julian Assange over…

a broken condom, two aggressive blonde groupies and a mixed up dish of Swedish meatheads. The shoddy sheepskin has captured the world’s attention and not in a positive way for Sweden or the U.S., because, really, what are we extraditing over here … a Wikileaky rubber? International media is filled with a multitude of strong opinions as to just how leaky a condom has to be before the Swedes can call the consensual sex that accompanied it a “rape.”

So, with that intro, here’s the excerpt with Dr. Suzy’s take on these sexual politics issues of interest…
The WikiLeaks-Assange comments are posted in the rest of the article, which includes links to her website and blog. I especially liked her references to the "Swedish meatheads" and extraditing a "Wikileaky rubber" ...

Redz

Crux

11th January 2011, 23:40

The Red Keyhole blog has a new article on the WikiLeaks case, excerpting comments from Dr. Susan Block ("Dr. Suzy"), perhaps America's most leftwing libertine women's rights activist. Here's the intro to the main article with the comments from Dr. Suzy:

The WikiLeaks-Assange comments are posted in the rest of the article, which includes links to her website and blog. I especially liked her references to the "Swedish meatheads" and extraditing a "Wikileaky rubber" ...

Redz
massive strawman. Stop spamming, sexist.

BLACKPLATES

12th January 2011, 06:39

redz

12th January 2011, 15:16

massive strawman. Stop spamming, sexist.

Oh dear ... Well, I certainly didn't expect the little dollop I posted from Dr. Suzy to go down well with the "Swedish meatheads" ...

Now I guess the Assange-bashers will be adding Dr. Suzy to their growing list of "sexists" and "misogynists" ...

Anyway ... I will say that, on this issue, I'd much rather be on the same side with a roaring-hot, leftwing, BONA FIDE women's rights activist like Dr. Suzy rather than the collection of bureaucratic Swedish bourgeois feminists within and close to the Swedish state, that some members of the Swedish CWI seem to be tailing after...

Redz

Crux

12th January 2011, 15:17

and apparently the more weight one gives womens issues, the more one is inclined to internalize the alleged rape narrative and give the US imperialist capitalist death machine and its swedish stooges the benefit of the doubt. I was a cop for 12 years in the US., where i live. if there were a rape, he would be charged. the US wants him in jail in sweden. there would be no attempt to extradite him "for questioning". I am as certain of this as i have ever been certain of anything.
And apparently misinformation about the case, about feminism, about rape and sexual violence in general, and about swedish legislation makes you a better wikileaks supporter. No one here, as far as I know, is doubting that the U.S and their swedish stooges has taken advantage of this. That is not the argument.

Crux

12th January 2011, 15:21

Oh dear ... Well, I certainly didn't expect the little dollop I posted from Dr. Suzy to go down well with the "Swedish meatheads" ...

Now I guess the Assange-bashers will be adding Dr. Suzy to their growing list of "sexists" and "misogynists" ...

Anyway ... I will say I'd much rather be on the same side with a roaring-hot, leftwing, BONA FIDE women's rights activist like Dr. Suzy rather than the collection of bureaucratic Swedish bourgeois feminists within and close to the Swedish state, that some members of the Swedish CWI seem to be tailing after...

Redz
No but it's based on the ridicolous and completely false notion that consensual sex without a condom would be criminal. If that were the case I would be upset, thankfully it is not. So she, like many others is just being ignorant. You however seem to be completely imprevious to anything that counters you're already set and factually wrong ides. Yes factually. This is not about opinions. This is about facts. You don't know shit about swedish legsliation and what you do know is evidently false. Before you get your facts straight and stop spamming faulty information I would think it is impossible to have a debate as your argument is not based on, you know, reality. But I see you prefer to live in fantasy land, because in fantasy land, boy, there you are right. Not to say your opinions aren't questionable, but it's a bit more cumbersome that you opreate without the facts. Repeating leis does not make them true, sorry. So again, stop spamming.

redz

12th January 2011, 15:30

In late December the liberal media group Democracy Now! hosted a debate on the Assange "sex crimes" case between two leftist American "feminists" - Naomi Wolf and Jaclyn Friedman.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jaclyn_friedman_a

Democracy Now!
December 20, 2010

Naomi Wolf vs. Jaclyn Friedman: Feminists Debate the Sexual Allegations Against Julian AssangeWolf has been an ardent defender of Assange and critic of the "rape" and other "sex crimes" charges against him. I'm appending below excerpts from some of her remarks in the debate. I particularly agree with her observation that ...

So, if you’re going to treat women as moral adults and if you’re going to take the issue of rape seriously, the person who’s engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex has to be told, "I don’t want this." And again and again and again, these women did not say, "This is not consensual." Posted below are more excerpts from her remarks...

Redz

The Guardian account, which is based on leaked original documents, doesn’t say that he had sex with either of these women without the consent. The reason I’m hearing from rape victims across the world who are emailing me, saying, "I’m a rape victim. Thank you for standing up to put these charges in context," is that this is the only case I’ve ever seen in 23 years of supporting rape victims which is based on multiple instances of consent.

If you read these allegations, he took off Miss A’s clothes too quickly for her comfort. She tried to tell him to slow down, but then, quote, "she allowed him to undress her." This is what the report says. The second woman says she woke to find him having sex with her. When she asked whether he was wearing a condom, he said no. Quote, "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV.'" He answered, "Of course not." Quote, "She couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

So, if you’re going to treat women as moral adults and if you’re going to take the issue of rape seriously, the person who’s engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex has to be told, "I don’t want this." And again and again and again, these women did not say, "This is not consensual." Assange was shocked when these were brought up as complaints, because he had no idea that this was not a consensual situation. Miss A kept Assange in her home for the next four days and threw a party for him.

So, because I take rape seriously, because I’m aware that in 23 years, you know, in Sweden, which has been criticized by Amnesty International for disregarding rape, for letting rapists go free, because you have a better chance in Sweden, if you’re a rape victim, of, you know, dying in an accident or getting breast cancer than having a serious rape allegation prosecuted or getting any kind of legal hearing, according to Amnesty International’s report "Case Closed"—it’s because of that that I know that these charges are utterly, utterly atypically handled. In 23 years, I’ve never seen any man in any situation this ambiguous, involving this much consent, have any kind of legal process whatsoever. And all over the world, women who have been gang-raped, brutally raped, raped in alleyways, pimped, prostituted, trafficked, you know, their rapists go free.

So, yes, this stinks to me. And yes, it’s about politics, and it’s about the same kind of politics that dragged you, when you were trying to cover a march, you know, violently into legal jeopardy, because really this is about a journalist who has angered the most powerful and increasingly brutal nation on earth, and it’s about all of us who are journalists being dragged into a dangerous situation because of criticism of the government.

... So, again and again and again, Assange consulted with the women about what they wanted, and they didn’t say no. And to me as a feminist—and this is why I’m hearing from so many rape victims around the world—and of course the issue needs to be discussed more, obviously, but the reason, as a feminist, I am distraught about this miscarriage of justice is that you can’t—you’re not respecting women by casting them as unable to assert what they want, unwilling, you know, to speak about what they wish. ...

Crux

12th January 2011, 17:59

Notice how Redz does not actually respond to any of my posts.

Crux

12th January 2011, 18:10

“I have been shocked and disgusted by the reaction of some people on the left to these rape allegations. Throughout the media there has been an inability to separate out what happened with these rape allegations from the WikiLeaks and it seems as if these women are meant to be roadkill so that the people on the left who view what Assange did as heroic can celebrate him. And they really are two separate things,” she said.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/21/feminists-turn-on-fellow-progressives-over-assange-rape-charges/#ixzz1AqVDL7uQ

Crux

12th January 2011, 18:19

I am suddenly struck by the possibility that Redz cannot read unless it's posted as a quote. So here:

On Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/) this morning, Jaclyn Friedman and Naomi Wolf debated the sexual assault allegations that have been lodged against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
In the course of the debate, Wolf repeatedly insisted that what Assange is alleged to have done could not have been rape because his accusers never told him “no.”
But here’s the thing. According to the published account that Wolf herself cited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden), one of them did tell him no. She told him no repeatedly and forcefully enough that he was first dissuaded from pursuing sex, then later complied with her demands.
Here’s the relevant passage from the Guardian:
Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when “he agreed unwillingly to use a condom”.
They start to have sex. He doesn’t want to use a condom. She insists. He refuses. He gives up and goes to sleep. They wake in the night. He doesn’t want to use a condom. She insists again. He complies.
And then what happens?
He fucks her in her sleep without using a condom.
She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no.http://studentactivism.net/2010/12/20/naomi-wolf-on-julian-assange/
An article well worth reading for anyone participating in this thread. Why? Well, because it goes by the actual police report and not rape-myths or just plain falsehoods.

As for Naomi Wolf herself, she's a liberal feminist. Wearing the tag "feminist" does not necessarily make you an authority. In this case clearly she is not.

BLACKPLATES

12th January 2011, 18:32

it may be that i am misinformed, but the facts being presented , by authorities in Sweden do little to edify. If they believe to the standard of Swedish law he is guilty, why is he not charged with a crime? If they arent going to charge him, he has not committed the crime. period. that is the only position i can take. i am not willing to serve the interests of the US based on his ex freinds personal denouncement of him. to do so shows a complete lack of organized priorities.

Crux

12th January 2011, 18:39

redz

12th January 2011, 19:58

Notice how Redz does not actually respond to any of my posts.

You either need glasses or reading lessons.

Redz

redz

12th January 2011, 20:09

I was a cop for 12 years in the US., where i live. if there were a rape, he would be charged. the US wants him in jail in sweden. there would be no attempt to extradite him "for questioning". I am as certain of this as i have ever been certain of anything.

First of all, all rapists are not "he" - there are actually women that have been charged with/convicted of "rape" (almost all in connection with a younger male, invoking reactionary age-of-consent laws).

Second, on extradition of Assange ... this sort of gets into what I often call a "battle of speculations". I tend to think that the basic aim here is to set up a situation whereby Assange can be readily extradited to the USA to face ""espionage" charges under that old reactionary 1917 law the Obama regime has resurrected.

HOWEVER, you may be partially right. Washington wants Assange "off the street" and locked up, and any way they can get him there is OK by them. A possible scenario is (1) he goes on trial in Sweden, then it's "heads he loses, tails he loses", because then (2) he's still in Swedish custody, and its likely that the Swedish capitalist authorities would happily hand him over, whether "guilty" or acquitted of the "sex crimes" charges.

Redz

redz

12th January 2011, 20:17

As for Naomi Wolf herself, she's a liberal feminist. Wearing the tag "feminist" does not necessarily make you an authority. In this case clearly she is not.

Actually, Naomi Wolf is more of a rad-lib "feminist". I put "feminist" in quotes because so many of these types of leftist women's rights advocates are not really ideological sectoralist feminists, but (inaccurately) use "feminism" as a synonym for advocating women's rights and women's equality.

Redz

redz

12th January 2011, 21:15

http://studentactivism.net/2010/12/20/naomi-wolf-on-julian-assange/
An article well worth reading for anyone participating in this thread. Why? Well, because it goes by the actual police report and not rape-myths or just plain falsehoods.

The original Swedish police report is frequently cited by commenters and reporters (such as the NY Times's resident twit, John Burns) for the basis of accusations against Assange. It's important to note that a police report is a PRODUCT OF THE CAPITALIST STATE and therefore cannot simply be accorded unbridled credence. This doesn't mean that there can't be elements that are true, but it also means that there's a fair possibility that some elements are concocted, exaggerated, or fictionalized to bolster the case of the bourgeois police and prosecutors.

A case in point is the issue of the "rape" charge against Assange involving Anna Ardin (the first young woman), which seems to have morphed into some kind of "molestation" charge ("rape" is still involved in the case involving Sofia Wilen). The police report has Assange "ripping" Ardin's clothes off, "snapping" her necklace off ... then she doesn't race for the door or try to call the police, but instead she climbs into bed with him ... where it all becomes an argument over condoms ... Assange allegedly "pins her arms and legs" to stop her from reaching for a condom ... but she proceeds to have sex, anyway, and they have CONSENSUAL sex, with condom ... but then it becomes an issue of a "broken" (Wikileaky?) condom, which Ardin then (later) suggests was "ripped" by Assange, and so on (but they still had CONSENSUAL sex with it) ... and spend the night in bed together.

Neither the "snapped" necklace nor the "ripped" clothing have ever been produced, but the behavior of Anna Ardin is quite clear - she threw a party for Assange at her apartment that evening.

NOTHING of the above remotely suggests "rape" ... and certainly this portion of the police report is inconsistent to the point of implausibility. (And, significantly, the "rape" charge has so far been dropped in this particular case.)

What I find ominously sinister is the establishment, enforcement, and acceptance of laws that would intrude into the ORDINARY interplay between partners in CONSENSUAL sexual interaction - and self-styled "revolutionary leftists" that would APPLAUD and ALIBI the intrusion of the hand of the capitalist state into private bedrooms as is happening in Sweden.

This is a serious and dangerous blow at women's rights and an effort to turn back the clock on women's sexual equality while further regimenting the society as a whole. It's also a patronizing and demeaning effort against women to diminish the true criminality of rape and to mold women into the role of supposedly helpless victims in the bedroom, where they supposedly "need" the protection of the fatherly capitalist authorities. These laws - and their application against Assange - deserve the most ferocious denunciation and resistance from bona fide revolutionary leftists.

Redz

BLACKPLATES

13th January 2011, 01:40

i said "he" speaking specifically to the accusations against assange. not about a hypothetical rape accusation.

BLACKPLATES

13th January 2011, 01:52

i appreciate your position and your perspective in Sweden is, Im sure, different than here in the US. I dont know much about Swedish law. In the US when a complaint (for any crime) is filed with the authorities, the authorities begin an investigation. If the investigation supports a formal charge, then the accused is charged and arrested. If the evidence is insufficient to support a charge, then no arrest is made and the accused is not subject to being seized by police.Here in the US, the Atorney general, who is the highest prosecutor in the land , has called assange a criminal. Bourgeouise sock puppet "journalists" have been calling for his arrest, aome have even called for his murder. The US state department has been leaning heavily on the Swedish and British judicial systems to arrest assange. If a Swedish prosecutor had any evidence of a rape, i have no doubt that assange would have been charged and that Sweden would have requested an extradition, which Britain would not hesitate to comply with. The whole point is to get Assange into US custody where he can be jailed, and tortured.BTW i did not mean to seem that I am not supportive of "Womens Issues". Rape is a crime no matter who the victim is, and when a rape occurs the perpetrator should be charged and tried. Let Sweden charge Julian Assange with a crime if they want to get him into a jail cell.

Crux

13th January 2011, 18:28

The original Swedish police report is frequently cited by commenters and reporters (such as the NY Times's resident twit, John Burns) for the basis of accusations against Assange. It's important to note that a police report is a PRODUCT OF THE CAPITALIST STATE and therefore cannot simply be accorded unbridled credence. This doesn't mean that there can't be elements that are true, but it also means that there's a fair possibility that some elements are concocted, exaggerated, or fictionalized to bolster the case of the bourgeois police and prosecutors.
In other words you've got no facts but think it's "fair" to assume that you are right, even though you've been shown to be factually wrong.

A case in point is the issue of the "rape" charge against Assange involving Anna Ardin (the first young woman), which seems to have morphed into some kind of "molestation" charge ("rape" is still involved in the case involving Sofia Wilen). The police report has Assange "ripping" Ardin's clothes off, "snapping" her necklace off ... then she doesn't race for the door or try to call the police, but instead she climbs into bed with him ... where it all becomes an argument over condoms ... Assange allegedly "pins her arms and legs" to stop her from reaching for a condom ... but she proceeds to have sex, anyway, and they have CONSENSUAL sex, with condom ... but then it becomes an issue of a "broken" (Wikileaky?) condom, which Ardin then (later) suggests was "ripped" by Assange, and so on (but they still had CONSENSUAL sex with it) ... and spend the night in bed together.
You do know these women, and possible victims of molestation and rape, are under very real death threats from some "wikileaks defenders"? Or I guess that's yet another thing that you are blissfully ignorant of? Don't pretend like you're the first to say the charge was changed to molestation. I stated so quite clearly before. Well, without youre sexism, blame-the-victim attitude and obvious rape myths. Myths that are not specific to this case but common in rape cases everywhere, making the victim the accused rather than the offender.

Neither the "snapped" necklace nor the "ripped" clothing have ever been produced, but the behavior of Anna Ardin is quite clear - she threw a party for Assange at her apartment that evening.
She threw a party for him so she cannot have been raped? So what do you think about rape inside relationships, relationships that continue after the act or several acts, is this too not rape because the victim stays with the offender? Take your sexist bullshit elsewhere please. It does not belong on a forum for the revolutionary left.

NOTHING of the above remotely suggests "rape" ... and certainly this portion of the police report is inconsistent to the point of implausibility. (And, significantly, the "rape" charge has so far been dropped in this particular case.)
No it is not significant, nor is it particularly unusual.

What I find ominously sinister is the establishment, enforcement, and acceptance of laws that would intrude into the ORDINARY interplay between partners in CONSENSUAL sexual interaction - and self-styled "revolutionary leftists" that would APPLAUD and ALIBI the intrusion of the hand of the capitalist state into private bedrooms as is happening in Sweden.
Which laws? The "suprise sex" and "you can't have sex without condom"-laws? Because, as you should know by now, these do not exist.

This is a serious and dangerous blow at women's rights and an effort to turn back the clock on women's sexual equality while further regimenting the society as a whole. It's also a patronizing and demeaning effort against women to diminish the true criminality of rape and to mold women into the role of supposedly helpless victims in the bedroom, where they supposedly "need" the protection of the fatherly capitalist authorities. These laws - and their application against Assange - deserve the most ferocious denunciation and resistance from bona fide revolutionary leftists.

Redz
So you are in favour of legalizing rape of people who are asleep, and thus unable to give consent? You are in favour of changing the law so consent cannot be withdrawn in the act? Well if this does not make you a sexist that should be restricted I do not know what does. I know you are also acting with a great portion of ignorance but that does not excuse your clearly expressed attitudes and spreading of sexist rape myths.

Crux

13th January 2011, 18:33

Fabrizio

15th January 2011, 00:18

Not at all his "sweden is the saudi arabia of feminism" is obvuisly playing to the sexists among his supporters. I support wikileaks, I don't support sexism, and I certainly don't support him "all the way" if he indeed is guilty. You should learn to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time.

In that case you could learn to prioritize your thoughts, or else it will be very easy for people to distract you with irrelevant crap like this.

Wikileaks is enemy number 1 of the establishment right now, they will throw all they can at Assange. On the other hand they couldn't care less about the hundreds of tiny leninist groups. Yet you're the "revolutionary" and he's the "reactionary"...can someone explain it to me?:confused:

PhoenixAsh

15th January 2011, 04:24

Hence the interest in the sexist scumbag and misogynist angle he and his lawyers have taken. Calling it an attack from "radical feminism" ought to make his credibility to sink like a led zeppelin.

Unfortunately not...and that has everything to do with the way you discuss this topic and the nature of radical feminism in context of the way radical feminists argue their case.

Radical Feminsim as you are well aware is basically built upon the idea that the whole of society is built upon a patriarchal oppression of women. A concept to which I do not totally agree but with a goal that I wholeheartedly subscribe: the abolition of oppressive systems, especially those based on gender.

Now before I start I would like to state for the record that I am a feminist. I believe in the equality of men and women where possible (men can not give birth ;-) so obviuosly there are some differences that need to be recognized) and I believe every individual is autonomous and has equal value and rights.

But where you are wrong is that attacking radical feminism immediately sinks credibility. And that is because radical feminst will often argue a case with the notion that all men are programmed (consciously or unconsciously) to act towards this patriarchal structure and everything a man says or does in the current society is based upon age old strategems of the patriarchal structure and therefore not to be trusted.

Therefore in a "he said-she said" situation radical feminsts, more often than not, will immediately assume the man acts out of this patriarchal structure and is therefore automatically wrong and at the very least suspect. In other words...radical feminsm...often degenerates in reversed sexism. And your argument is a perfect example of this.

If there is true equality between the sexes and there should be no oppression of both genders...than the rule of law would apply. Simplys stating: Innocent until proven guilty. Instead of following this truely Radical Feminst statement...you aproach it a little bit different.

Look at the title of this thread: "probably a scumbag". Immediately, before the discussion started, you have stated that he is probably guilty. You do not base this on any legal fact or evidence. Instead you base this on hear-say and a few newspaper articles/interviews from sources which are highly suspect in their motives for publishing specific information (they want to sell papers and therefore tend to write what they think the public wants to hear) and because a woman said there was unconsentual sex.

Now...I am not saying that there may or may not have been an actual rape. But rape is the only crime which is very, very hard to prove. Simply because more often than not the victim waits to long so that any physical evidence has long gone and simply because there isn't always evidence to begin with.

I am however saying that without any court ruling on the matter...your assumption that he is a scumbag and probably guilty is just an opinion and based on your arguments also in contradiction to the notion of Radical Feminsm.

Example..

Originally Posted by Dimentio
From what I understand the situation, one of the women who had sex with Assange said that she was reluctant to some of the things he wanted, and showed it to him with her body language. He on his side claimed that she did not resist. Nothing unusual in cases of sexual coercion.What you are arguing here is that, although you name yourself a radical feminist and thus should hold the believe that sexes should be treated equaly, the resposibility of righly assessing the mind and meaning of women should rest squarely on the shoulders of men and that any miscommunication between men and women is basically the fault of men. In this argument you make women do not have the responsibility to effectively communicate.

Now...as much as you may or may not dislike this concept...men and women are biologically very different. One of these many, many differences is that the brain of men are in general not as wel suited for recognizing body language. This has been proven time and time again in scientific studies. women are simply better at it...for example...women have 5 clusters they use when they want to change a subject...and men can, in general, only recognize 3 of these.

Body language is NOT an effective way of communicating complex concepts
especially in a situation people are more often than not not very focussed on complex clusters...such as during sex...where a simple: "I do not want, like, or find this pleasant" would have brought across the message in the split of a second.

Then you go on saying this:

you think it's impossible to read body language, or in any case enough to know if what you are doing is with the consent of your partnerYou obviously know very little about body language. Even experts in the field need hours to establish base line behaviour in assessing body language ...and they know what to look for. Body language is highly personal and although there are some universal gestures these gestures in cluster tend to be highly dependent on the individual....and tend to have multiple meanings. I suggest you read up on the concept.

In this case you tend to argue that a man that has met a woman some hours earlier and probably does not know her very well need to be better in assessing body language than an expert. Again...this is in its deepest fundament a very sexist thing to say...as again you squarely lay the responsibility of effective communication on the shoulders of men.

In the mean time you fail to see the simple fact that once the body language did not work and the so called unwanted behaviour continued...she did NOT say or do anything to correct this.

This is not in any way trying to condone rape or anything...it is merely an example to underline my argument that you are sexually biased in your arguments.

No I think it contitutes rape if consent is withdrawn, and I believe consent can be withdrawn more ways than verbally. I believe that consent, once given, can only be taken away when it is clearly communicated in a way so the other person can understand you. And when your prior non-verbal communication did not work and you continue to allow the action to take place (again...AFTER you have given consent) than I think you have not taken away consent.

People are not mind readers...body language is vague indication at the very best. Assuming that people should always be completely aware takes away responsibility of both partners and makes one solely repsonsible for everything. What you argue is that there is a difference between the repsonsibilities and rights of each gender and therefore you argue that there should be a gender dominated society. Again...your argument is sexist.

The ones Julian Assange's possible victim said she did.Again...SHE said....therefore it must be true?

You then go on to this little monstrosity of an argument:

Jesus fuck, so anti-feminism is even more widespread than I feared? Alright I am very glad I posted this thread to expose people like you. I'll get to you after branch meeting. But it's intresting to see at least two user's obviously have problems with "consensual" and indeed that, rather than any care for the public image of wikileaks, is the root of their standpoint. They support the acts themselfes. Basically...when people do not agree with your highly biased opinion of this case and your preconceived notions that when a woman says it is rape it must therefore be true and the man must be guilty...they are anti-feminists?

Wow!

You have, in this thread, done more to devaluate feminism and more precise radical feminism, than anybody else here.

Not only have you utterly blown away the core tennent of Radical Feminsim in the way you built your argument but you have even managed to argue the complete opposite of what Radical Feminsm was and should be all about: the abolition of any oppressive structure.

Unfortunately you are simply put: a role reversed sexist. And that is unfortunate...because you do seem to tend to resort to blaiming everybody for being sexist but fail to see your own sexist approach. Perhaps a little self-re-evaluation is in order.

PhoenixAsh

15th January 2011, 04:41

So you are in favour of legalizing rape of people who are asleep, and thus unable to give consent?

I am sorry...are you claiming that every sexual act on people who are asleep is automatically rape? Because that is exactly what the proposed law states...

So let me get this straight...

I meet a girl in a bar. We go to her place and we have consentual sex and sleep together. The next morning she awakes and I am still sound asleep...she is still horney and carresses me...stroking my genitals... :blushing:

According to the proposed Swedish laws I am now being sexually assaulted... I have not given consent and am not counscious.

It does not look very good for most of my one night stands nor for any of my ex-girlfriends or my current girlfriend. :glare:

When I wake up I am irritated and shrug...my body language indicating that I am not pleased. She however continues and I do nothing further...after all...following your reasoning I have just taken away my consent...I do however go along for the rest of the act which results in intercourse....with her on top.

She is now guilty of rape. She sexually assaulted me and she ignored my body-language...and she was using her body weight to hold me down.

We spend the next day together having fun and laughing and talking together.

A week later I go to the police...and tell them of my predicament. I have been sexually assualted and raped...and she did not even use a femidon (female condom) :crying:

Is this YOUR argument?

redz

15th January 2011, 16:52

I originally wrote:

It's important to note that a police report is a PRODUCT OF THE CAPITALIST STATE and therefore cannot simply be accorded unbridled credence. This doesn't mean that there can't be elements that are true, but it also means that there's a fair possibility that some elements are concocted, exaggerated, or fictionalized to bolster the case of the bourgeois police and prosecutors.
To this, Majakovskij responded.

In other words you've got no facts but think it's "fair" to assume that you are right, even though you've been shown to be factually wrong.

I'm sure the Swedish ruling class are deeply touched by your unswerving confidence in the integrity of their police and the unblemished veracity of their incident reports.

However, while this might eventually win you a niche as a bureaucrat in the Swedish Ministry of Morality or equivalent, I predict that in the long run, and in a time of particular crisis, the Swedish capitalist authorities will have no hesitation in tossing you in the same prison as other "workers international" supporters and assorted leftists ... and, if worse comes to worst, they will gladly put a bullet in your brain just as surely as in the brain of the most principled and stalwart revolutionary Marxist, when it is their pleasure to do so.

Cheerleading for the laws and law enforcement apparatus of the ruling class, whether in Sweden or elsewhere, is ultimately a disaster for the cheerleaders as well as the working class - male and female.

Redz

redz

15th January 2011, 17:40

The latest edition of Workers Vanguard - paper of the Spartacist League/US - came out on Jan. 7th, and - whaddaya know? - they basically have the same position on Assange and Wikileaks as I do. Here's an excerpt:

http://www.icl-fi.org/print/english/wv/971/wikileaks.html
Workers Vanguard No. 971
7 January 2011

WikiLeaks, Imperialist Lies and Retribution
Free Private Manning! Hands Off Julian Assange!

The release by WikiLeaks of some 250,000 State Department cables has provoked a vicious campaign of retaliation by the rulers of U.S. imperialism against Julian Assange, the Web site’s founder, and Army Private Bradley Manning, who is accused of leaking secret material. Attorney General Eric Holder is reportedly preparing criminal charges against Assange, an Australian citizen, possibly under the Espionage Act of 1917. Manning faces a court martial and up to 52 years in prison if convicted. He incurred Washington’s wrath when a video of a U.S. war crime in Baghdad was posted last April by WikiLeaks. It showed an Apache helicopter gunning down and killing at least 12 people, including two Reuters journalists, while the pilots gloated over the carnage.

Manning — if he was, indeed, the source of the leaks — and Assange are courageous individuals who have performed a laudable service by lifting, however slightly, the veil of secrecy and lies that enshrouds the imperialists’ machinations. They richly deserve to be defended by workers and the oppressed throughout the world. Protests in defense of Assange have been held in a number of countries, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions has spoken out for him. It is crucial for the international working class to defend WikiLeaks and Assange and also to demand freedom for Private Manning, who is being held under torturous conditions of solitary confinement at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia.

Though one would hardly guess it from the Obama administration’s frenzied reaction to the latest leaks, they actually contain little in the way of dramatic revelations.

...

The Obama administration has lashed out in fury against Private Manning by subjecting him to inhuman prison conditions that are clearly intended to break his will. Since his arrest last May, Manning has been held in solitary confinement. He is prohibited from exercising or watching television news programs; guards check on him every five minutes; a light is kept on in his cell, including when he tries to sleep. According to journalist David House, the only person to visit Manning in prison other than his lawyer: “He is being kept in a kind of punitive fashion before his trial and it is definitely weakening his mental state” (BBC News, 24 December 2010).

Manning is, as Assange correctly noted, a political prisoner. Assange, meanwhile, is under house arrest in Britain as he fights a Swedish extradition order citing allegations of “rape” and “sexual molestation.” Those accusations — which boil down to charges of unprotected sex in what were by all accounts consensual relations — are patently trumped-up. Prosecutors in Sweden initially opened, then dropped, then reopened an investigation into the accusations, which were made by a couple of WikiLeaks groupies. In fact, Assange has not been charged with any crime.Much of the article focuses on the implications of exposing the secret messages, deals, treaties, etc. of the imperialists - and the article provides an historical review of the exposure of the Tsarist and Kerensky secret pacts following the Bolshevist seizure of power in the October Revolution (Nov. 1917).

Of particular interest here however is the SL's assessment of the Swedish "sex crimes" attack on Assange:

Assange, meanwhile, is under house arrest in Britain as he fights a Swedish extradition order citing allegations of “rape” and “sexual molestation.” Those accusations — which boil down to charges of unprotected sex in what were by all accounts consensual relations — are patently trumped-up. Prosecutors in Sweden initially opened, then dropped, then reopened an investigation into the accusations, which were made by a couple of WikiLeaks groupies. In fact, Assange has not been charged with any crime.I would actually go a bit further, and point out that basically Assange has been caught up in the Swedish government's ongoing assault on women's rights and sexual freedom, in the context of a wide-ranging campaign to further regiment Swedish society and morality. This has proven quite convenient to the ruling class as a pretext for pursuing the capture and prosecution of Assange, while the Obama regime tries to marshal an "espionage" case against him.

Redz

Crux

16th January 2011, 15:34

I am sorry...are you claiming that every sexual act on people who are asleep is automatically rape? Because that is exactly what the proposed law states...

So let me get this straight...

I meet a girl in a bar. We go to her place and we have consentual sex and sleep together. The next morning she awakes and I am still sound asleep...she is still horney and carresses me...stroking my genitals... :blushing:

According to the proposed Swedish laws I am now being sexually assaulted... I have not given consent and am not counscious.

It does not look very good for most of my one night stands nor for any of my ex-girlfriends or my current girlfriend. :glare:

When I wake up I am irritated and shrug...my body language indicating that I am not pleased. She however continues and I do nothing further...after all...following your reasoning I have just taken away my consent...I do however go along for the rest of the act which results in intercourse....with her on top.

She is now guilty of rape. She sexually assaulted me and she ignored my body-language...and she was using her body weight to hold me down.

We spend the next day together having fun and laughing and talking together.

A week later I go to the police...and tell them of my predicament. I have been sexually assualted and raped...and she did not even use a femidon (female condom) :crying:

Is this YOUR argument?
Yes and there have been cases of such sexual crimes made by women against men. That you cannot even grasp what it is is not my problem.
So how do you feel about rape inside relationships? Because by your argument if they stay together it could not have been rape.
And lastly, I do not ascribe to Radical Feminism, an issue that has hardly been debated in this thread and merely used as a buzzword. I am a marxist feminist.

Crux

16th January 2011, 15:38

The latest edition of Workers Vanguard - paper of the Spartacist League/US - came out on Jan. 7th, and - whaddaya know? - they basically have the same position on Assange and Wikileaks as I do. Here's an excerpt:

Much of the article focuses on the implications of exposing the secret messages, deals, treaties, etc. of the imperialists - and the article provides an historical review of the exposure of the Tsarist and Kerensky secret pacts following the Bolshevist seizure of power in the October Revolution (Nov. 1917).

Of particular interest here however is the SL's assessment of the Swedish "sex crimes" attack on Assange:

I would actually go a bit further, and point out that basically Assange has been caught up in the Swedish government's ongoing assault on women's rights and sexual freedom, in the context of a wide-ranging campaign to further regiment Swedish society and morality. This has proven quite convenient to the ruling class as a pretext for pursuing the capture and prosecution of Assange, while the Obama regime tries to marshal an "espionage" case against him.

Redz
Well, it's not like ICL hasn't covered for sex offenders and rapists before. *cough* NAMBLA *cough* so in essence no they hold not credibility with me and that they hold the same position as you does not mean it's less shit.
An ongoing assault really? You have yet to show me anything that would back up that claim. Well at least going by your "oh noes the scary radical feminists do not want me to rape sleeping people".

Crux

16th January 2011, 15:41

I originally wrote:
To this, Majakovskij responded.

I'm sure the Swedish ruling class are deeply touched by your unswerving confidence in the integrity of their police and the unblemished veracity of their incident reports.

However, while this might eventually win you a niche as a bureaucrat in the Swedish Ministry of Morality or equivalent, I predict that in the long run, and in a time of particular crisis, the Swedish capitalist authorities will have no hesitation in tossing you in the same prison as other "workers international" supporters and assorted leftists ... and, if worse comes to worst, they will gladly put a bullet in your brain just as surely as in the brain of the most principled and stalwart revolutionary Marxist, when it is their pleasure to do so.

Cheerleading for the laws and law enforcement apparatus of the ruling class, whether in Sweden or elsewhere, is ultimately a disaster for the cheerleaders as well as the working class - male and female.

Redz
Oh but here's the core issue. What alws? That you are incapable of answering this question makes you unable to even have a position on this issue and makes debating with you quite useless.
But I take it you are worried about your own person in regards to charges of sex offence? Else I can't see why you would have this stance on this issue.

Crux

16th January 2011, 16:01

Unfortunately not...and that has everything to do with the way you discuss this topic and the nature of radical feminism in context of the way radical feminists argue their case.

I am not a radical remnist. I am a radical and a feminist though.

Radical Feminsim as you are well aware is basically built upon the idea that the whole of society is built upon a patriarchal oppression of women. A concept to which I do not totally agree but with a goal that I wholeheartedly subscribe: the abolition of oppressive systems, especially those based on gender.

Interesting. Your point being?

Now before I start I would like to state for the record that I am a feminist. I believe in the equality of men and women where possible (men can not give birth ;-) so obviuosly there are some differences that need to be recognized) and I believe every individual is autonomous and has equal value and rights.
So does most liberals.

But where you are wrong is that attacking radical feminism immediately sinks credibility. And that is because radical feminst will often argue a case with the notion that all men are programmed (consciously or unconsciously) to act towards this patriarchal structure and everything a man says or does in the current society is based upon age old strategems of the patriarchal structure and therefore not to be trusted.
His exact term was "revolutionary feminism" and the attack is quite clearly on feminism as a whole not some inter-feminist debate on the specific school of thought that is Radical Feminism.

Therefore in a "he said-she said" situation radical feminsts, more often than not, will immediately assume the man acts out of this patriarchal structure and is therefore automatically wrong and at the very least suspect. In other words...radical feminsm...often degenerates in reversed sexism. And your argument is a perfect example of this.
Just like black emancipation *usually* degenerates into "reverse-racism" am I right? Sorry you're simplifying in the absurd. I am not saying I do not have issues with Rqadical Feminism, but it is not really the debate here since no one is holding that posotion here as far as I know. And the suggestion that the swedish legislative system is Radical Feminists is of course nothing short of laughable. It is no school feminism.

If there is true equality between the sexes and there should be no oppression of both genders...than the rule of law would apply. Simplys stating: Innocent until proven guilty. Instead of following this truely Radical Feminst statement...you aproach it a little bit different.
I have not claimed to know Assange is guilty. However what I am being attacked for here is for not holding the revers position, that is I should know he is innocent (plus the assorted sexism and blame-the-victim stuff).

Look at the title of this thread: "probably a scumbag". Immediately, before the discussion started, you have stated that he is probably guilty. You do not base this on any legal fact or evidence. Instead you base this on hear-say and a few newspaper articles/interviews from sources which are highly suspect in their motives for publishing specific information (they want to sell papers and therefore tend to write what they think the public wants to hear) and because a woman said there was unconsentual sex.
No I think his statements makes plain he is a sexist scumbag, regardless of what actions he has done.

Now...I am not saying that there may or may not have been an actual rape. But rape is the only crime which is very, very hard to prove. Simply because more often than not the victim waits to long so that any physical evidence has long gone and simply because there isn't always evidence to begin with.
But you are strongly implying it and ignoring loads of other facts that I have had to explain to some people in this thread.

I am however saying that without any court ruling on the matter...your assumption that he is a scumbag and probably guilty is just an opinion and based on your arguments also in contradiction to the notion of Radical Feminsm.

Only I have been quite clear in saying I do not know whetever he is guilty or innocent.

Example..

What you are arguing here is that, although you name yourself a radical feminist and thus should hold the believe that sexes should be treated equaly, the resposibility of righly assessing the mind and meaning of women should rest squarely on the shoulders of men and that any miscommunication between men and women is basically the fault of men. In this argument you make women do not have the responsibility to effectively communicate.
I don't name myself a radical feminist. I do however believe that rape victims should not become the accused as is more often than not the case. References to past sexual experiences and how they dress is quite common. Indeed in this case as well. Sexism is very real, especially in the judicial system.

Now...as much as you may or may not dislike this concept...men and women are biologically very different. One of these
many, many differences is that the brain of men are in general not as wel suited for recognizing body language. This has been proven time and time again in scientific studies. women are simply better at it...for example...women have 5 clusters they use when they want to change a subject...and men can, in general, only recognize 3 of these.

Biologist bullshit as an attempt to make apologies for rape is so classy.
Are you saying men cannot have consensual sex?

Body language is NOT an effective way of communicating complex concepts
especially in a situation people are more often than not not very focussed on complex clusters...such as during sex...where a simple: "I do not want, like, or find this pleasant" would have brought across the message in the split of a second.
Sexual abuse is not simple.

Then you go on saying this:

You obviously know very little about body language. Even experts in the field need hours to establish base line behaviour in assessing body language ...and they know what to look for. Body language is highly personal and although there are some universal gestures these gestures in cluster tend to be highly dependent on the individual....and tend to have multiple meanings. I suggest you read up on the concept.
I suggest the relevance is limited. If you have to hold someone down, as is asserted, the body language ought to be quite clear.

In this case you tend to argue that a man that has met a woman some hours earlier and probably does not know her very well need to be better in assessing body language than an expert. Again...this is in its deepest fundament a very sexist thing to say...as again you squarely lay the responsibility of effective communication on the shoulders of men.
No, I squarely lay the guilt of offenses on the offender.

In the mean time you fail to see the simple fact that once the body language did not work and the so called unwanted behaviour continued...she did NOT say or do anything to correct this.

This is not in any way trying to condone rape or anything...it is merely an example to underline my argument that you are sexually biased in your arguments.
How am I sexually biased?

I believe that consent, once given, can only be taken away when it is clearly communicated in a way so the other person can understand you. And when your prior non-verbal communication did not work and you continue to allow the action to take place (again...AFTER you have given consent) than I think you have not taken away consent.
Consent in this case was very specific and was clearly violated, hence the ripping of the condom business.

People are not mind readers...body language is vague indication at the very best. Assuming that people should always be completely aware takes away responsibility of both partners and makes one solely repsonsible for everything. What you argue is that there is a difference between the repsonsibilities and rights of each gender and therefore you argue that there should be a gender dominated society. Again...your argument is sexist.

Only I do not.

Again...SHE said....therefore it must be true?
In rape cases I do give the victims the benefit of the doubt, especially if the perp claim there is a revolutionary feminist conspiracy after him.

You then go on to this little monstrosity of an argument:

Basically...when people do not agree with your highly biased opinion of this case and your preconceived notions that when a woman says it is rape it must therefore be true and the man must be guilty...they are anti-feminists?

Wow!

You have, in this thread, done more to devaluate feminism and more precise radical feminism, than anybody else here.

Not only have you utterly blown away the core tennent of Radical Feminsim in the way you built your argument but you have even managed to argue the complete opposite of what Radical Feminsm was and should be all about: the abolition of any oppressive structure.

Unfortunately you are simply put: a role reversed sexist. And that is unfortunate...because you do seem to tend to resort to blaiming everybody for being sexist but fail to see your own sexist approach. Perhaps a little self-re-evaluation is in order.
Why is your strawman so angry? Please come back when you feel like debating my actual position and are ready to reckognize simple facts that have been greatly misrepresented and ignored by those following your own line of reasoning.

brigadista

16th January 2011, 16:32

the skeleton argument from the assange defence is here

http://www.fsilaw.com/~/media/Files/Assange%20Skeleton%20Argument%2011_01_2011.ashx

Lucretia

16th January 2011, 18:51

Why is your strawman so angry? Please come back when you feel like debating my actual position and are ready to reckognize simple facts that have been greatly misrepresented and ignored by those following your own line of reasoning.

I don't see any strawman in the person's argument, just a recognition of the way you've been behaving in this thread.

I'm sure everybody in this thread, probably half of whom have already been called a sexist misogynist by you, are shocked, SHOCKED that you respond with "you just don't get it!" Uh huh. Just like all the sexists hiding out in this thread supposedly don't get feminism. Or maybe there isn't some misogynist conspiracy here. Maybe, just maybe, the problem here is your thinking about this issue.

PhoenixAsh

16th January 2011, 20:19

Yes and there have been cases of such sexual crimes made by women against men. That you cannot even grasp what it is is not my problem.
So how do you feel about rape inside relationships? Because by your argument if they stay together it could not have been rape.
And lastly, I do not ascribe to Radical Feminism, an issue that has hardly been debated in this thread and merely used as a buzzword. I am a marxist feminist.

No...perhaps I did not make myself clear. I think it is the duty of BOTH sexes to clearly communicate dissent...and I do not think body language is a clear method of communication.

I do not think so because of the simple fact that body language is a field of expertice for me and I know from day to day situations that gestures and gesture clusters are multi interpretable.

as a quick example:

Crossed arms may express:
- disinterst
- feeling of insecurity
- being cold
- boredom
- detachment
- barring oneself from action
- the presence of something unfavorable outside the communication
partners
- a comfortable position
- being attentive

Determining what the specific meaning is and what has caused it depend on many, many factors

and yes...offcourse rape inside a relationship is possible...don't be silly.

and no...I do not think staying together makes something not rape.

However...not expressing dissent does not make it rape. But I would like to add when no force or threat thereof is used.

PhoenixAsh

16th January 2011, 20:53

I am not a radical remnist. I am a radical and a feminist though.

Ok...I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and accept this satement on face value. However I was following your arguments and they were radically feminist in nature.

His exact term was "revolutionary feminism" and the attack is quite clearly on feminism as a whole not some inter-feminist debate on the specific school of thought that is Radical Feminism.

yes...perhaps that is true. However this implies he has knowledge of the different schools of feminism and is able to make a distinction between them. More than likely he made a false generalisation based in the believe that all feminism is dictated by the "hatred of men". (clarify...not something I belive but something that may be thought of by uninformed individuals who have heard radical feminist arguments and perhaps misinterpreted them)

Just like black emancipation *usually* degenerates into "reverse-racism" am I right? Sorry you're simplifying in the absurd. I am not saying I do not have issues with Rqadical Feminism, but it is not really the debate here since no one is holding that posotion here as far as I know. And the suggestion that the swedish legislative system is Radical Feminists is of course nothing short of laughable. It is no school feminism.

As I said at the start...I am going to take it on face value. I was under the impression following your arguments that you were a radical feminist....and as such my argument was directed against you...not the Swedish judicial system.

I have not claimed to know Assange is guilty. However what I am being attacked for here is for not holding the revers position, that is I should know he is innocent (plus the assorted sexism and blame-the-victim stuff).No I think his statements makes plain he is a sexist scumbag, regardless of what actions he has done.
No I think his statements makes plain he is a sexist scumbag, regardless of what actions he has done.

Ok...now that I have read your post I may have misinterpreted your title.

But you are strongly implying it and ignoring loads of other facts that I have had to explain to some people in this thread.

I have not overlooked other facts. I think you overlook the fact that there have been no official charges, the women have not pressed charges and the Swedis DA states that consent is not in question.

These facts are more than enough to at the very least question if rape actually occured here.

Only I have been quite clear in saying I do not know whetever he is guilty or innocent.

As I said...I may have interpreted your title wrong....and as such I thought you were backtracking.

I don't name myself a radical feminist. I do however believe that rape victims should not become the accused as is more often than not the case. References to past sexual experiences and how they dress is quite common. Indeed in this case as well. Sexism is very real, especially in the judicial system.

Yes...and given the tale as out forward int his very instance the clothing and later actions indicate seduction. It was her actions and intent that ultimately led to a voluntary intimate encounter. She has stated this.

His reference and boasts about the fact that she was provocatively dressed and flirted with him are not perse sexist...we all have been at one time or another exited when someone we find attractive flirt with us...and perhaps we have also told friends about this in our enthousiasm. I have not seen any arguments made by him that say...it was alright to have sex with her because she flirted and looked provocatively. Instead he said, as did she, sex was consentual.

And yhes...I do believe the judicial system is sexist in nature.

Biologist bullshit as an attempt to make apologies for rape is so classy. Are you saying men cannot have consensual sex?

No...not at all. what I am saying is that both partners have the obligation to clearly communicate their feelings.

And as I said...if you think you made yourself clear and the actions continue you make yourself clearer...

Sexual abuse is not simple.

Never said that it was. Communication however is..

I suggest the relevance is limited. If you have to hold someone down, as is asserted, the body language ought to be quite clear.

No...he lay on top of her...which is a standard position for sex. This is asserted while this is what has been said. This has been made into: "using bodyweight to keep her pinned down"

No, I squarely lay the guilt of offenses on the offender.

Which circumvents my argumnet splendidly. I am not talking about offence...I am talking about communication.

How am I sexually biased?

Becaue...as I pointed out...you find it the sole responsibility of the man to interpret vague communication and do not find it an obligation of both partners to communicate effectively.

Consent in this case was very specific and was clearly violated, hence the ripping of the condom business.

No...it was clearly not specific...since she only used body language which he did not pick up. The events around the ripping of the condom is very unclear...and the fact that the DA states that consent is not in question here and there are no charges made by the so called victim (only the request for an STD test) make this conclusion of yours false.

Only I do not.

Yes you do

In rape cases I do give the victims the benefit of the doubt, especially if the perp claim there is a revolutionary feminist conspiracy after him.

So sexism immediately equals more guilt? Bweing a scumbag does not make you guity or more guilty.

I do not find his remarks sexist...I do feel they are very misguided.

I tend to look to the facts as presented to me at this point in time. And these facts simply state to me that there i no rape case...only a very, very legitimate request for an STD test...

I feel the facts point towards a deeper agenda. Now I am not saying this is because of wikileaks...but I do feel that there may be a lot of credibility in the fact that there currently are some law reforms that probably need to be tested and someone wants to exploit a high profile case to further their own position.

In essence exploiting this situation in which the alledged victim has not pressed charges and the DA states consent is not in question and ever changing charges put foreward by the DA.

Why is your strawman so angry? Please come back when you feel like debating my actual position and are ready to reckognize simple facts that have been greatly misrepresented and ignored by those following your own line of reasoning.

See the post made by Lucretia...I couldn't explain any better than what is said in that post.

Crux

16th January 2011, 22:23

Lucretia has, as you may have noticed, chosen to only partake in this thread as a provocateur and not a debater. His bowing out when he could no longer make stuff up was quite welcome

His reference and boasts about the fact that she was provocatively dressed and flirted with him are not perse sexist...we all have been at one time or another exited when someone we find attractive flirt with us...and perhaps we have also told friends about this in our enthousiasm. I have not seen any arguments made by him that say...it was alright to have sex with her because she flirted and looked provocatively. Instead he said, as did she, sex was consentual. .
Nobody except Assange and his lawyer is claiming that the alleged molestation and rape was consensual. I have already been over this.

PhoenixAsh

16th January 2011, 23:54

Lucretia has, as you may have noticed, chosen to only partake in this thread as a provocateur and not a debater. His bowing out when he could no longer make stuff up was quite welcome

Nobody except Assange and his lawyer is claiming that the alleged molestation and rape was consensual. I have already been over this.

Nevertheless he articulated perfectly why I posted what I posted.

Rape has already been dismissed by the alledged victims statement in the media that she did not feel she had been raped.

Now...since there is no evidence...no witnesses...no written documentation for the agreed upon form of consent....and only his and her side to the story...

How do you propose this is resolved?

Sadly...because both women waited more than a week to go to the police...there is no evidence. I will not speculate on why they waited a week...but I do wish to add here that they were seen with him again in public acting normal and in a cheerful fashion. which is now however important because this case hinges on her-his side of the story.

Now a higher Swedish authority already came to this conclusion that there was no ground for prosecution because there is no evidence and the case would solely be based and judged on the "credibility" of either side. A lesser Swedish authority however decided to press charges anyway...eventhough there still is no evidence.

Now...perhaps this may be logical in a jury presided case...but in Holland we actually need some form of prove...and not just stories which can not be fact checked in any way....no matter how true they are

It is very sad...I am the first person to admit this...that this is a prevalent problem with sexual assault, abuse and rape cases.

But in this specific instance should he be charged based solely on the story of the women and no physical evidence? How then would a fair assessment of this case be made?

The only logical conclusion can and should be that as there is no factual proof there is no evidence for the crime having taken place and should thus only lead to an acquittal

This is not sexist...but simply...we can not convict anybody on the basis of hear-say without at the very least some form of hard evidence.

Now...do not get me wrong....I understand the fact that the judicial system is predjudiced....and I understand that sexual exploitation and violence against women is a mayor issue of concern and a deep social problem....however...isn't it role reversed sexist to indict him solely and purely on the basis of a story because it is told by a woman?
(the reverse is also true...it is sexist when indict a woman solely on the story of a man)

Lucretia

17th January 2011, 07:34

Lucretia has, as you may have noticed, chosen to only partake in this thread as a provocateur and not a debater. His bowing out when he could no longer make stuff up was quite welcome

I chose to stop participating as frequently in this thread for a couple of reasons. I wanted the thread to die, since it is filled with utter bullshit and does not deserve to be kept alive at the top of this politics forum. I also realized that our exchanges were yielding diminishing returns, mostly because you'd resorted to name-calling and ignoring most of what I was saying. My comments up to that point spoke for themselves, and I saw little use in indulging your stupidity.

The reason I have re-entered the fray is to offer a voice of support for Hindsight, who actually seems to have some knowledge of feminist theory as well as a basic command of logic. Neither of which you seem to possess.

Crux

17th January 2011, 21:57

I wanted the thread to die
And it's plain to see why. Your contribution is less than flattering to yourself, nevermind the fact that you consciously do not want rape charges or sexism to be discussed at all.

PhoenixAsh

17th January 2011, 23:00

And it's plain to see why. Your contribution is less than flattering to yourself, nevermind the fact that you consciously do not want rape charges or sexism to be discussed at all.

I am interested in hearing your propsal to this question:

Now...since there is no evidence...no witnesses...no written documentation for the agreed upon form of consent....and only his and her side to the story...

How do you propose this is resolved?

Lucretia

18th January 2011, 07:37

And it's plain to see why. Your contribution is less than flattering to yourself, nevermind the fact that you consciously do not want rape charges or sexism to be discussed at all.

Surprise, surprise. You selectively edit a quote of mine, then use it to launch into another miniature tirade filled with baseless accusations and claims. This is typical of the kinds of contributions you've offered throughout this thread. You ignore what people say, dodge their questions, misrepresent what they say, caricature what they say, then use the caricature you've developed as a pretext for calling them sexists and misogynists. Have you no shame? Or is it only a brain that you lack?

Your contributions here have been a slap in the face not only of the forum's participants, not only of leftists but of decent people everywhere who believe in honest communication. Your antics are the reason, the sole reason, that this thread deserves to die a quick death. They leave no doubt that you are, without a doubt, a dirtbag.

Crux

20th January 2011, 15:14

Surprise, surprise. You selectively edit a quote of mine, then use it to launch into another miniature tirade filled with baseless accusations and claims. This is typical of the kinds of contributions you've offered throughout this thread. You ignore what people say, dodge their questions, misrepresent what they say, caricature what they say, then use the caricature you've developed as a pretext for calling them sexists and misogynists. Have you no shame? Or is it only a brain that you lack?

Your contributions here have been a slap in the face not only of the forum's participants, not only of leftists but of decent people everywhere who believe in honest communication. Your antics are the reason, the sole reason, that this thread deserves to die a quick death. They leave no doubt that you are, without a doubt, a dirtbag.
Just to check in, do you still think Assange should be released even if he is guilty of what he is charged with?
And please do tell me how my qutation of what you said was "selective"? If nothing else it made you look better than your original post. But I digress, this thread is not about you, Lucretia. If you want a thread about you go make one.

Crux

20th January 2011, 15:25

Nevertheless he articulated perfectly why I posted what I posted.

Rape has already been dismissed by the alledged victims statement in the media that she did not feel she had been raped.

Now...since there is no evidence...no witnesses...no written documentation for the agreed upon form of consent....and only his and her side to the story...

How do you propose this is resolved?
In court.

Sadly...because both women waited more than a week to go to the police...there is no evidence. I will not speculate on why they waited a week...but I do wish to add here that they were seen with him again in public acting normal and in a cheerful fashion. which is now however important because this case hinges on her-his side of the story.
Only I don't do blame-the-victim stuff in cases of rape charges.

Now a higher Swedish authority already came to this conclusion that there was no ground for prosecution because there is no evidence and the case would solely be based and judged on the "credibility" of either side. A lesser Swedish authority however decided to press charges anyway...eventhough there still is no evidence.
Yes there were indeed some back and forths with the charges, quite possibly poltiicallt motivated.

Now...perhaps this may be logical in a jury presided case...but in Holland we actually need some form of prove...and not just stories which can not be fact checked in any way....no matter how true they are And, supposedly, there are physical evidence that is yet to be presented.

It is very sad...I am the first person to admit this...that this is a prevalent problem with sexual assault, abuse and rape cases.

But in this specific instance should he be charged based solely on the story of the women and no physical evidence? How then would a fair assessment of this case be made?
If you're worrying about Assange you can rest assured by the low conviction rate. We'll see how the case goes.

isn't it role reversed sexist to indict him solely and purely on the basis of a story because it is told by a woman?

And is he being indicted solely based on this? Where do you find this "reverse-sexism"?