I’m guessing Clarence Beeks won’t be getting off at the city of sisterly love.

I’ve had a smilar experience on my Youtube channel. I made a video sharing my opnions on George Galloways comments. The first wave of feedback I got was from Assange fans using the video’s comment section to tell me my position on Assange was wrong (despite not making my position on Assange public in regards to this case whatsoever). The second wave came in the form of Galloway supporters regurgitating his claims in comments directed towards me filled with vitriol and ad-homs. One particular commenter decided that, since George Galloway “fights bigotry”, and I don’t like Galloway, I therefore must be a bigot. It’s quite an eye-opener into how his fanbase/followrs conduct themselves.

I’m sure Mr Beeks is a big disappointment to Randolph and Mortimer Duke.

Clarence Beeks is an odious character from a comedy film who ends up being raped by a gorilla.

At least we are keeping “on topic” with rape then.

By their friends …

Showing a complete lack of knowledge about the psychology of rape as well. They don’t do it for the sex, they do it for the power. So his comment is not only bigoted, it’s also ignorant.

It’s quite an eye-opener into how his fanbase/followrs conduct themselves.

Events recently have been quite an eye-opener all around as to just how clumsy and lacking in nuance a lot of so called left-winger’s anti-America stances are. I’ve witnessed certain feminists demand that the normally shite response to rapes also occur for Assange’s case, and the accusation to NOT be taken as seriously as they’d normally (generally when they’re not wearing their goggle-eyed anti-America Glasses) like all rapes to be taken by the authorities. I’ve seen some sparts take the stance that ‘assuming from a start point he is guilty, he shouldn’t go Sweden and face trial, because he’s a hero for taking on the states!’. In other places I’ve seen a strong hectoring call for the ‘revolutionary left’ to “get behind Assad” because A) Assad is anti-America therefore his toppling would result in one less nation opposed to America’s imperial ambitions in the region and B) the rebels are all American imperial auxiliaries anyway so fuck em. So that’s ‘revolutionary left’, but apparently only in favour of revolution for those nations that are allied with the USA.

As someone else said in a different thread – It’s not looking good for good ship Anti-American. Maybe it’ll join good ship Decent Left at the bottom of the ocean.

@4

Clyde is an Orang-Utang, not a Gorilla.

Who gives a fuck what George Galloway says about rape? Words aren’t political action.

@ 9 Dan

“Who gives a fuck what George Galloway says about rape? Words aren’t political action.”

Well, if you’d been considering voting for him and read this, hopefully you now wouldn’t.

@9: Who gives a fuck what George Galloway says about rape?

Judging by the amount of comment his remarks have received, lots of people.

It’s a bit of a shame that I can’t find George Galloway’s post here. A bit poor, on the part of you website.

Galloway’s opinion is that having been given permission to engage in coetus whilst the woman was asleep he then engaged in poor sexual etiquette by not waring the condom she had previously asked him to wear. The fact that he was given permission to continue when the woman awoke and asked if he was wearning one made it poor etiquette as opposed to rape. I wouldn’t mind seeing that tested in court but those who do not demand that gurantees are given about onward extradition are making sure it never happens and are more interested in fighting the US’s bogus so-called War on Terror than seeing rape taken seriously.

@13 Pretty sure Julian Assange being convicted of the rape of Pirate Party volunteers in Sweden, and by extension the reputation of his organisation in tatters, would serve Washington DC’s interests far more than getting him and torturing him.

[14] the hawks will already be chuckling about the trashing of assange’s reputation, and by extension his contribution to wikileaks.

Some idiotic commentators have labelled him as the ‘poster boy for rape culture’ even though he has not been charged @16
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/08/15/ecuador-denies-asylum-for-julian-assange/

Of course extradition would be the icing on the hawk’s cake.

@15 He is, himself and his Lawyers haven’t so much disputed the sequence of events as claimed that consenting once with conditions, also means consent has been provided while asleep without said conditions being met.
That’s rape culture right there.
The sense of entitlement that made Assange think he could ignore her wishes that he wear a condom and force himself inside her while she was asleep is born of rape culture, his defence is an outright expression of rape culture – that women’s bodies are there for men’s usage, and the defence of him is the wider symptom of rape culture – just like the defence of Roman Polanski – that sex crimes against women simply don’t count when measured against a man’s achievements.
I refuse to sacrifice my principles to defend such a man, others clearly feel different. That, however, is their problem, not mine.

@ 13 Staropramen

“The fact that he was given permission to continue when the woman awoke and asked if he was wearning one made it poor etiquette as opposed to rape. ”

Speaking generally here, as I’ve pretty much given up on being convinced about the facts of the Assange case. I personally don’t think that lying about wearing a condom should be rape, but I don’t think it should be dismissed as poor etiquette either. It falls somewhere between them. Possibly it should be a form of assault, which I believe is what you get if you lie about having an STD before sleeping with someone. That’s a fairly analogous example: you’ve conned your partner and put them at more risk than they’re aware of.

In some cases, lying to someone to get them into bed should be considered rape. The best example I can think of is if that person thinks that you are a different, existing individual. Like if someone pretended to be their identical twin to get said twin’s partner into bed.

@13 Staropramen

You’ve conflated two different allegations against Assange.

1) that he penetrated a woman while she was asleep and therefore unable to give consent. This would be rape under both UK and Swedish law whether or not a condom was used

2) that he attempted to penetrate her without a condom WHEN SHE WAS AWAKE but had only consented to sex with a condom. This is a separate incident from 1). Under UK law this would also meet the definition of rape, but under Swedish law it is “sexual molestation”.

George Galloway doesn’t regard either of these as rape.

I’ve taken these definitions from the Justice4Assange website, by the way.

http://justice4assange.com/Allegations.html

[16] you keep making references to polanski, a man who raped a 13 year old and admitted guilt, or at least part of it – assange has made no such admission while there is evidence to suggest doubts about the woman’s version of events.

Calling somebody ‘a poster boy for rape culture’ when he has not been convicted, let alone charged is symptomatic of the sort of prejudice that has led to other people suffering at the hands of the legal system because protagonists were too busy tripping over their own preconceptions rather than examining the facts of the case.

Are there any other people you KNOW are guilty so we can dispense with the formality of a trial?

19/a&ecn: Calling somebody ‘a poster boy for rape culture’ when he has not been convicted, let alone charged

I think US Congressman Akin, for instance, could reasonably be called “a poster boy for rape culture”, and he hasn’t to my knowledge been accused of any sexual offences at all. It’s not a requirement.

Rape culture, not rapists.

Assange may or may not have raped anyone; that’s a matter for the Swedish courts should he ever get there. He has, however, attracted in his defence – as well as people like yourself concerned primarily with the legal position and the possibility of US interference – a large number of people (like Galloway and Beeks) whose line of argument is “even if he did do exactly what the Swedes claim, that shouldn’t be considered rape”, or who make bizarre claims about Swedish law, or whose immediate conclusion was that the accusations had to be fabricated by the CIA, or who believe that even if the accusations are true, Assange should be let off on the grounds that he is a Great Hero, etc.

Given that Assange has made no moves to dissuade a defence on those grounds, or to distance himself from that subgroup of his supporters, inferences can be drawn about his own opinions.

@19 What cim says, basically.

Are there any other people you KNOW are guilty so we can dispense with the formality of a trial?

I know a few people that most definitely DID commit crimes, but because they have not been found guilty in a court of law, are technically innocent. Roman Polanski, because he skipped out before sentencing could occur, is, in fact, one of them, even with his admission of guilt. Plus there’s at least two innocent men featuring in the OP here, since Eliza James didn’t go to the police with either incident, for the compelling reasons she laid out there. You can get angry with me forming my own opinions based on Assange’s actions all you like, fact is, if he’d kept it in his pants or respected their wishes none of this would have occurred.
Does this mean the hole he dug for himself isn’t being capitalised on by the US? No it doesn’t. But then we enter into the realm of “Assange should be let off on the grounds that he is a Great Hero”, which of course begs the question of how far he should be allowed to go?

[20] OK, cim I see the distinction between those who are using the assange case to advance their own agenda about rape, and assange himself who denies wrong doing – perhaps the waters were somewhat muddied by reference to the likes of polanski who has admitted guilt after raping a 13 year old girl.

But just to add, even ‘women against rape’ campaigners do not think assange, nor indeed the two complainants have been given a fair shake by the legal system.
There is a great deal that could have been done sooner to address the allegations in a proper fashion – we can only speculate why the case was handled in the way that it was – needless to say the stand-off has created an ideal vacuum for various commentators, ourselves included, to hold forth both on the specific case and the wider issues in hand.

While it will be of little consolation to the women or assange I still think it is beneficial to get certain points of view out into the open so that they can be debated from a variety of perspectives.

‘Women against rape’ link
http://www.socialistunity.com/we-are-women-against-rape-but-do-not-want-julian-assange-extradited/

Is this Harry’s Place (younger readers should perhaps ask their parents about that reference – it was relevant in about 2003)?

http://therealsgm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/women-against-rape-seem-to-have.html
Yeah, it might be true that Assange is being pursued with more vigour than most rapists are in the UK or in Sweden, but that’s hardly an excuse to dump the procedure against Assange. All rapists should be pursued this aggressively. Then, rape victims might actually get some justice. Instead, WAR have just made it a whole lot harder for women to get support. They have made it harder for other women to get convictions for rape.
The whole article is a pile of paranoia and misinformation. WAR have just ensured that I won’t ever use them for support or refer friends to them. Anyone who writes that Wikileaks is more important than the bodily integrity of two women is no feminist.

Against that “Women Against Rape” (except when it’s Julian Assange, when it’s okay after all) piece of garbage, try that.

“Are there any other people you KNOW are guilty so we can dispense with the formality of a trial?”

You seem to be confused as to which party is trying to dispense with this formality.

@ 26 Jimmy

“You seem to be confused as to which party is trying to dispense with this formality.”

Which party do you think the a&e charge nurse is representing on this thread?

I can only echo the sentiments of Cylux, Rosie and others.

It’s been very disappointing to see what (and whom) some sections of the left will throw under the bus in their infatuation with Assange and crude anti-Americanism in the past week or so. In other respects it’s been heartening to see responses like those above, but on the whole its been quite a shocking experience.

His vote wont go down in Bradford West though.

Galloway’s put his foot straight back into his mouth:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/27/george-galloway-criticised-window-licker-tweet

How very ‘progressive’. He’s all class, isn’t he?

@Tory – Actually, it was largely Muslim women voting against the demands of the men of their households (who generally preferred the ‘Muslim elder vetted’ Labour candidate) that got George in. So, there’s a very good chance he’s just destroyed his political bedrock in the constituency.

@13 Pretty sure Julian Assange being convicted of the rape of Pirate Party volunteers in Sweden, and by extension the reputation of his organisation in tatters, would serve Washington DC’s interests far more than getting him and torturing him.

This.

An extradition to the USA would make Assange a hero while a spell on the fraggle wing will discredit him entirely.

@8 – that’s as maybe but Clyde wasn’t in Trading Places. A film in which Clarence Beeks ends up being raped by a gorilla.