Watch: Galloway refuses to debate an Israeli; walks out


by Sunny Hundal    
8:10 am - February 21st 2013

      Share on Tumblr

The Respect MP George Galloway abruptly stormed out of a debate last night at Oxford University, after discovering his opponent was an Israeli.

The motion in debate was: ‘Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank’ and featured student Eylon Aslan-Levy opposite Galloway. The story was broken by the Oxford Tab newspaper last night.

When Galloway’s opponent used “we” in reference to Israel, he asked whether Aslan-Levy was an Israeli. After being told that he was, Galloway grabbed his coat and stormed out.

The hall of students burst out in boos and laughter at Galloway’s behaviour.

Galloway defended himself on Twitter later.

[hat-tip: KebabTime / @Ontablets]

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Was he faring badly in the debate at the time? One suspects he might not be able to use his usual bluster at the OU.

Cherub:

1 – It wasn’t at the Oxford Union
2 – It was a debate, meaning one person gives their proposing view for a set period of time, and another gives their opposing view for another period of time.
3 – Galloway had already given his side of the argument
4 – He has already been to the Oxford Union, and destroyed the opposition, who were mostly young Oxford upstarts, unable to come to terms with the fact that if you’re going to accuse a man of all the -isms going, you should have factual evidence first. It was only in October 2012, search YouTube for it. Your loaded comment seems to assume that at the OU, only the most robust scholars engage in debate. Well, you’re completely wrong. The OU’s questions were some of the most fatuous and pointless questions I’ve ever witnessed.

I don’t blame him. You should not debate terrorists. (Or so the right wing keep telling us)

In a world where you can’t even use the word Jewish anymore, why bother? By the way I see the ‘non existent’ Jewish lobby in the US is trying to ban a debte about boycotting Israel at a New York university.

Freedom is only for Israelis apparently.

@ Sally

“Freedom is only for Israelis apparently.”

Last time I checked, the large Arab population in Israel had full democratic rights, and are able to live peacefully within Israel.

I wonder how many rights Israelis would have in Palestinain territories?

I don’t blame him. You should not debate terrorists. (Or so the right wing keep telling us)

I hope the student sues the antisemitic arse off you for calling him a terrorist.

Tyler: “I wonder how many rights Israelis would have in Palestinain territories?”

Well just look beyond the mainstream news and you can answer that question for yourself. The 500k@+ Israeli settlers have substantially more rights than the Palestinians supported by a brutal occupying Israeli Army.

@ Bert

Last time i checked, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have their own government. If those people are lacking in rights, maybe they should be asking their own leaders why.

If Mr Galloway was misled, then he has every right to walk out.

While im sure the student was not an official representative of Israel, Galloway has every right to boycott anyone presenting themselves as “Israeli” given a lot of people actively boycott Israel because of the Apartheid and child killing etc…

This is not to say Mr Galloway does not debate people who are Jewish because of their race / religion. He just won’t debate someone who is benefiting from the mass imprisonment of people.

If you want to see real racism you can go to Youtube or Liveleak. There are many such videos of Israelis attacking black people in Israel who are asylum seekers. This never gets covered nor does it receive condemnation in Israel. Instead the authorities have been forcefully giving black women birth control.

Odd how nobody gets angry about that.

“I hope the student sues the antisemitic arse off you for calling him a terrorist.”

Given how the UK / US authorities have branded Occupy and other protest groups as terrorists, that word no longer has meaning.

The student should have said: “well that’s a relief since I don’t debate with c****.”

And I don’t know how Galloway could have been “misled” unless he demands to know debaters’ nationalities in advance. Which would be rather, erm, racist, wouldn’t it?

Never mentioned him. I am referring to the terrorist state he comes from. The same bunch of land stealing thugs you support. Still good to see how you Pro jewish lobby hate real debate.

7 You rally are a moron. They can’t move, trade or do anything without the terrorist state of Israel allowing it. I’m sure the Jews had their leaders in the death camps. Didn’t do them any good. And that is what Gaza and the West bank are. Giant concentration camps with walls and watch towers.

Well done George Galloway. There should be no sharing of platforms with the Zionist ethnic cleansers.

Never mentioned him. I am referring to the terrorist state he comes from.

No, you said I don’t blame him. You should not debate terrorists.. There were no terrorists there – although Galloway supports terrorism and was Saddam Hussein’s groveling desciple.

The same bunch of land stealing thugs you support. Still good to see how you Pro jewish lobby hate real debate.

And again you deliberately conflate the words ‘Jewish’ (which has a capital letter – although you know that damn well since I have pointed it out to you repeatedly) and ‘Israeli’.

I really hope this guy sues you.

Shatterface and others

I admire your ability to stay calm and make rational responses to the open anti-semitism on display here, it’s more than I have the stomach for.

No bigger supporter of Saddam than the western right wing. They trained him and sold him the weapons. Rumsfeld flew to meet him after he gassed his own people, and shook his hand.

So no lectures about defending Saddam thanks.

The real problem I suspect is that they had reached a point in the evening which did not involve Galloway talking and he was bored.

Thornavis and several others: It’s significant to recognise the distinction between Jewish and Israeli; one can take issue with the state of Israel while taking no stances against the Jews. If you really believe the state of Israel is responsive to and representative of the majority of Jews, then you’re probably a US Republican.

Shatterface @12: and in this case, you’re completely right that your disputant was conflating Israeli with Jewish.

17. Peter Buckley

Looks like Gorgeous George is finally losing it.He is so desperate to appear as muslim as possible that he has taken to adopting a faux-Arab accent:
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1598/british_mp_yells_you_make_me_sick_at_anti_assad_audience_member_on_islamist_linked_tv_station

Hilarious.More on the Gorgeous one:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3113/despots-collaborator

Has George been watching Bob Servant, BBC Scotland’s political comedy?

the same George Galloway who said people must not be allowed to walk out on Ahmadinejad’s holocaust denying speeches: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAh_N5KDKOo

Just as stupid as refusing to debate with the BNP. You end up giving the moral high ground to your opponents and a platform on which they are unchallenged.

If he is 100% identifying himself with State of Israel and representing their national policy and rhetoric as his own oppinion, then he is there as a state propagandist, not an interested third party.

That’s dishonest.

The format of the debate was clearly set up to be an honest exchange of ideas between individuals regarding the actions and behaviour of state actors.

It’s therefore a cynical breach of faith for the state actor at issue to stack the panel with a conscious, state-sanctioned unpaid propagandist, preaching state rhetoric.

I’d like to see more politicians shit themselves in public.

Chris Naden @16

“Thornavis and several others: It’s significant to recognise the distinction between Jewish and Israeli; one can take issue with the state of Israel while taking no stances against the Jews. If you really believe the state of Israel is responsive to and representative of the majority of Jews, then you’re probably a US Republican.”

Eh, why have you included me in that ? I haven’t said anything that suggests I think there is no distinction between Israeli and Jewish. On the contrary it is the anti israeli activists who so often muddy those waters. What have US Republicans got to do with anything here ?

“The format of the debate was clearly set up to be an honest exchange of ideas ”

Then what on earth was Galloway doing there?

Its a reminder of how apartheid South Africa was and needed to be treated.

It also reminds me of the Erdogan walkout on Simon Peres at Davos after Israeli forces killed volunteers on the Mavi Marmara. Oh how the 1% cheered!

The impact of Galloway’s walkout will be to increase people’s resolve to rekindle boycotts of things Israeli.

The impact of Galloway’s walkout will be to increase people’s resolve to rekindle boycotts of things Israeli.

Because nothing galvanises the troops like the sight of an ageing Trot throwing a hissy-fit

Next time he enters a debate he should take his blanky.

Refresh,
Just to, well, use your screen name: you think that the Erdogan implosion at Davos in re Peres came after IHH terrorists got themselves killed. Sadly, you sort of completely got the timeline wrong, as Erdogan was having a hissyfit in early 2009, not mid-2010, so the one thing had nothing to do with the other. You also seem to think that George Galloway has a huge activist base that wasn’t already fellating BDS (they were) and will suddenly rise to great success (they won’t).
I hate to keep asking this of your ilk, but you’re so stupid I have to: will you please, pretty please with sugar on top, remain a committed pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel advocate, because you’re such an asset for my side?

Ben,

The problem is very simple. Despite the hugely magnanimous move by the Palestinians to recognise Israel, Sharon and Netanyahu used the next 20 years taking as much of what would have remained of Palestinian land.

So you should be thanking the Palestinians for their incredible generosity instead of supporting a state which starves them out of their land and home and kills their leaders for electoral gain.

The rest of the world is not blind, despite the media bias.

Ben,

You are right on the timeline. Erdogan was incensed by the inhumane attack on Gaza under the so called operation ‘Cast Lead’.

Thornavis and others.

Trying to claim that any criticism of Israeli policy in the occupied territories is anti-Semitic completely negates anything useful you may add to the debate. It is not fooling anybody and you’re simply refusing to debate the issues, hiding behind a veil of manufactured outrage.

The facts speak for themselves; Israel occupies Palestinian lands, it settles its citizens there, it strictly limits Palestinian access to food, fuel and medicine, prevents them from having access to export markets and brutally puts down any opposition to its policies. It looks very much like they are trying to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth.

I have actually been to Israel and experienced the racism that pervades the culture there, a culture that is not, as far as I am aware, is not prevalent in Jewish communities outside Israel. There are a great number of Israelis that would happily see the Palestinians destroyed, that is why they keep returning hard-line racist governments. It is interesting to note that 20 years ago, when the moderate Labour government was in power both sides enjoyed relative peace. With the Zionists in power, there will not be peace until the whole of the lands that were once Palestine become Israeli.

As a final point, I’d just like to point out that if any other nation on earth was doing this, we would all be outraged. Why should Israel be any different? What makes their genocide acceptable?

As a final point, I’d just like to point out that if any other nation on earth was doing this, we would all be outraged. Why should Israel be any different? What makes their genocide acceptable?

There’s no fucking genocide.

What with your Glorious Leader shitting himself when he realised he was talking to an Israeli who might have firsthand knowledge of life in Israel rather than some chinless twat who sees the world through Steve Bell-coloured glasses, and your own desperate resort to inventing imagined atrocities all your opponents need to do to win a debate is turn up and try not to hurt themselves on the furniture.

Sampson

“Thornavis and others.

Trying to claim that any criticism of Israeli policy in the occupied territories is anti-Semitic completely negates anything useful you may add to the debate. It is not fooling anybody and you’re simply refusing to debate the issues, hiding behind a veil of manufactured outrage.”

You must be addressing some other Thornavis, this one has never said any such thing. I have been attempting to counter the virulent anti Israeli comments of others, some of which are pretty obviously anti semitic, that is all.

” With the Zionists in power, there will not be peace until the whole of the lands that were once Palestine become Israeli.”

There were no lands that were once Palestine, it was never any sort of a single nation, consequently there were never any Palestinian lands to occupy, the dispute is over who gets which bits of the old mandate territories, that could all have been settled in 1948 if the Arabs hadn’t decided on war instead. Peace will come when the present Arab occupants of those territories outside of Israel finally accept Israel’s right to exist and reject Islamists and their genocidal hatred of Jews.

@ Chris Naden.

“It’s significant to recognise the distinction between Jewish and Israeli; one can take issue with the state of Israel while taking no stances against the Jews.”

Perhaps you should explain that to ‘anti-zionists’ like Sally, who use the words ‘Israeli’, ‘Jew’ and ‘zionist’ interchangeably and then whine about other people supposedly falsely conflating antizionism with anti-semitism.

While so many ‘anti-zionists’ can’t make the distinction, it’s reasonable to infer that those ‘anti-zionists’ are indeed merely common or garden antisemites.

Why do people take Galloway seriously? After the Big Brother cat incident?
He seems to be an agent provocateur. A symbol for right wingers like Lamia, shatterface, thornavis and cjcj to vent their anti lefty slogans.
As for Galloway
The student union at Oxford has always been a breeding ground for budding Tories, so why go there unless he wanted the stage for hissy fit.
Personalities instead of issues.
More important is the government of Israel committing a sort of ethnic cleansing in the west bank.
February 4, 2013

After driving Palestinians out of their villages to purportedly set up military exercise bases, the Israeli daily, Haaretz, accused Israel on Monday of carrying out the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians in certain areas of the West Bank.

In its editorial, the newspaper mentioned when and how many times Israeli displacement campaigns had taken place. It also mentioned how many persons were displaced. “They removed 60 Palestinians, including 36 children, and destroyed 46 tents and improvised structures,” the editorial said.
Do note that it is an Israeli newspaper that broke the story

Given that Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular are ethnically Semitic peoples, it’s not inaccurate to say that Israelis are the most virulently anti-Semitics group of people on the face of the Earth. And institutionally so.

Having a Jewish state is as wrong and unethical as having an Islamic State.

Spike1138 @35

Sophistry, FTW!

George Galloway doesn’t talk to Jews, he prefers mass murdering Communist (and Arab/Iranian) dictators.

I like Galloway though. He shows what the Left is really like.

“George Galloway doesn’t talk to Jews, he prefers mass murdering Communist (and Arab/Iranian) dictators.
I like Galloway though. He shows what the Left is really like.”
You are as mad as him

39. Rebecca Taylor

Some questions for Sally & those who share her views that “Israeli” and “Jew” are the same thing:

1) Are Jewish people who are not Israelis and have no links to Israel responsible for the action of the Israeli state? If so, then presumably all Muslims are responsible for Al-Quaida? NB for the record I think that both forms of tarring everyone with the same brush are incorrect and prejudiced.

2) How do you classify those Israeli Jews who have never voted for Netanyahu because they do not support his policies on Palestine? If it is still “their fault”, then every British citizen who never voted for Tony Blair’s Labour government and those of us who marched against the war are responsbile for the war in Iraq. Do you agree?

As regards Galloway, quite frankly, I think he has lost it. He doesn’t even rant coherently these days and when seriously challenged he goes for personal insults or ignores the challenge because he isn’t able to deal with it.

@38

I’m not an MP. People actually voted for his madness.

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that Galloway is a Mossad plant?

I’m just saying…

Tory
!”Im not an MP. People actually voted for his madness”
There are enough of your clones who are MPs and they get many votes.
Rebecca makes points that cannot be argued against
but Becky it is two edged sword. There are many who think if you criticize the Israeli government for any reason you are anti Semitic and even an extreme
right wing government should be defended at all costs just because they are the government of Israel.

My clones?

My madness?

Where is this personal coming from?

Get over yourself you self-righteous and presumptious dickhead.

44. Arthur Seaton

Galloway is a Stalinist, a pan-arabist, and an opportunist, but he is certainly not a Trot. And anyone with a modicum of moral sense would have the honesty to accept and admit he no more represents “the left” than a despicable oaf such as James Delingpole represents “the right”.

“self-righteous and presumptious dickhead”, hmmm, rage of Caliban against his reflection and all that….

The BDS campaign’s statement (dated 21st February 2013) on “Boycott of Individuals” (http://www.bdsmovement.net/) doesn’t mention Galloway, but at first blush would seem to be an attempt to distance themselves from his walk-out at Christ Church and subsequent justifications of it on twitter:

“The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), the largest coalition of Palestinian unions, mass organisations, refugee networks and NGOs that leads and and sets the guidelines for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, supports all principled action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality that is in line with universal human rights and international law.

“In its 2005 BDS Call, Palestinian civil society has called for a boycott of Israel, its complicit institutions, international corporations that sustain its occupation, colonization and apartheid, and official representatives of the state of Israel and its complicit institutions. BDS does not call for a boycott of individuals because she or he happens to be Israeli or because they express certain views. Of course, any individual is free to decide who they do and do not engage with.

“The global BDS movement has consistently adopted a rights-based approach and an anti-racist platform that rejects all forms of racism, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

“These guidelines and the fact that BDS has been initiated and is led by Palestinian civil society are major reasons behind the rapid growth and success that the BDS movement has enjoyed around the world.”

But read it more closely, and pay particular attention to this:

“Of course, any individual is free to decide who they do and do not engage with.”… in other words, boycott individuals if you want, just don’t expect us to publicly endorse your action (but we certainly won’t condemn it).”

Hypocritical, lying, antisemites!

“Where is this personal coming from?
Get over yourself you self-righteous and presumptious dickhead.”
You made an idiotic claims that all leftists were like Galloway ignoring the fact he has been kicked out of the Labour party, whose most members despise him, the lib dems hate him, god I think most of respect can’t stand him. The authors of the two pieces , who assume are lefties cannot stand him and even his wife couldn’t stomach him.
It is a mad claim, made by Tory clones like yourself.
You right about the dickhead though. Sorry

Tyler. You really do need to read more. So OK let’s not mention the Occupation, let’s not mention the Settlers and settlements, let’s not mention a racist road network, let’s not mention the checkpoints, let’s not mention the wall, let’s not mention the fact that it’s illegal…If we ignore about 100 other issues you might have a point.

Palestinians are third class citizens in their own country which is occupied by Israel!

Ironic, isn’t it?

A politician acts in accordance with his publically stated principles rather than compromising his personal convictions (whether you agree with them or not) and no-one even recognises it for what it is.

There used to be a school of thought that politics was about doing what was right, not what was popular.

He could have done what was popular and swallowed his pride, kept his mouth shut, had a relatively easy ride and not made himself look like such an intolerant fool.

That just isn’t how Gorgeous George rolls.

“He could have done what was popular”…

Just think, for a moment, Spike, about Galloway’s chosen “constituency” – and I use that word in both the political and the geographical sense.

Galloway has *never* consciously said or done anything that he thought wasn’t going to be popular amongst the various “constituencies” he’s appealed to in the course of his loathsome and opportunist career.

His rape-apologism was an uncharacteristic misjudgement.

“He could have done what was popular”… you mean he *didn’t*???

The “constituency” a politician is appealling to at any given time is crucial, Spike.

Galloway is nothing if not a populist. His one miscalculation was over Assange and rape.

There’s a paradox here. George Galloway addressed a remark to a person who doesn’t, in his world, exist. Does GG hallucinate much? Now here’s a good wheeze: let’s get someone with dual British-Israeli nationality, and rent him a house in Galloway’s constituency. Let’s get him an appointment at GG’s “surgery” and then see whether he exists in the eyes of Galloway. Shouldn’t be too difficult to arrange.

52. margin4error

Galloway is just another pro-establishment lickspittle saying what he’s told to say by those who pay him money.

It is just that the establishment he serves is that of a bunch of vicious dictators.

Thank you, Refresh, for not even pretending to be embarrassed that you couldn’t get basic facts straight. I don’t think my side of this I/P divide is comprised exclusively of geniuses–not even close–but compared to you and your lot, Cheeze Us H. Rice. You are stupid, stupid, stupid.

“Just think, for a moment, Spike, about Galloway’s chosen “constituency” – and I use that word in both the political and the geographical sense.”

None of them appear to be present in that room.

It appeared to Bt a markedly unpopular move.

“His rape-apologism was an uncharacteristic misjudgement.”

He is not and was not an apologist for rape, the crime Assange is accused of doesn’t clearly fall within the legal definition of rape or anything close to it in any present day legal code and he was (and is) absolutely right.

Assange has no case to answer.

But that really isn’t the point.

Assange is CIA. If they wanted him, they would have him strapped to a chair in a black site outside Krakow inside of 12hrs.

Assange is a fraud and the charges outstanding against him are all part of his legend.

“He is not and was not an apologist for rape, the crime Assange is accused of doesn’t clearly fall within the legal definition of rape or anything close to it in any present day legal code and he was (and is) absolutely right.”

I can’t believe people are still serving up this red herring. You are being disingenuous and you know it. Galloway was called an apologist for rape NOT for supporting Assange but for his own separate volunteered definition of what is or is not rape in hypothetical situations. The nature of the charges against Assange, and his guilt or innocence, are completely immaterial to that.

The fact that you have confused the two, and after this time, indicates that you are either remarkably slow or dishonest. Or possibly both.

“Galloway was called an apologist for rape NOT for supporting Assange but for his own separate volunteered definition of what is or is not rape in hypothetical situations. ”

“Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion,”

That’s inelegant, but not inaccurate.

Is consent always verbal? No. If that were true, a mute would never be able to give consent at its immature and unintelligent to pretend there isn’t a grey area here and that the lines are firmly etched in stone when they clearly aren’t.

It’s also worth noting, I have heard this “We wanted peace, instead we got war” opening statement before. It’s a standard defence offered in debating societies all across this land and no doubt in other lands as well.

It’s scripted.

It’s also not true.

You’re not debating a person, you’re debating a press release.

And I wouldn’t dignify it by engaging with it either.

The Israel Lobby is very fond of telling us that Arab-Israelis within the Green Line make up around 20% of the population of the State of Israel; the vote, participate in civic society and it’s institutions, enjoying full civil rights guaranteed by Israeli law.

All of which is true. Israel is not an ethnically homogenous state.

The State of Israel is formally and legally a secular republic with no established church or religion. Israel is a religiously diverse nation.

How, then can criticism of Israeli government policy be in any way coterminous with anti-Semitism?

It just doesn’t wash.

And by 2050, certainly 2100, Israel will be a majority Arab state.

At which time, the chickens will be comin’ home to roost, y’all…

59. margin4error

Spike

In regards to your last post – don’t imagine that every accusation of antisemitism relates to criticism of israel. Galloway was plenty conmfortable with antisemitism long before he took up paid employment to rant about israel.

60. Robin Levett

@Spike #54:

He is not and was not an apologist for rape, the crime Assange is accused of doesn’t clearly fall within the legal definition of rape or anything close to it in any present day legal code and he was (and is) absolutely right.

Simply, utterly and absolutely wrong. I think the UK Supreme Court has a better grasp of English criminal law than you; hell, on this showing, the Pryce jury has a better grasp than you.

“Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion,”

That’s inelegant, but not inaccurate.

And irrelevant to the Assange case. Consent given for “insertion” with a condom, coupled with refusal of conesnt without a condom, cannot in any sensible world be taken as consent to a subsequent “insertion” without a condom, when the insertee was not asked because asleep.

“In regards to your last post – don’t imagine that every accusation of antisemitism relates to criticism of israel.”

Don’t imagine ever criticism of Israel relates to antisemitism.

If Israel is 20% Arab-Israeli and roughly 8 out of 10 Arabs within the area claimed as “Greater Israel” are Muslims, that could follow that such a charge must surely be 80% anti-semitism (again, Arabs ARE Semites) and 16% Islamophobic.

“Galloway was plenty conmfortable with antisemitism long before he took up paid employment to rant about israel.”

A very easy charge to make but I ask you :

1) Can you provide any examples with citation?
2) Can you document the allegation that he’s saying what he says because someone is paying him to as opposed to saying something he actually believes?

62. Robin Levett

@Spike #58:

How, then can criticism of Israeli government policy be in any way coterminous with anti-Semitism?

That’s not what is in issue; Gorgeous George refuses to engage with Jewish Israelis, but has no such problem with Muslim Israelis. One, that is not criticism of israeli Government policy; two, because his refusal to engage is directed specifically at the Jewish segment of the Israeli population, it looks superficially like an anti-Semitic stance.

He is not and was not an apologist for rape, the crime Assange is accused of doesn’t clearly fall within the legal definition of rape or anything close to it in any present day legal code and he was (and is) absolutely right.

“Simply, utterly and absolutely wrong. I think the UK Supreme Court has a better grasp of English criminal law than you; hell, on this showing, the Pryce jury has a better grasp than you.”

Yes, they do. And they said:

“A Preliminary Investigation conducted by the Chief Officer, in which Mr Assange co-operated, concluded that there was no case against him in respect of the alleged rape. ”

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2011_0264_Judgment.pdf

I say you’re wrong, the Supreme Court says your wrong and George Galloway was right.

64. Robin Levett

@Spike #63:

Yes, they do. And they said:

“A Preliminary Investigation conducted by the Chief Officer, in which Mr Assange co-operated, concluded that there was no case against him in respect of the alleged rape. ”

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2011_0264_Judgment.pdf

I say you’re wrong, the Supreme Court says your wrong and George Galloway was right.

Oh. Dear.

In the passage you quote, Lord Phillips is reciting the history of the charges in Sweden; he is not expressing his own view, still less that of the Supreme Court.

The question of whether the behaviour with which Assange was potentially charged constituted rape was in issue before the District Judge, who found that it did.

The Divisional Court found that an English (or Welsh) jury would be fully entitled to find him guilty of rape if they found the facts as alleged.

Assange’s legal team didn’t actually put this in issue before the Supreme Court – they knew they’d lose the argument; but the Supreme Court, if it thought that there was an issue, could have mentioned it and invited argument. Instead, they described the charges outlined in the EAW as including rape without further comment.

You’re not going to win this one; you are, quite simply, wrong. Go away and read the whole of the judgments from the District Judge upward; not just the cherry-picked bits that, looked at upside down in dim light, could if misunderstood afford a grain of support for your predetermined views.

2) Can you document the allegation that he’s saying what he says because someone is paying him to as opposed to saying something he actually believes?

I think you are probably right here: Galloway isn’t antisemitic because he’s paid to be so, he’s genuinely expressing deeply hrld antisemitic beliefs.

I find it strange that you think this is an argument in his favour though.

“You’re not going to win this one; you are, quite simply, wrong. Go away and read the whole of the judgments from the District Judge upward; not just the cherry-picked bits that, looked at upside down in dim light, could if misunderstood afford a grain of support for your predetermined views.”

You made the implicit claim that the Supreme Court had ruled on the issue of whether or not such behaviour would constitute rape. And it hasn’t. Whilst further implying that in doing so, they had found that it was. Which they didn’t.

What you are suggesting is factually untrue.

As you yourself say, the Court made no determination as to whether or not it would constitute rape or not.

You seem predetermined to believe that under such circumstances it clearly would be, prima face.

That isn’t AT ALL clear – and for this reason.

Is rape the only form of criminal sexual assault / non-consensual sexual attack and/or violence recognised by statutory law?

No, it quite clearly isn’t. The law recognises degrees of severity in these instances and it recognises that this is an analogue scale of severity and seriousness, not a binary one.

It’s not a question of every human act falling definitively on one side of the rape-not rape dividing line and that’s not the kind of law or jurisprudance that any thinking or rational adult would want to have.

Sexual violence is a serious issue and requires better treatment and subtle more nuanced analysis than to be left as the exclusive domain of reactionaries and pitchfork wielding maniacs.

It requires thought.

Not to mention, empathy, in equal measure to understand and learn from what has gone on.

The point remains : in Assange’s case, there IS NO CASE TO ANSWER as far as a charge of a VERY serious offence such as Rape goes; in the main part because it isn’t clearly demonstrated that whatever he did constituted rape.

It found there WAS a case to answer (potentially) for the lesser charge of Sexual Molestation.

But as for a case that Assange committed rape?

Unsupportable. There is no case to answer there – it took place YEARS ago, there is no phsycial or forensic evidence, his accuser did not report it at the time, there was no violence or force either suggested or implied, she didn’t submit a rape kit and there is no police or incident report.

This is the case: “Julian Assange raped me”

Assange: “No I didn’t”

Judge: “Can you prove it?”

“No.”

Case dismissed.

This is the other factor: the Swedish Prosecutor THREW THE CASE OUT as being without substance and unsupportable by any facts, but was over-ruled by officials at the Justice Ministry acting at the last possible moment.

It’s a basic tenet of justice that a person gets to face their accuser and examine the evidence collected against them.

Because Assange is trapped in limbo, his case has never got to that stage.

It would be a short hearing.

There is no case to answer.

@65 “I think you are probably right here: Galloway isn’t antisemitic because he’s paid to be so, he’s genuinely expressing deeply hrld antisemitic beliefs.”

Still awaiting some evidence.

Not seeing any yet.

68. Robin Levett

@Spike #66:

But as for a case that Assange committed rape?

Read the Divisional Court decision. If the factual allegations made by the victims are believed – yes, he is guilty of rape. No ifs, no buts. It may be that the allegations are not believed – but that doesn’t bear upon the question of whether what he is accused of constitutes rape. In English law, it does. The lower courts have said so; the Supreme Court saw no reason to raise the issue on the appeal brought by Assange.

Is rape the only form of criminal sexual assault / non-consensual sexual attack and/or violence recognised by statutory law?

Of course not – but non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis is rape.

This is the other factor: the Swedish Prosecutor THREW THE CASE OUT as being without substance and unsupportable by any facts, but was over-ruled by officials at the Justice Ministry acting at the last possible moment.

This too is wrong. One Swedish prosecutor thew the case out. A senior Swedish prosecutor, on reconsideration, decided to pursue the case. There was no overruling by officials at the Justice Ministry, acting at any moment.

I implore you – read the judgments in the English courts, from District Judge to the Supreme Court.

@64

“The question of whether the behaviour with which Assange was potentially charged constituted rape was in issue before the District Judge, who found that it did.”

And successfully trying the case, were it to be done in an English court room would require, under the 2003 Statute, meeting the following criteria, and satisfactorily doing so beyond a reasonable doubt:

(a) he intentionaliity
(b) absence of consent
(c) the absence of a reasonable belief that consent has given.

Try as you might, you can’t meet the test of reasonable doubt in the third instance – he may be an idiot for thinking so, but Assange’s position no doubt is that it wasn’t in any way clear that consent wasn’t given or forthcoming and you will never dissuade a jury from the notion that he genuinely didn’t think that.

Rape is a serious offence and an indictable crime.

Nearly every other sexual offence is not considered as such and does not go to Crown Court.

With what we seem to know and what either party claims, it isn’t at all obvious that what he is claimed to have done constitutes rape, nor would that likely be the charge in this country or likely in Sweden, which investigations up to this point support.

A more readily provable case could be made under English Statue for either “Assault by penetration” (s.2, 2003) or more likely “Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (s.4)”

Everyone agree with the facts in that instance, and it’s NOT considered a serious, indictable crime.

Everyone agrees that the accuser consented to sex; everyone agrees that she did not explicitly consent to that particular sexual act and consent (retroactively) is claimed would not have been forthcoming.

70. margin4error

Spike

your response to me doesn’t make any sense.

I pointed out that some accusations of antisemitism have nothing to do with israel. So why have you replied to me about israel? I don’t give a monkeys about israel. Never have. I have a vague sense that its leaders are murderous bstds. But then I also consider the various leaders they hate, and who pay Galloway to speak for them, to be murderous bstds. All of which makes me rather disinterested in the Middle East in general.

My view of Galloway is rather more a result of his campaign against Oona King (not an MP I particularly admired, granted) in Bethnal Green and Bow. Those campaigning for him engaged in some terrible anti-semitism (I live nearby and was a political reporter at the time should point that out – sorry) and he never missed an opportunity to remind his followers that she was Jewish, not just black.

Indeed the oft repeated line was “She’s sent a lot of men darker than her to their deaths in Iraq!”

Now one might rather fatuiously pretend he wasn’t engaging in antisemitism, on the basis that by not knowing the contenxt in which he said the things he said, it is possible to pretend it was not meant that way. But even then, the widespread antisemitic campaign by his followers was very clear cut – and he continued to support those people and play to their support for him.

Ad as all good people know – if you do not stand up against racism, you are part of it.

“Of course not – but non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis is rape.”

No it isn’t. Not legally.

No law anywhere says that. Under current English Statute:

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Non-consensual penetration is not sufficient.

Only if there is a clear and reasonable case to be made that there is INTENTION.

Very, very umabiguously: “non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis” is NOT rape, but itself;

INTENTIONAL non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis IS rape.

Still awaiting some evidence.

Not seeing any yet.

It’s you who suggested that he isn’t ‘saying what he says because someone is paying him to’ and that he’s ‘saying something he actually believes’.

Since you are suggesting he’s a genuine antisemite rather just a cynic saying things antisemites want to hear I’ll let you provide the evidence.

It doesn’t make a hell of a lot of difference to me whether he’s genuinely antisemitic or merely an oportunist riding the antisemitism bandwaggon – the outcome is the same.

INTENTIONAL non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis IS rape.

Is there a lot on UNINTENTIONAL non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis about?

@73

“Is there a lot on UNINTENTIONAL non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis about?”

Self-evidently.

Otherwise they wouldn’t have to legislate for it.

@70

“My view of Galloway is rather more a result of his campaign against Oona King (not an MP I particularly admired, granted) in Bethnal Green and Bow. Those campaigning for him engaged in some terrible anti-semitism (I live nearby and was a political reporter at the time should point that out – sorry) and he never missed an opportunity to remind his followers that she was Jewish, not just black.”

Oona King isn’t Jewish. Her mother is.

You may be confusing her with Margaret Hodge.

In either instance, it’s a straw man arguement.

Irrespective of what she might say after the fact, there are plenty of good and valid reasons why her constituents chose to abandon their support for her in 2005 and “George Galloway is an anti-semite” doesn’t even come close to registering, regardless of what her injured pride might compel her to point to and blame instead.

The reason Galloway was elected and Oona King’s support collapsed was that the electors felt that Galloway and his message was more in sync with their own needs than her and that under her tenure as MP, they had been poorly served and poorly represented on the national stage.

Now, if you were to make the arguement that Galloway himself (not some hot-headed or over-eager, over-wrought campaign staff) were a sincere or doctrinaire anti-Semite, rather than engaging in street-fighting, Gorbals-style cynical electioneering and rabble-rousing, you would not need to look far to find the proof of it:

Margaret Hodge is 100% Jewish and seated in the adjacent constituency of Barking – she was highly vulnerable in the 2010 General election, due to both the expenses scandal and an extended leave of absence from Parliament due to her husband going through a lengthy battle with terminal cancer, and a concerted and coordinated assault by the BNP in her constituency.

Respect did not even field a candidate, though it surely could have easily done so and delivered a handy defeat to Hodge, if he seriously bore ill-will to Jewish peoples.

Hodge held the seat and with a 1.7% swing in her favour, in spite of the Tories, Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP declining to bow out and through their support for an “Anyone but BNP” Solidarity candidacy – they were still too self-interested to yield in favour of deeper political realities overarching the contest as a whole.

76. Robin Levett

@Spike @#69:

I would have thought the prosecutor would have little difficulty in showing that if, as alleged, the previous night the woman refused sex without a condom, and allowed it only with a condom, any belief by Assange that she had the following morning, whilst still asleep, changed her mind and now consented to non-condom intercourse was unreasonable.

#74:

“Is there a lot on UNINTENTIONAL non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis about?”

Self-evidently.

Otherwise they wouldn’t have to legislate for it.

No, there’s not a great deal – it ain’t an easy thing to do unintentionally; and, crucially for the argument here, there is no suggestion that there was any in the Assange case.

Why does English law apply to rape in Sweden?

“No, there’s not a great deal”

Bullshit. For all you know, it’s rife.

“and, crucially for the argument here, there is no suggestion that there was any in the Assange case.”

There’s also nothing to support the belief that Assange ignored or violated consent intentionally.

He’s a vainglorious narcissist, in case you hadn’t noticed.

He thinks his own sh*t doesn’t stink – of course he’s going to assume he has obtained proper consent when he may not.

For you to establish that this was an intentional act on his part, you have establish that he did so maliciously and knowlingly.

And Assange’s ego is so utterly and disproportionally bloated beyond all boundaries of common sense, Occam’s Razor and the balance of probabilities points more far firmly to the conclusion that this was a case of him being crassly inconsiderate rather one of actual malice.

spike,

There’s also nothing to support the belief that Assange ignored or violated consent intentionally.

the intent is not in ignoring or violating consent, the intent is in penetrating the vagina with one’s penis.

That you haven’t grasped this is why you haven’t grasped Shatterface mocking you about Assange unintentionally penetrating the woman – as if on returning from the toilet, he slipped and fell inside her.

An article that is remarkably free of judgment. You leapt on Marcus Dysch for calling an Israeli Jewish diplomat a Jewish diplomat but make not judgment as to Galloway’s refusing to debate someone because he is an Israeli Jew.

81. Robin Levett

@spike #78:

There’s also nothing to support the belief that Assange ignored or violated consent intentionally.

The “intentionally” in the section refers to the penetration.

He thinks his own sh*t doesn’t stink – of course he’s going to assume he has obtained proper consent when he may not.

That’s irrelevant. His belief in consent, to avoid the charge, must be reasonable; you’ve quoted the section yourself. That means the test is an objective one; “would the man on the Clapham omnibus believe that he had consent in the circumstances as proven” – not “would Julien Assange believe that he had consent in the circumstances as proven”. The man on the Clapham omnibus is taken not to be a vainglorious narcissist.

It is further irrelevant because we are not discussing whether Assange is guilty or has a defence – whether the prosecution case should be believed or not. We are discussing whether his behaviour as alleged was legally rape – that is, whether a jury accepting the prosecution case in full would be entitled to find Assange guilty of rape.

Once again – please read the judgments. The District Judge and Divisional Court directly, and the Supreme Court by implication, were all satisfied that a jury would be so entitled.

82. Chaise Guevara

“Galloway defended himself”

If you can call it that. I’m pretty sure not recognising the state of Israel is different to pretending individual Israelis don’t exist.

Did someone ask a question he couldn’t answer just before he stormed out, by any chance?

@81

“The “intentionally” in the section refers to the penetration.”

You ARE joking, right?

It wan’t raising all these purile, schoolboy sniggering little bits of “Oh, what, I supposed he just tripped…! semantics dancing around the letter of the law – it also wasn’t me who abandoned all common sense in the reading of it.

While, yes, – I can’t believe I’m actually having to explain this to a presumed grown-ip – unintentional penetration IS technically possibly, its also (rationally and by experience) relatively rare and VERY easily and quickly remedied.

That’s a basically hypothetical, rare occurance.

Poor communication and social misunderstandings are, by contrast, commonplace.

In fact, it’s a grand English tradition.

84. the a&e charge nurse

“We are discussing whether his behaviour as alleged was legally rape” – well if it was rape neither of the women knew they had been raped until their lawyer informed them.

And don’t forget “In the UK only a judicial authority (a Judge) can issue a warrant under the Extradition Act 2003, with good reason; a prosecutor is liable to be highly partisan and likely to lose objectivity.
The disconnect between the EAW issued by Marianne Ny (Head of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Development Unit in Gothenburg, Sweden) against Julian Assange and the allegations made by the complainants defies logic and illustrates the danger of foreign prosecutors being considered lawful judicial authorities by UK courts”.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/11/503439.html

Gorgeous George was incredulous about this case because the story as presented IS incredulous.
By the way have you developed a theory about the torn condom yet?
Remember the backdrop – woman ‘A’ says JA deliberately tore a condom – she stores the condom somewhere – goes to the police 4 weeks later but doesn’t take the condom – 2 weeks after this she retrieves the condom and takes it to the authorities – no evidence of JA’s DNA is found – curiouser, and curiouser?

@81

“The man on the Clapham omnibus is taken not to be a vainglorious narcissist.”

Clearly you’ve never ridden the on the 37 to the Junction around Thursday teatime.

Frivolous complaints like this wouldn’t even register.

But again, that’s not what’s at issue.

The key pillar of the crime of rape as a concept lies in intent – that there was a conscious sin of either commission to knowingly cause harm or allow another to come to harm by that person’s act.

No one can suggest that if you send your old man down to the shops, giving him your car keys and forgetting to mention that the breaks are overdue a service and the clutch sticks makes you a murderer if he crashes the car and dies – of you don’t give serious thought or consideration to your actions and do something stupid, rash and ill-advised with potential ramifications that may not be immediately obvious or apparent, how can you be expected to grasp the full consequences of your act?

That’s a crime of foolishness, not malice, and the law (certainly here, as well, it seems, in Swede)recognises that reality.

Crimes of violence are, by their nature, absolutely subjective, so the intent is crucial.

You have to have a full understanding of what you have done and the full meaning of the act in order to be held legally accountable for the harm that may (or indeed may not) result from it.

To finesse the distinction, tempting as it may be, I would not describe Assangr as someone afflicted by a highly-functioning form of autism (although he is certainly on the scale…);

A ward inmate with profound learning impairment and no real emotional understanding or concept of empathy cannot be jjudged guilty of minor assaults or attempted molestation of either his caregivers or peer group on thr same ward because such people lack the capacity and faculty to understand or recognise emotional distress in others and recognise themselves as being the cause or initiator of that distress and why that behaviour is socially beyond the pale and unacceptable.

The man on the Clapham Omnibus can go and hang – this isn’t an objective scenario or a hypothetical ; it’s subject emotive truth based on a study of the particular merits of the alleged offence and the context under which they are alleged to have taken place.

You could poll a thousand men or women on the.Clapham Omnibus and each and every one of them would say ” That’s clearly a seriously wrong thing to have done – beyond creepy and/or sleazy, definitely in the realm of cruel, callous, sadistic or even evil.

That’s not the question: again, crimes of violence are by their very DNA, subjective, so the context and the conditions and the personality of the person involved, their emotional outlook on the event in retrospect – all of these are part of the optics in rendering a judgement.

English Law does not make the distinction that Swedish Law and most US Law makes , and which Whoopi Goldberg managed to quite catacysmically succeeded in associating herself with for all time, the now – infamous “….it wasn’t really Rape, rape….” distinction of having a set of crimes all CALLED rape as an umbrella term and then divvying up both the instances (and the victims) by the relative degree of seriousness and of harm inflicted;

We have around 25-30 crimes that in some measure fulfill aspects of the common concept Rape but which at least allow sufficient ambiguity for SOME degree of mitigation or judicial discretion to be be exercised;

The official direct translation for the most severe charge Assange MIGHT one day face is said to be (according to the Stockholm District Court ruling) : “rape(minor case)”.

Alternative trranlations abound , but none have any suggestion or overtones suggesting any use of physical force or actual violence or intent to cause deliberate harm.

English Law does not and never has dealt with that within the classical framework of a violent sexual assault, the two classes offence just don’t even belong in the same league.

We have one offence carrying the name and one only, in large part to maintain a full knowledge and sense of its seriousness.

As such, Rape is not a term to be invoked lightly, nor should that day ever be allowed to come.

It is, and should be, regarded second only to murder in terms of the degree of harm potentially inflicted and done so with full knowledge.

Criminal statute holds that Rape carries a maximum penalty of Life imprisonment if convicted – and that’s without aggravation.

Do I think Assange (if he did it) deserves a whole life term for doing what he is said to have done? Of course not. Don’t be ridiculous. I can’t think of anyone who is seriously suggesting that that should be the punishment meted out to him.

I do think that someone doing such a thing should face a short, sharp custodial sentence in one of our finer mid-Victorian vintage drafty old municipal nicks to knock them back on their boorish chauvinistic heels and be held liable to their victim for damages resulting from what was clearly a deeply unpleasant if not actually traumatic experience, which is how I understand Julian’s scorned women are currently minded to think of in terms of justice being served currently – they are quoted as wanting “revenge” and to get their own back on him and more power to them.

That’s not even approaching the level of seeking whole-life terms; that’s not even in the same LEAGUE as that kind of despicable atrocity,

And excepting the possibility that we might be dealing with a pair of inordinately vinidcitive personalities on the part of his accusers, which I see no evidence of, it’s really demeaning to the whole process to be parsing the debate in those kind of terms, because it’s not reflective of the reality of the situation as it currently appears to be.

86. Robin Levett

@spike #83:

Stop dancing and deal with the issue; Assange’s alleged behaviour was rape. What we still don’t know, because he has run away, is whether he engaged in it.

@a&ecn #84:

“We are discussing whether his behaviour as alleged was legally rape” – well if it was rape neither of the women knew they had been raped until their lawyer informed them.

Even if so – and?

Your indymedia source misrepresents Riddle’s judgment in enough respects that I don’t propose to do a line by line fisk. I’ll simply quote an example: he did not say “that Mutual Legal Assistance “was a more proportionate response than issuing an EAW” for the purpose of questioning a witness”; he said that the true facts would not have changed Sundberg-Weitman’s (and Alhem’s) opinion on the issue.

Again; I’m not arguing that Assange is guilty of rape, so I don’t need to develop a theory about a torn condom. I do argue that the claim repeatedly made by Assangistas that the Swedish EAW was only issued to get him to Sweden so that the USA could extradite him from there is bizarre, if only because it would actually have been legally easier for the USA to extradite him from here – without procuring the Swedish rape charges – than from Sweden after extradition under an EAW.

87. Robin Levett

@Spike #85:

In order to prove rape in England and Wales, the prosecution needs to prove:

– intentional penetration by a man of the vsgina, mouth or anus of another person;
– that that other person did not consent;
– that the penetrator did not have a reasonable belief in consent.

End of.

What you say may well reflect a particular lay understanding of the law; but insofar as it contradicts the statement above, it doesn’t reflect the law itself. The intention to penetrate is clearly subjective – but any belief in consent must not only have been held, but also be reasonable, hence the appearance of the man on the Clapham omnibus – who, from my experience of the number 37, is actually quite reasonable, on Thursday afternoons or otherwise.

Galloway is so easy to send up.

From now on, wherever he is appearing, all his opponents have to do is arrange for an Israeli to take part in the event and George will have to flee as fast as before just to remain consistent. Forever running away from himself.

I’m sure there are a few unemployed Israelis who would fancy a few quid to follow him around and appear on the platform, in the barbers, at the laundrette, at Parkhead, on the train, in the TV studio etc etc. It would be rather funny – like ‘Mr Shakey Hands’ or Lady One Question’ on Banzai a few years ago.

spike,

While, yes, – I can’t believe I’m actually having to explain this to a presumed grown-ip – unintentional penetration IS technically possibly, its also (rationally and by experience) relatively rare and VERY easily and quickly remedied.

But Assange hasn’t said he unintentionally penetrated her.

Do stop embarrassing yourself.

Gorgeous George was incredulous about this case because the story as presented IS incredulous.

He said that the behaviour described was “nothing more than bad sexual etiquette”. It is that which people complained about, not his incredulity.

Does this mean if an MP took out Israeli citizenship, Galloway would resign?

`Does this mean if an MP took out Israeli citizenship, Galloway would resign?’

Thus proving once and for all that Zionists as well as being cruel and thieves are dumber than a box of genocidal frogs.

93. Chaise Guevara

@ 92

“Thus proving once and for all that Zionists as well as being cruel and thieves are dumber than a box of genocidal frogs.”

So you’ve found proof of the nature of all Zionists based on one comment by someone who probably isn’t a Zionist?

Rather showed your hand there.

The key pillar of the crime of rape as a concept lies in intent – that there was a conscious sin of either commission to knowingly cause harm or allow another to come to harm by that person’s act.

I think you are confusing rape with Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics.

There’s nothing in the law that says rape is about intentional harm – it’s about lack of consent.

Rather showed your hand there.

Rather showed it way back at post 11.

My my , this thread is infested with pro CIA anti wickileaks bullshitters.

Swedish authorities can come here and interview him, as they did with another rape case where the accused had gone back to Eastern Europe. Swedish prosecutors flew to question him in that case. But that individual hadn’t upset the American Empire. Or they could give guarantees that he won’t be sent on to the US. Again, they refuse to do so.

No surprise to see shatterface shrilling for the Swedish/CIA/Israel cabal. Seeing as there are huge suspicions against one of the woman who may be a Israeli agent. Anyone who believes this is a standard rape investigation is an idiot.

And on a day we learn senior police officers are putting pressure on British rape victims to withdrawal their allegations so to make the crime figures look good , you have to laugh at the idea that the British Establishment is telling us this one rape case is terribly important and must be prosecuted to maximum intent.

They never stop lying.

“There’s nothing in the law that says rape is about intentional harm – it’s about lack of consent.”

You are 1000% wrong about that:

Sexual Offences Act 2003
You are here:
2003 c. 42 Part 1

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

sally,

Swedish authorities can come here and interview him, as they did with another rape case where the accused had gone back to Eastern Europe. Swedish prosecutors flew to question him in that case. But that individual hadn’t upset the American Empire.

That guy was interviewed in Serbia. He was in fact extradited to Sweden for the same stage of the process for which Sweden tried to extradite Assange.

http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london

Note that Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard to the USA – worked for the CIA, defected to the Soviet Union, fled to Sweden.

Or they could give guarantees that he won’t be sent on to the US. Again, they refuse to do so.

In fact they have given certain guarantees – they won’t extradite for the death penalty, espionage or political offences. But it is difficult for a government to veto an extradition request that hasn’t been made. See also:

http://klamberg.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/sequencing-and-discretion-of-government.html

Anyway, if the Americans want him why not seek his extradition from the UK? There has been no extradition request by the USA.

Sad to see the zombie myths. When will they disappear?

edit:

In fact they have given certain guarantees in the general case – they won’t extradite for the death penalty, espionage or political offences. But it is difficult for a government to veto a specific extradition request that hasn’t been made.

I can’t help feeling that if the rape allegations against Assange were as flimsy as his acolytes claim he wouldn’t so reluctant to deal with them. And can someone explain the conspiracy theory which requires him to be in Sweden rather than the UK in order for the US to make an extradition request? I’ve never seen that one explained.

Sally is a Nazi, plain put. Sally, please remember, this time Jews will not succumb. If you will come to take our lives, you will have to fight for yours.

102 You are nothing without American hardware. Nothing.

104. the a&e charge nurse

[99] ‘Sad to see the zombie myths. When will they disappear?’ – well lets leave aside the fact that few have sufficient legal expertise in these areas (3-way international extradition) to know for SURE if assange can be got to the US or not.

“It is likely that the United States will decide to charge Julian Assange with a number of offences (whether or not in conjunction with espionage) that are seemingly not political offences. The US Department of Justice has broadened its attack to include a possible indictment under the federal computer crimes statute, which it would argue was a non-political offence. Sweden is likely to consent to such an extradition given its close relationship with the US and the argument that the offences he is being sought for are not political in nature” – true or false?

“Under EU law, Sweden should only initiate Julian Assange’s onward extradition if and when the UK gives its agreement, but the UK has little incentive to block an extradition order if Sweden does not take the step to do so first. Moreover, legal commentators in the UK have stated that it is likely that the UK would consent to Julian Assange’s extradition from Sweden (this is likely to raise less criticism and mobilisation if Julian Assange is not physically under UK custody)” – true or false?

“The US government has opened a grand jury hearing into the passing of hundreds of thousands of state secrets to WikiLeaks – the start of the process of deciding whether to prosecute the website and its founder, Julian Assange, for espionage. The first session of the grand jury is understood to have begun in Alexandria, Virginia” – true or false?

“Sally is a Nazi, plain put. Sally, please remember, this time Jews will not succumb. If you will come to take our lives, you will have to fight for yours.”

I’m fairly confident that today, the number of actual Israeli citizens still living who were directly victimised by Nazism is somewhere close to zero. They have all died of old age as have nearly every agent of the Third Reich.

There simply are no Nazis left to be afriad of or to pose a threat. Neo-Nazis and crypto-Nazis perhaps, but that wasn’t the allegation.

You cannot use the threat of Nazis to justify siege mentality, since they are all now dead and you cannot use it as an rhetorical nuclear option to suppress dissent because there are none now left who remember it for whom the emotional kick is quite the same.

German National Socialism is dead, practically everywhere but in the Israeli Zeitgeist.

Fascism, meanwhile, is alive and well and florishing, nowhere more so than inside the post-1967 borders.

It’s the corporate state, stupid.

Corporate power, international finance capital, wedded to militarism and joined with ultra-nationalism is Israel’s political reality and it has a long and storied history.

The Irgun trained under Mussolini.

Begin sold arms to post-revolutionary Iran and forged a secret alliance with Khomeni to inflict harm on the Arab states, beginning with Iraq.

It’s not my culture and it’s not my history, and I would never presume to have the moral authority to tell someone under fire not to fire back at their aggressors, but I can refer you to someone without those constraints, who DOES have that deep personal involvement in the conflict and in the region: Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)

From Hansard:

“I was brought up as an orthodox Jew and a Zionist.

On a shelf in our kitchen, there was a tin box for the Jewish National Fund, into which we put coins to help the pioneers building a Jewish presence in Palestine.

I first went to Israel in 1961 and I have been there since more times than I can count. I had family in Israel and have friends in Israel. One of them fought in the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 and was wounded in two of them. The tie clip that I am wearing is made from a campaign decoration awarded to him, which he presented to me.

I have known most of the Prime Ministers of Israel, starting with the founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Golda Meir was my friend, as was Yigal Allon, Deputy Prime Minister, who, as a general, won the Negev for Israel in the 1948 war of independence.

My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland. Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The current Israeli Government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count.

On Sky News a few days ago, the spokeswoman for the Israeli army, Major Leibovich, was asked about the Israeli killing of, at that time, 800 Palestinians—the total is now 1,000. She replied instantly that

“500 of them were militants.”

That was the reply of a Nazi.

I suppose that the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants.

The Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni asserts that her Government will have no dealings with Hamas, because they are terrorists. Tzipi Livni’s father was Eitan Livni, chief operations officer of the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi, who organised the blowing-up of the King David hotel in Jerusalem, in which 91 victims were killed, including four Jews.

Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism. Jewish terrorists hanged two British sergeants and booby-trapped their corpses. Irgun, together with the terrorist Stern gang, massacred 254 Palestinians in 1948 in the village of Deir Yassin.

Today, the current Israeli Government indicate that they would be willing, in circumstances acceptable to them, to negotiate with the Palestinian President Abbas of Fatah.

It is too late for that.

They could have negotiated with Fatah’s previous leader, Yasser Arafat, who was a friend of mine.

Instead, they besieged him in a bunker in Ramallah, where I visited him.

Because of the failings of Fatah since Arafat’s death, Hamas won the Palestinian election in 2006.

Hamas is a deeply nasty organisation, but it was democratically elected, and it is the only game in town.

The boycotting of Hamas, including by our Government, has been a culpable error, from which dreadful consequences have followed.

The great Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, with whom I campaigned for peace on many platforms, said:

“You make peace by talking to your enemies.”

However many Palestinians the Israelis murder in Gaza, they cannot solve this existential problem by military means. Whenever and however the fighting ends, there will still be 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza and 2.5 million more on the west bank. They are treated like dirt by the Israelis, with hundreds of road blocks and with the ghastly denizens of the illegal Jewish settlements harassing them as well. The time will come, not so long from now, when they will outnumber the Jewish population in Israel.

It is time for our Government to make clear to the Israeli Government that their conduct and policies are unacceptable, and to impose a total arms ban on Israel. It is time for peace, but real peace, not the solution by conquest which is the Israelis’ real goal but which it is impossible for them to achieve.

They are not simply war criminals; they are fools.”

“It is time to remind Sharon that the Star of David belongs to all Jews, not to his repulsive Government. His actions are staining the star of David with blood. The Jewish people, whose gifts to civilised discourse include Einstein and Epstein, Mendelssohn and Mahler, Sergei Eisenstein and Billy Wilder, are now symbolised throughout the world by the blustering bully Ariel Sharon, a war criminal implicated in the murder of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila camps and now involved in killing Palestinians once again.”

106. Shatterface

Judging by the comments of people like Spike1138 and Sally there seems to be a high correlation between anti-semitism and the belief you can justify raping someone in their sleep.

a&e @104,

[99] ‘Sad to see the zombie myths. When will they disappear?’ – well lets leave aside the fact that few have sufficient legal expertise in these areas (3-way international extradition) to know for SURE if assange can be got to the US or not.

It’s not true that people you disagree with necessarily have insufficent expertise. On the face of it, law professors, academics, barristers and solicitors are more competent to speak on it than you, surely? I am happy to point you to one or two Swedish academics in Swedish and international law, if it helps.

As to the truth or falsity of the statements, I’ve never disputed that the USA would like to indict Assange. What I question is why they would seek to extradite him from Sweden rather than the UK before all this mess?

“The US government has opened a grand jury hearing into the passing of hundreds of thousands of state secrets to WikiLeaks – the start of the process of deciding whether to prosecute the website and its founder, Julian Assange, for espionage. The first session of the grand jury is understood to have begun in Alexandria, Virginia” – true or false?

Apparently that was in May 2011, nearly two years ago. Any news since?

“Judging by the comments of people like Spike1138 and Sally there seems to be a high correlation between anti-semitism and the belief you can justify raping someone in their sleep.”

And that is a perfect demonstration of why engaging with agents of the Israeli State in an honest debate of the issues is usually impossible.

The Isreali position is simply not justifiable, ethically, rhettorically, logically or historically.

The Israelis have known since the 1970s they cannot win the war of ideas, and so they don’t even try – they just begin muck-racking and victim blaming, go picking a shit-fight and engage in loud and boistrous provocations wherever there is an open microphone and try to force a very sordid draw.

“We wanted peace, we got war – ”

What else is that but an aggressive provocation? The entire adult Jewish population of Israel is a member if the military reserve – it’s the most militarised society in global history, how can you have the nerve to say “we wanted peace”?

You reap what you sow.

And as for ethnic slurs and other ad hominem forms of personal attack;

I noticed just yesterday this little bit of Black Hat SEO;

Sir Gerald Kuafman is one of the most influential and prominent leading Jewish, Zionist critics of Isreali domestic and foreign policy.

If you begin typing “Gerald Kaufman” into Google, the autocomplete will suggest as the top two searchterm hits “Gerald Kaufman paedo” and “Gerald Kaufman rumours”

Now, I wonder who could have possibly arrange for that to happen….

109. the a&e charge nurse

[107] ‘I am happy to point you to one or two Swedish academics in Swedish and international law, if it helps’ – well, I hope they are slightly more reliable than the cowboys who have hampered this investigation from day 1 – if their inept performance is anything to go by it hardly breeds confidence, does it?

You ask what the secret grand jury has been up to – perhaps you would be better directing that question to the swedish, err, experts?

a&e,

You ask what the secret grand jury has been up to – perhaps you would be better directing that question to the swedish, err, experts?

Why would the experts in Swedish and international law be likely to know what a secret US grand jury is doing (nor not doing)?

I see the usual conflation with Zionism and Judaism is in evidence from the usual suspects. Bravo.

113. the a&e charge nurse

[111] thanks

114. Charlieman

Returning to the OP, it all looked staged to me.

2s Pro Israel debater says “we”.
12s Galloway verbally protests.
19s Galloway (off camera) stands up.
30s Galloway’s assistant walks from the audience onto the platform to leave.

It appears to me that Galloway always intended to walk out. It is unlikely that he had not researched his opponents in advance of the debate and he would have known the field. He was just waiting for a grandstand moment.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. George Galloway “I don’t debate with Israelis” « Soupy One

    [...] 2: Liberal Conspiracy has a thread on it, which I imagine will soon be overflowing with toxic [...]

  2. Muddled East » Blog Archive » George Galloway only supports one cause: himself

    [...] there’s an awful lot to say about George Galloway’s astonishingly stupid decision to storm out of a debate at Oxford University when he discovered his opponent was an [...]

  3. George Galloway’s hypocrisy in boycotting an Israeli in debate | Liberal Conspiracy

    [...] there’s an awful lot to say about George Galloway’s astonishingly stupid decision to storm out of a debate at Oxford University when he discovered his opponent was an [...]

  4. UNISON women, the SWP, and the vote to support rape victims | Too Much To Say For Myself

    [...] Oh, and as for Galloway, he apparently has no problem with no-platforming anyone (h/t Sunny): [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.