Originally posted by amateur51
View Post
Owen Jones on Julian Assange
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ahinton View Post...Whilst what does and does not contitue rape will vary from one jurisdiction to another and from one time to another, I don't see the importance of that to this particular case unless Assange's accusers change their minds and accuse him of rape, which is hardly either likely or credible...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostI don't know exactly how Swedish law goes, but in the UK it is not for the witnesses to decide the nature of the charge. It's some official's job to decide what charge(s) fit the evidence.
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostWhat the evidence actually is will be (I suppose) statements from the witnesses and records of interviews with Assange. There might be some forensic evidence, though that seems unlikely, given the circumstances. If rape is justified under Swedish law, and supported by the evidence, it would make no difference that the complainants don't call it that.
Comment
-
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostIf rape is justified under Swedish law, and supported by the evidence, it would make no difference that the complainants don't call it that.
On the other point, I do not consider Mr Galloway's (and my own) view on rape to be 'vile' as you quite astonishingly claim. Both he and I have expressed utter abhorrence at the crime of forcing a woman to have sex against her will. However if a woman has voluntary and without coercion AGREED to 'sleep' with a man she must accept some responsibility for any sexual activity that occurs. That is not 'being forced against her will' ... if she didn't want sex she should have slept on her own!
Frankly, some may think it rather more insulting to women to infer that they are somehow unable to work that out for themselves. Most women are not stupid but, unfortunately, just like men, some would appear to be precisely that.
As for poor old amsey, would somebody please tell him that, alas, there are not many hills to flee to on the Cheshire Plain!
Comment
-
Mahlerei
I don't see how agreeing to sleep with someone gives them an automatic right to unrestricted and unquestioning sex. It's like arguing that if women dress in a certain way they're 'asking for it'.
Galloway is a nasty piece of work, and I hope his constituents turf him out at the next election. Taken together with Akin's ghastly gaffes and Assange's hollow pleas for 'justice' - but not for his female accusers - this makes for a deeply depressing snapshot of some people's antediluvian attitudes towards women.
Comment
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostWell surely that means when it comes to sex men are now treated as responsible adults whilst women are not?
It means, on the contrary, that men can't (necessarily) be relied on to behave like responsible adults, that a woman's having agreed to a particular sort of sexual behaviour does not mean she's agreed to anything and everything else her partner might think up, and that therefore what constitutes responsible adult behaviour has to be spelt out.
Comment
-
-
[QUOTE=scottycelt;197497]Which is EXACTLY the point I made at the begining and have continued to make and which appears to have entirely escaped ahinton as he chuckles away whilst mightily arguing with himself![/quoe]
I do no such thing! What Pabmusic wrote was not even clearly expressed and I drew attention to this by saying that by "if rape is justified under Swedish law" he presumably meant "if rape is accepted as a crime that may be tried under Swedish law" (i.e. "justified" only in the sense of being a charge that may be tried in a Swedish Court - I don;t think that anyone is claiming that rape is itself "justifiable"); the point, however, is that if the complainants do not merely decline to describe their accusations as "rape" but specifically claim that they were NOT rape, that fact might impact on the nature of the charges for which Assange could be tried if ever it gets that far. Do please concentrate, scotty!
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostOn the other point, I do not consider Mr Galloway's (and my own) view on rape to be 'vile' as you quite astonishingly claim. Both he and I have expressed utter abhorrence at the crime of forcing a woman to have sex against her will. However if a woman has voluntary and without coercion AGREED to 'sleep' with a man she must accept some responsibility for any sexual activity that occurs. That is not 'being forced against her will' ... if she didn't want sex she should have slept on her own!
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostFrankly, some may think it rather more insulting to women to infer that they are somehow unable to work that out for themselves. Most women are not stupid but, unfortunately, just like men, some would appear to be precisely that.
Leaving that example aside now, if a perfectly healthy man and a woman do consent to sleeping together and the woman then forces herself on the man sexually without his specific prior express consent, would you say that she is not guilty of sexual assault by so doing purely on the grounds that they'd each consented beforehand to sleeping in the same bed?
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostAs for poor old amsey, would somebody please tell him that, alas, there are not many hills to flee to on the Cheshire Plain!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mahlerei View PostI don't see how agreeing to sleep with someone gives them an automatic right to unrestricted and unquestioning sex. It's like arguing that if women dress in a certain way they're 'asking for it'.
Galloway is a nasty piece of work, and I hope his constituents turf him out at the next election. Taken together with Akin's ghastly gaffes and Assange's hollow pleas for 'justice' - but not for his female accusers - this makes for a deeply depressing snapshot of some people's antediluvian attitudes towards women.
Comment
-
-
Lateralthinking1
I think that talking about love has become a taboo subject. If every two people in a partnership were able able to discuss and agree what love means to them, we could probably reduce criminality in relationships virtually to zero.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jean View PostHow on earth do you work that out?
Originally posted by jean View PostIt means, on the contrary, that men can't (necessarily) be relied on to behave like responsible adults, that a woman's having agreed to a particular sort of sexual behaviour does not mean she's agreed to anything and everything else her partner might think up, and that therefore what constitutes responsible adult behaviour has to be spelt out.
Anyway, all this was already getting quite tiresome and invinting all manner of discussion of sideshows to the issue under scrutiny here even before the interventions of Galloway and Akin and scotty's broad endorsement of the for
ill-considered opinions of the former on what may be deemed to constitute consent to what kind of sexual activity between members of the opposite sex in what circumstances. If Assange is indeed extradited to Sweden and if he is charges with ad tried for sexual offences there, we will then be able to see what the outcome will be and not before; in this, at least, scotty is correct, but no more so than anyone else.
Comment
-
Comment