Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[scottycelt]

'Us' scotty? Who's the other person?

As the old saying goes, 'you might like to get out and about a bit more, amsey' ...

Another dogmatic feminist, eh scotty?

Yup, 'fraid so, amsey ...

[Frances_iom]

try https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248
tho dating from 1996 there are presumeably later studies tho I doubt if pregnancy rate for 'unprotected' rapes will differ that much but with the 'morning after pill' generally available on demand in most of Europe todays statistics are probably much lower number of births.
"The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion."

[scottycelt]

Scotty

Actually I think he did say that, but as with some other Americans and perhaps former presidents it wasn't quite what he meant to say. He had probably been watching too many wild life and nature films because indeed some strange things happen there regarding spontaneous abortion in some species, such as lions which may have multiple partners.

However there is little or no evidence that I am aware of which would support his claims even if he had expressed himself clearly. It was Ben Goldacre stuff, and as he managed to get it so wrong he offended a significant portion of his electorate, with seemingly inevitable, and IMO deserved, consequences.

Well, maybe, Dave, but the OTT reaction to his comments were predictable and almost fascist-like in intolerance by the politically-correct western media. The same applies to George Galloway's remarks.

Do western democracies no longer tolerate freedom of speech and opinion? Politicians tend to 'offend' me all the time but, hey, I can live with that!

[makropulos]

Well, maybe, Dave, but the OTT reaction to his comments were predictable and almost fascist-like in intolerance by the politically-correct western media. The same applies to George Galloway's remarks.

Do western democracies no longer tolerate freedom of speech and opinion? Politicians tend to 'offend' me all the time but, hey, I can live with that!

In the case of Akin I don't see why anyone should be expected to tolerate that level of imbecile science-defying nonsense. Even Romney has now suggested Akin is unfit to stand. That's one thing I can agree with Romney about. Calling out stupid for what it is doesn't amount to "fascist-like" - just telling the truth - and it's nothing to do with political correctness either (far too easy to trot out that feeble canard again - it's become meaningless).

As for Galloway, in my view he deserves every bit of condemnation coming his way for those remarks. But that's not really the point: if he doesn't like the criticism he should keep his thoughts to himself. Again, it not "fascist-like" to say this, but a statement of the obvious. He knew he was being inflammatory (said as much) and has earned villification because of his obsessive publicity seeking. Serves him right.

[ahinton]

I'm by no means certain who Akin might be akin to, but the fewer the better, that's for sure but, like Galloway, he can say just what he goddam' well likes as long as he's prepared to take the possible consequences.

Is it possible to Gallop away from a Romneyshambles? We'll soon find out, no doubt. In the meantime, it occurred to me some while aftger his post that the "tradition" of which scotty wrote earlier is one that, if ever it really was one, ought as soon as possible to become an ex-tradition...

[jean]

In the case of Akin I don't see why anyone should be expected to tolerate that level of imbecile science-defying nonsense.

Quite.

And damaging, too. He originally avoided a question about whether abortion should be allowed for women who became pregnant as a result of rape by claiming that this just didn't happen, because a woman's body "has ways" to prevent pregnancy during rape.

If such views gain currency and are not challenged, any woman who is raped and becomes pregnant is going to find it difficult to make people believe she's been raped at all.

[ahinton]

Quite.

And damaging, too. He originally avoided a question about whether abortion should be allowed for women who became pregnant as a result of rape by claiming that this just didn't happen, because a woman's body "has ways" to prevent pregnancy during rape.

If such views gain currency and are not challenged, any woman who is raped and becomes pregnant is going to find it difficult to make people believe she's been raped at all.

I wonder what "ways" those are? Surely all kinds of political and other uses could be made of them for all kinds of purposes if only they really existed. Not only that, doesn't a purported admission such as this one sound a tad self-defeating, coming as it does from an apparently avowed pro-lifer? - i.e. the notion that a woman has her own inbuilt biological defences against actions referred to by pro-lifers like him? It would almost be laughable were it not so serious.

All that we await now is for a couple of half-Ecuadorian half-Swedish women residing in England to accuse Akin of - er - sexual assault (even Akin has not, after all, sought to claim that a woman's body has inbuilt defences against the outcomes of all forms of sexual assault - only those of rape) as a consequence of which the British government raises an extradition order against him to be prosecuted and tried for them here; maybe he could use Assange as his defence lawyer (all paid for by the British taxpayer, of course)...

[scottycelt]

In the case of Akin I don't see why anyone should be expected to tolerate that level of imbecile science-defying nonsense. Even Romney has now suggested Akin is unfit to stand. That's one thing I can agree with Romney about. Calling out stupid for what it is doesn't amount to "fascist-like" - just telling the truth - and it's nothing to do with political correctness either (far too easy to trot out that feeble canard again - it's become meaningless).

As for Galloway, in my view he deserves every bit of condemnation coming his way for those remarks. But that's not really the point: if he doesn't like the criticism he should keep his thoughts to himself. Again, it not "fascist-like" to say this, but a statement of the obvious. He knew he was being inflammatory (said as much) and has earned villification because of his obsessive publicity seeking. Serves him right.

Mr Galloway was only being 'offensive' to so-called 'liberal' feminist bigots who are intolerant of alternative opinions to their own.

I see little difference between their intolerance and that of, say, the BNP which they claim to despise.

Mr Galloway did not say he was being 'inflammatory' merely conceding that some would not like to hear what he had to say,

Why should Mr Galloway keep his thoughts to himself to appease anyone, whether it be the Pope or neo-fascist feminists ... ?

[french frank]

Why should Mr Galloway keep his thoughts to himself to appease anyone, whether it be the Pope or neo-fascist feminists ... ?

Because it's a complicated matter about which he didn't know the full facts - like most of us here.

[Pabmusic]

Now you really are getting me worried! Sweden has judges (of various sorts) and lay judges whose role may be similar to jurors in England.

In the UK we have several levels. Magistrates courts, mostly for minor(ish) offences, though these could still include offences where a custodial sentence might be given, and other courts where jurors drawn from the regular populace are involved. Possibly in some countries such as Sweden they have more professional legal experts.

In the UK in some courts we have judges, juries, a prosecuting team and a defence team. The teams are adversarial, and present evidence and argue the case to the jury. The jury decides on guilt or otherwise for each charge. The judge's role is to conduct proceedings, and to pass appropriate sentences in the case of guilty verdicts. Judges are supposed, in that kind of court, AFAIK, to be impartial. I don't know what happens in Sweden.

You're pretty well right about all this. Being a little bit provocative, I could suggest that one major difference between the Common Law and the Civil Law is that the former is an adversarial system in which the adjudicators (the jury, or magistrates in 'lesser' offences) decide whether the prosecution has proved its case to the relevant standard ('beyond reasonable doubt'). If the answer is no, a verdict of not guilty must be returned. It follows that the primary purpose of such courts is to choose between two sides, not to determine the truth of the matter - which could actually be a third story that's not known about at the current trial. (Common Law courts are, of course, interested in truth; but it's the truth of what is being told to the court, not the more fundamental truth of the circumstances of the crime. This was appallingly demonstrated in the 1980s when the Supreme Court of Virginia turned down an appeal from a convicted murderer, who was saying that there was now evidence that another person had done it. The court said that that was not relevant as a jury had convicted the appellant on good evidence, and so 'truth' was not a ground for appeal! The appellant was executed. This was an extreme case, but Britain had had to deal with similar arguments 80 years previously when the Court of Appeal Criminal Division was established.)

It's rather different under Civil Law, where (in theory at least) the court is not adversarial but inquisitorial (the Inquisition didn't arise from Common Law). The corollary of this is that the defendant cannot be treated as 'innocent until proved guilty' - as under the Common Law - since, in an inquiry, it's the underlying truth that's searched for, and so the defendant can't be assumed to be either innocent or guilty. The ECHR now guarantees the treatment of unconvicted prisoners, based more on Common Law, but many countries do not have a glorious history of treating unconvicted prisoners well.

I've had Europe in mind in typing this, but large elements of the Civil Law remain all over the world (wherever the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and French went, mainly, or wherever a new nation wanted a highly codified legal system).

Of course judges are supposed to be impartial in Common Law courts - they're a combination of umpire and fount of legal knowledge. Again, Civil Law courts are different. Although judges shouldn't be biased, they are not umpires but rather more like inquisitors. The only parallels we have would be coroner's courts and statutory inquiries - in both cases the 'judge' takes a very active role. (Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned Torquemada. Quite apt.)

[Bryn]

Akin's claims re. women subjected to 'legitimate rape' having a built-in facility for spontaneous avoidance of pregnancy rang a little bell in the back of my mind. I recalled a wild life documentary that asserted that female baboons found in South Africa had some mechanism by which they could effectively select which of several matings by a variety of males would result in the ejaculate reaching the ovum to fertilize it. So I went a-Googling, and though I could find no reference regarding baboons, I did come across this:

http://lambourneinstitute.org/programs/ages-and-stages/

which includes the paragraph:

Research shows that children conceived at the time of rape suffer from low self-esteem throughout their adult life. However, it is possible to reverse most of this negativity through cognitive therapy, but it is doubtful whether complete reversal is possible. Mother’s anxiety and fears cause stress to penetrate the placenta which affects the fetus and the brain’s development. The mother’s stress can damage the developing brain or even initiate fetal rejection, miscarriage.

Perhaps that is the sort of report he based his garbled comments upon?

[Pabmusic]

Here's some more about Akin: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...hes-not-alone/

[scottycelt]

Because it's a complicated matter about which he didn't know the full facts - like most of us here.

Well, in that case surely everyone should shut up about what constitutes rape so why pick on Mr Galloway alone... ?

I agree that only the women accusers and Mr Assange know the full facts of the Swedish case itself but Mr Galloway is being howled down for what he considers to be actual rape and not his opinions on Mr Assange's behaviour which is what we should be discussing.

Forced sex on a woman (or homosexual rape of boys/men) are abhorrent crimes which should turn the stomach of any normal person. These appalling acts are almost in the same league as murder and anyone found guilty of such crimes should be locked away for life, demonstrating society's intolerance of such evil acts, imv.

Agreeing to sleep with a man and then complaining about any sexual activity that might result afterwards, whether 'sleeping' or otherwise, is of a quite different order in his (and others) eyes ... that is all Mr Galloway was pointing out.

[french frank]

Well, in that case surely everyone should shut up about what constitutes rape so why pick on Mr Galloway alone... ?

Well, most of this discussion is about the complicated politics, not whether Assange is innocent or guilty. Galloway said, effectively, that he was not guilty, case dismissed. Judge and jury without having heard even what the charge is (since Assange hasn't been charged).

[amateur51]

Well, maybe, Dave, but the OTT reaction to his comments were predictable and almost fascist-like in intolerance by the politically-correct western media. The same applies to George Galloway's remarks.

Do western democracies no longer tolerate freedom of speech and opinion? Politicians tend to 'offend' me all the time but, hey, I can live with that!

What tosh scotty!

People have been outraged and have expressed that but Mr Galloway is as free today to say what he wants as he was the days before yesterday. He freedom of speech has not been affected