Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[Anna]

It's actually rather funny about you men discussing sex, and reassuring yourselves that you are actually super duper about it, whereas .. you don't know diddley squat about it!
I am going offline now.

[amateur51]

It's actually rather funny about you men discussing sex, and reassuring yourselves that you are actually super duper about it, whereas .. you don't know diddley squat about it!
I am going offline now.

What/who can you mean?

[jean]

I think I see where you're getting your men are now treated as responsible adults whilst women are not from now. It's a problem with the word any, which means something a bit different in positive and negative sentences.

You write:

A member claimed that a woman was not responsible for any sexual activity between her and a man after they both agreed to sleep together.

I think by that you are referring to my replying to your

...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.

with No, she must not.

But when you say she's respopnsible for anything that happens, you mean there's nothing she's not responsible for, whatever it may be; she is responsible for everything.

And it's that that I'm denying. I am not saying she's not responsible for anything.

[scottycelt]

I think I see where you're getting your men are now treated as responsible adults whilst women are not from now. It's a problem with the word any, which means something a bit different in positive and negative sentences.

You write:



I think by that you are referring to my replying to your



with No, she must not.

But when you say she's respopnsible for anything that happens, you mean there's nothing she's not responsible for, whatever it may be; she is responsible for everything.

And it's that that I'm denying. I am not saying she's not responsible for anything.

I can now understand that, Jean, and I respect the fact that you at least are prepared to debate the actual issues involved here.

Any woman must have the full support of the law if she has been raped by a man.

It is equally true that any man must have the full support of the law if he has been wrongly accused by a woman of such a horrendous offence.

The law therefore should be totally impartial and not subject to sexist dogma from either side whether it derives from extreme feminism or ingrained misogyny.

That is my position, and I believe that of Mr Galloway.

However, as I keep saying, it's only Swedish law that matters in the case of Mr Assange and, unlike Mr Galloway, I think he should be prepared to face justice in the country where the offences were alleged to have been committed!

[amateur51]

It is equally true that any man must have the full support of the law if he has been wrongly accused by a woman of such a horrendous offence.

Presumably that can only be ascertained once the due process of law has come to its conclusion? The law can't treat him as being wrongly accused before the case has been heard; the best he can and should be offered is innocent until proven guilty, surely. I have no knowledge of how Swedish courts work.

Your remarks about 'the law therefore should be totally impartial and not subject to sexist dogma from either side whether it derives from extreme feminism or ingrained misogyny' are strange: the law is the law. depending on the country in which the accused is being tried.

[scottycelt]

Presumably that can only be ascertained once the due process of law has come to its conclusion? The law can't treat him as being wrongly accused before the case has been heard; the best he can and should be offered is innocent until proven guilty, surely. I have no knowledge of how Swedish courts work.

Your remarks about 'the law therefore should be totally impartial and not subject to sexist dogma from either side whether it derives from extreme feminism or ingrained misogyny' are strange: the law is the law. depending on the country in which the accused is being tried.

I totally agree, as I've been constantly at pains to point out!

I was referring to my own view of how things should be in such cases, which, like everyone elses opinion here, is well nigh irrelevant in the case of Mr Assange under Swedish law ...

[jean]

Your remarks about 'the law therefore should be totally impartial and not subject to sexist dogma from either side whether it derives from extreme feminism or ingrained misogyny' are strange: the law is the law. depending on the country in which the accused is being tried.

But the formulation of a law is influenced by the social attitudes that pertain in the wider society.

In this country, until fairly recently, a man could not be charged with raping his wife because it was assumed that in marrying him she had given assent to any and every (legal) sexual act that he might wish any time he wished it.

The law has been changed, and is no longer based on that assumption.

I am sure some people think that change was motivated by extreme feminism. Not too many though, I hope.

[ahinton]

What/who can you mean?

Don't ask me! I could perhaps make a stab at a guess or two, but will wisely desist from so doing...

[Tapiola]

I am sure some people think that change was motivated by extreme feminism. Not too many though, I hope.

Not me, for one, jean, speaking as a heterosexual male in his 40s.

I have followed this discussion with fascination and despair in varying measures, and had intended to stay out of it. However, imo, certain views of certain posters, Lat, and in particular scottycelt, have left me appalled, disgusted and ashamed to call myself male.

"Man up", scotty, and admit when you've been out-argued and exposed as the troglodyte your avatar so pertinently connotes.

[ahinton]

I can now understand that, Jean, and I respect the fact that you at least are prepared to debate the actual issues involved here.

Good to hear, scotty. I remain prepared to discuss them, too, for what that may or may not be worth to you.

Any woman must have the full support of the law if she has been raped by a man.

It is equally true that any man must have the full support of the law if he has been wrongly accused by a woman of such a horrendous offence.

Absolutely correct - although it's also correct to say that any man must have the full support of the law if he has been raped by a woman or by another man; you didn't mention that, but I hope that you would agree, just as you would about a woman raping another woman.

The law therefore should be totally impartial and not subject to sexist dogma from either side whether it derives from extreme feminism or ingrained misogyny.

Or indeed anything else - but the law is only as good as the law is in such matters and, whilst it has to be relied upon, it may not necessarily be perfect at all times; the very fact that, as jean points out, rape within marriage is treated differently under British law today than used to be so is a case in point.

That is my position, and I believe that of Mr Galloway.

As I'm now getting very tired of repeating, Mr Galloway has nailed his discolouration to the mast by claiming that the accusations against Assange are unfounded despite not being party to the facts; how can this be taken seriously as a credible view, particularly when held by an elected MP?

However, as I keep saying, it's only Swedish law that matters in the case of Mr Assange and, unlike Mr Galloway, I think he should be prepared to face justice in the country where the offences were alleged to have been committed!

True, as I have agreed previously - but "unlike Mr Galloway"? I don't understand; what do you think should happen to him, then?

[ahinton]

But the formulation of a law is influenced by the social attitudes that pertain in the wider society.

In this country, until fairly recently, a man could not be charged with raping his wife because it was assumed that in marrying him she had given assent to any and every (legal) sexual act that he might wish any time he wished it.

The law has been changed, and is no longer based on that assumption.

I am sure some people think that change was motivated by extreme feminism. Not too many though, I hope.

I cannot say how many or what proportion of British citizens might think that but my personal view is that it was motivated by rather less than extreme common sense and humanity and, as such, it was most welcome.

[scottycelt]

As I'm now getting very tired of repeating, Mr Galloway has nailed his discolouration to the mast by claiming that the accusations against Assange are unfounded despite not being party to the facts; how can this be taken seriously as a credible view, particularly when held by an elected MP?

Before you finally fall asleep, I've never supported Mr Galloway's view of Mr Assange's behaviour (in fact I've already made quite clear I don't). The hysterical reaction to Mr Galloway' s comments on rape was where he did receive my support, however despicably vile and disgracefully outrageous that appears to be to some here..

True, as I have agreed previously - but "unlike Mr Galloway"? I don't understand; what do you think should happen to him, then?

Well, for about the 27th time I think he should be deported to Sweden to answer to the charges there ... what is there not to understand here, ahinton?

[Flosshilde]

That may indeed be true but, for it to manifest itself in practice, no two adults, "consenting" or otherwise, would ever consider the prospect of sexual relations of any kind between them without that as a prerequisite, which is hardly the case with the kind of situation under discussion here.

What does that mean? It's perfectly possible for two (or more) adults to have 'sexual relations' without love entering the picture, and for it to be mutually pleasurable & satisfying.

[Dave2002]

Maybe "innocent until proved guilty" does not work in Sweden as it uses a form of Scandinavian civil law. I suspect that the final outcome in many cases will be similar for similar laws and offences as in the UK, but the processes to come to a conclusion may be different, and the intermediate states may also follow a different pattern. I really don't know what the procedures are in Sweden.

[ahinton]

What does that mean? It's perfectly possible for two (or more) adults to have 'sexual relations' without love entering the picture, and for it to be mutually pleasurable & satisfying.

Of course it is - but I wasn't referring to that; I was writing specifically and solely about the issue of consent (or otherwise), which is what appears to be at the heart of the matter.