Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[ahinton]

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).

Fine. No problem with that.

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

I cannot comment on the reactions of anyone else here, but I've not heard any "hysterical" reactions to Mr Galloway's comments and I base my view of those comments not on such reactions as I've not heard and not on those non-hysterical ones that I have heard but quie simply upon what he actually said; if you want to support him and them, that's your prerogative, just as it is mine to reject them, not least on the grounds that he quite obviously didn't have the full facts of the case at his disposal when making them.

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?

I wasn't counting - but when did I suggest that this was anything less than understandable?

[Serial_Apologist]

I think we should all..... sleep on it.

...I'll get me duvet.

[Lateralthinking1]

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.

Just to clarify, as ahinton's was a response to mine, I was speaking about two individuals being able to define love for themselves, not as complying with any handed down script. It might be too strong a word to describe every situation but what I was implying was at least an element of care. Careful drivers don't necessarily stick to the speed limit because they are in love with all other drivers but they do apply care because they know it is in both their and others' interests.

When I consider the alleged facts so far as I know them in the Assange case, there appears to be a lack of care and a lack of self-care. That is why the prerequisite to any helpful communication between the two is a conversation with themselves. It is not necessarily that they should change their lifestyles but if they are to live them in that way, it might be helpful to inject that additional component. This is not to say that what is alleged to have happened did happen.

[ahinton]

I think we should all..... sleep on it.

With whom?...

[Tapiola]

With whom?...

Please, ahinton, let sleeping neanderthals lie...

[Pabmusic]

...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")...

Just to clear this up - it was poorly worded and would better have read "if the charge of rape is justified under Swedish law". I really was playing into the hands of quote-mining literalists there. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Pabmusic]

Yes but it is a ludicrous way to live life. The gap between "no" and "an inability to accept or comprehend no" shouldn't need to be bridged by section 36, clause 8, paragraph 2 of the "What People Do in Bed in Iceland Act 1964". It should be bridged by love.

Presumably that Act does not apply in Sweden.

[Pabmusic]

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.

The change was in 1991, in the House of Lords case of R v R: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/rvr.htm. It was a unanimous decision, and recognised that "the common law is...capable of evolving in the light of changing social, economic and cultural developments", and that "marriage is in modern times regarded as a partnership of equals" (quotes from the judgement). Lord Chief Justice Lane said in the Court of Appeal (that is, before it went to the House of Lords): "The remaining and no less difficult question is whether, despite that view, this is an area where the court should step aside to leave the matter to the Parliamentary process. This is not the creation of a new offence, it is the removal of a common law fiction which has become anachronistic and offensive and we consider that it is our duty having reached that conclusion to act upon it".

So the law can change itself (it wasn't by statute or other parliamentary procedure) ; it just takes a few hundred years.

[scottycelt]

Please, ahinton, let sleeping neanderthals lie...

Just for info, and thanks to wonderful neo-fascist neanderathalism, it is no longer against the law for sleeping neanderthals to lie, and are now permitted to accuse homo erectus of anything.

[ahinton]

Just for info, and thanks to wonderful neo-fascist neanderathalism, it is no longer against the law for sleeping neanderthals to lie, and are now permitted to accuse homo erectus of anything.

Nice to see that you've not abandoned your sense of humour in all of this, scotty! Indeed, maybe a little more of it might not come amiss...

[scottycelt]

Nice to see that you've not abandoned your sense of humour in all of this, scotty! Indeed, maybe a little more of it might not come amiss...

How could I ever abandon my wicked and vile SOH with members like you around, ahinton .. ?

[ahinton]

How could I ever abandon my wicked and vile SOH with members like you around, ahinton .. ?

I have no idea, frankly.

Back to the topic, anyone?

[Sydney Grew]

Facts. Missing from most of this thread. . . . The fact that he has chosen Ecuador where, according to Human Rights Watch they imprison journalists for speaking out against the President etc, [is] somewhat surreal:

Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years. In a referendum held in 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.

Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.

Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted.

That post has been worrying me for the past week, since it does not have a feeling of either a) impartiality or b) likelihood.

So I looked up this "Human RIghts Watch," and sure enough it is a "private American" thing with "head-quarters in New-York city"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_watch

And as I expected Wikipedia goes on to say that "It has been accused of being influenced by United States government policy, in particular in relation to reporting on Latin America."

Well! How very quickly have those "facts" flown out through the window!

The following, which I have extracted from a long article in the current Green Left Weekly, written by Stuart Munckton, has a much much louder ring of truth don't you think?

http://www.greenleft.org.au/taxonomy/term/851

"Correa was first elected president in 2006 on a platform of starting a 'citizen's revolution' to tackle poverty and empower the poor. His government oversaw the drawing up of a new progressive constitution that was adopted by popular vote in 2008. As well as guaranteeing the right of the poor to basic services such as health care and education, it also limits the ability of corporate intrests to control the media.

"His government has increased taxes on big corporations and significantly raised social spending to the benefit of the nation's poor majority.

"Strongly opposed by Ecuador's oligarchy, which controls much of the media, economy and state structures, Correa enjoys widespread popular support, with recent polls giving him an approval rating of more than 70%.

"An attempted coup against Correa in 2010 was defeated, with supporters mobilising on the streets in his defence.

"Correa's government is part of the left-wing bloc of nations organised into the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas, a group that promotes regional integration to liberate Latin America from U.S. domination.

"Among other moves to strengthen Ecuadorean sovereignty, the Correa government has shut down a U.S. military base inside Ecuador. Correa famously told U.S. authorities they could keep their airbase 'if Ecuador were allowed one of its own in Florida'."

[Flosshilde]

"Among other moves to strengthen Ecuadorean sovereignty, the Correa government has shut down a U.S. military base inside Ecuador. Correa famously told U.S. authorities they could keep their airbase 'if Ecuador were allowed one of its own in Florida'."

Thanks for that bit of research, Sydney. It makes it clearer why Ecuador would offer asylum to Assange.

[amateur51]

Thanks for that bit of research, Sydney. It makes it clearer why Ecuador would offer asylum to Assange.

Seconded, Flossie!

Many thanks, Sydney