46 3 mins 9 yrs

Ah, Julian Assange – an alleged rapist that the Left finally looks up to. Even admires. Take leftist icon and well know cat impersonator “Gorgeous” George Galloway;

Galloway claimed that the allegations against Julian Assange, even if they were “100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them”, “don’t constitute rape”. At least “not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it”

Interesting,  pray share your wisdom…

“Woman A met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him. Claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know. I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you’re already in the sex game with them. It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, “do you mind if I do it again?”. It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning.

Bad sexual etiquette!!!  Hope every alleged rapist does not decide to follow that line of defence.

As has been pointed out;

Let’s be clear. The alleged facts of Assange’s case notwithstanding, the situation Galloway has just described is absolutely, 100 per cent, no-ifs-or-buts definitely rape. A woman wakes up to find a man having sex with her. She was unconscious at the time. It was literally impossible for her to consent. Having sex with someone once does not give them carte blanche to have sex with you again; the woman is entitled to change her mind between “insertions” (yuck, George. Yuck), and what is more she is entitled to expect the man to wait until she is sufficiently conscious to state whether or not she has changed her mind. That is what “consent” involves. Giving it once is not a waiver of one’s right to refuse it in future.

Some on the Left like to allege that every man is a potential rapist. But here, we have a man accused of rape and the Left rally around him heralding him as saviour of the Western world. It is a remarkable double standard. I have no idea IF Assange is guilty or not, but I am certain he should be afforded the chance to prove his innocence – in a Swedish court.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

46 thoughts on “SOME ALLEGED RAPISTS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS…

  1. Just to play devils advocate: Say the same thing happened but in the morning(or when ever)your lady friend woke you up with some oral pleasure, would that constitute rape on her part?

  2. The standard is not that he has to prove his innocence. However, Equador should stop the asylum faced and let him be extradicated to face the charges.

  3. The online Telegraph closed it’s comment section after an hour or so after it became clear that most people agreed with Galloway’s (video) sentiments on rape, and Assange.
    That’s odd, considering he is generally vilified by rightwing Telegraph readers, but on this occasion he was given the thumbs-up.

  4. I don’t care for Assange, but—here both the charge, and the defense against the charge, would be entirely unprovable, outside of verbal evidence from the two of them.

    It has the whiff of the trumped up charge, involving a man with many enemies.

  5. Talk about making mountains out of molehills! – Assange is a pain in the rump to the ‘oh so innocent’ American hierachy. They fear the fact that he ‘may’ know, and is prepared to reveal, some nasty little secrets that they rather not be revealed.

    That the Americans are going to such lengths to keep him quiet, suggests that maybe, just maybe, – they really do have something to hide. It couldn’t be that faux clip of Obama, Clinton and cronies, watching the raid on that guy in Afghanistan a few months ago, we all know, and they have admited that was a fraud, so I wonder what it migh be? Who knows, it might even be a pic Obama getting his cigar lit!

    Isn’t it a moot point as to whether Assange has even committed a crime under American law? after all – he didn’t actually steal or hack the info himself, and they do have the guy ‘Bradley whatsit’, who actully did steal the info in custody already.

  6. Ernesto & Phantom.

    Yes, this Assange affair has a nasty whiff of powerful vested interests in the US being compromised.
    Bradley Manning won’t see the light of day again that’s for sure, and ‘they’ are gunning for Assange as well.
    Remember how popular he was when the whole thing broke?
    Nothing material has changed, but why has the MSM and HMG suddenly gone against him?
    The classic ‘fem fatales’ post-coital sting, plus pressure on William ‘I’m not gay’ Hague, stinks of a real conspiracy to silence Assagne at any cost.

  7. Manning should never see the light of day for the next half century or so.

    Taking an oath to protect secrets and then betraying that oath is a very big deal.

  8. Phantom,

    So much for the security at the place where Manning worked, and for his vetting for the job in the first instance.

    As for Assange, – he didn’t do nuffin!

    Could this all be some misbegotten attempt to find a justifiable reason, i.e. one that might be acceptable to the general public, to censor the WEB.

    All rather similar to the excuses used to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, – and no, I am not suggesting that 9/11 was a ‘black op’, but it was certainly the reason for all that extra security we now ‘enjoy’.

    I have no doubt that the US – and others – will not rest until there is more control over the WWW and the internet in general.

    It certainly says much, when the most powerful nation ever, is so insecure that they are literally ‘frightened of their own shadow’, and have such little faith in their own people.

  9. ” Manning should never see the light of day for the next half century or so. ”

    AGREED! Treasonous bastard.

  10. Pinky.

    Manning didn’t give away “secrets” in the normal sense; he gave away private conversations and political protocol between powerful men and their machinations to control the media.
    Manning was a whistle-blower on the State.

    Remember Pete Moore’s dictum: “The State is NOT your friend”

  11. There are two examples of elected members making crass comments about rape recently, one in the USA and the other in the UK. There is no surprise in the vastly differing ways that the biased-BBC reports them.

    An American Congressman, Todd Akin, is ’embattled’ and is reportedly facing calls from everyone for him to stand down from his seat (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19335083) while George Galloway is merely ‘criticised by anti-rape campaigners’ with no mention of any other critics or calls for him to resign (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783).

    The former is of course a hated Republican while the latter is the darling of the loony lefties.

  12. Manning took an oath and he broke it.

    Indefensible.

    Didn’t the Nuremburg Tribunals provide a get-out clause for ‘following orders’? If Manning has done anything indictable then give him a court-martial.

  13. Here’s litmus test – Mordechai Vannunu. Is he a traitor who betrayed Israel’s security or a man of conscience who revealed the fact of Israeli nuclear weapons?

  14. Here’s litmus test – Mordechai Vannunu. Is he a traitor who betrayed Israel’s security or a man of conscience who revealed the fact of Israeli nuclear weapons?

    Good point, Allan.

  15. Phantom – how long does a court-martial take the US military to arrange? Surely if Manning has not been indicted then he shouldn’t be detained?

  16. Allan.

    Quite so, ‘real’ traitors do what they do for three reasons:
    Hatred of their own country; Idealogical causes; Money.

    Bradley Manning ticks none of those boxes.

  17. Some people are such whores for the state. Good on people who shine a light on secretive states.

  18. The two comments above are exactly it – if a state claims to be acting for good and/or for the benefit of its people and an individual finds it not to be so, that individual has every right to reveal the mendacity of the politicos. Vannunu and Manning are not traitors nor in it for money. I’m not sure about Assange though; something not quite right there.

  19. The Rosenbergs, spies and traitors, were not in in for the money either. They were communist sympathizers

    Each individual does not get to decide what’s classified and what’s not. The world doesn’t work that way, and it cannot work that way.

    You are correct in that there is something not quite right about Assange. You can’t put it into words, but you hear that comment often.

  20. Here’s litmus test – Mordechai Vannunu. Is he a traitor who betrayed Israel’s security or a man of conscience who revealed the fact of Israeli nuclear weapons?

    There’s a big difference- Vannunu released a specific piece of information to the global press that he thought should be publicised. Manning released every classified document he had access to.

    Unless you believe there should be no classified information at all then his actions are simply indefensible.

    He should remain in prison for the rest of his life.

  21. Some people are such whores for the state. Good on people who shine a light on secretive states.

    You describe yourself as a communist.

    Every communist state that has ever existed has been hierarchical and secretive. Including the vestiges of the movement such as they exist in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and partially, in China and Belarus.

    Your movement is the most statist and secretive that the world has ever seen!

  22. Phantom, I don’t admire those states or advocate that anyone emulate them.

    I’m intrigued by Ross’s comments. I mean, do you really think it’s in anyone’s interests for states to have so many secrets. Everyone agrees what Manning did was against the law, the question is was it the right thing to do and the answer, to my mind, is emphatically yes. I actually consider him a hero.

    All that said I share what others have said about Assange. He’s never sat well with me; too much of an egomaniac, too much of a self-publicist; although leaking those cables was incredibly ballsy and he’s paying for it now. The Ecuadorian embassy is a small downstairs flat, not a place I’d like to be confined in for years!

  23. Someone on this site once famously said,

    “We are all Julian Assange now!”

    That was when Julian was thought of as something as a hero ..

    Sadly Julian now finds his fortunes more aligned with this (feminist) quote,

    “All men are potential rapists”
    from “The Women’s Room” by Marilyn French

    Aah! The fickleness of fate – or is that chance?

    or,
    “See how the mighty have fallen! See how the weapons of war have been destroyed!”
    2 Samuel 1:27

    Might have been written for Julian…

  24. EP wrote:

    “Just to play devils advocate: Say the same thing happened but in the morning(or when ever)your lady friend woke you up with some oral pleasure, would that constitute rape on her part?”

    A fair question which most people would prefer to pretend doesn’t exist. I don’t know why EP specifies waking up to oral sex (wishful thinking perhaps?), as a man could wake to find a woman having sex with him in exactly that same way that Assange is accused of.

    Most people (apart from Galloway) would be pretty clear that such a thing could be rape if the sexes were reversed. But the principle is rarely consistently applied if it is a male victim (ditto for statutory rape, ditto if he was drunk). Indeed if a man woke up and found a drunk woman having sex with him, I imagine somebody somewhere would claim that HE was guilty of rape because the woman couldn’t consent.

    Not only would the guy be unlikely to get anyone to take him seriously if tried to prosecute for rape in such a circumstance, but if the woman became pregnant as a result then he’d be faced with a child support bill. And again, ditto for statutory rape.

    Not that women have an easy time with prosecuting any rape at all, and a woman pregnant as a result of rape has a bigger problem than any guy would, but still. Equality is a two way street.

  25. Can a woman rape a man?
    Possible, but less likely than a man raping a woman.
    Did Assange do it?
    Apart from him and the lady concerned, who knows?

    What we do know is that for hundreds, thousands of years women have been at the mercy of men.
    Now the tide has turned and the law is weighted more in their favour.
    It is not unknown for a woman to cry Rape! for entirely different reasons than er, rape: but how many women would want to put themselves through the embarrassment and indignity just to get a bloke into trouble??

  26. George Galloway made his comments about the Assange allegations for political reasons. He would not have done so if for example Assange was the leader of the BNP or was a Pro-Israeli campaigner. Most people commenting on the Assange sexual claims will do so from the basis of their views on his Wikileaks work and not on an impartial analysis of sexual conduct.

  27. “Can a woman rape a man?”

    Technically speaking no. Rape is, officially anyway, non-consensual penetration with the penis. Officially if you don’t have a penis then you can’t rape someone. If a man has sex with a woman who either doesn’t consent or is incapable of consenting then he has committed rape. If a woman has sex with a man who either doesn’t consent or is incapable of consenting then she hasn’t committed rape.

  28. Seamus,

    “Technically speaking no. Rape is, officially anyway, non-consensual penetration with the penis”

    Depends on the jurisdiction. Most modern legal definitions include non consensual penetration with an object. Also the definition of sexual assault is much more broad and means any involuntary sexual act. Women can be guilty of either.

  29. It depends on the jurisdiction:
    Rape in the Third Degree (Class E Felony)
    Up to 4 years in Prison:
    Rape in the Third Degree has occurred when:
    • A person engages in sexual intercourse with another person to whom the actor is not married who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than 17 years old;
    OR
    • Being 21 years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person to whom the actor is not married and who is less than 17 years old.
    Rape in the Second Degree (Class D Felony)
    Up to 7 Years in Prison:
    Rape in the Second Degree has occurred when:
    • A person being 18 years or more engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than 14 years old to whom the actor is not married.
    Rape in the First Degree (Class B Violent Felony)
    Up to 25 Years in Prison:
    Rape in the First Degree has occurred when a male engages in sexual intercourse with a female:
    • By forcible compulsion; or
    • Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless; or
    • Who is less than 11 years old.

    A8—That book had an unexpected effect on me when I read it college. My poor boyfriend at the time bore the brunt of it. I seem to remember a strawberry milkshake suddenly spilling over the top of his head…can’t remember what he said but it certinly didn’t warrant my response. Obviously, I was young and easily influenced then…

  30. In the UK rape is, by the Sexual Offences Act, the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth with the penis. Additionally even if it is expanded to other penetration it still leaves out the potential for women to force non-consensual sex where the man penetrates her.

  31. Seamus,

    “Additionally even if it is expanded to other penetration it still leaves out the potential for women to force non-consensual sex where the man penetrates her.”

    No it doesn’t – in that case it is just a less serious (in terms of maximum penalty) offence, either sexual assault or “Causing sexual activity without consent”

    A person (A) commits an offence if—
    a) he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity,
    b) the activity is sexual,
    c) B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and
    d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

    In any case the spirit of the modern law is clearly to criminalise having sexual intercourse, or other sexual activity, with somebody without their consent. It’s not obvious why the sex of the perpetrator should matter.

  32. Such intense interest in an age old topic.

    Rape is any unwelcome, coerced sexual activity and we all know what that means without having to list its endless, creative varieties or means of achievement.

  33. “Remember Joyce McKinney anyone ?”

    Don’t tell me you went out with Joyce McKinney?

Comments are closed.