George Galloway steps in it again!

124

Comments

  • thmsthms Posts: 61,002
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Matt D wrote: »
    As I mentioned in the post you quoted, Assange's lawyer's argument was dismissed.

    The High Court, like the Magistrates' Court before it, ruled that alleged offences 1-3 met the dual criminality test, while alleged offence 4 ("sleep sex") was a framework offence due to being an alleged offence of rape.

    is that bit mentioned in the warrant for his arrest or an argument? :confused:
  • JELLIES0JELLIES0 Posts: 6,709
    Forum Member
    Orri wrote: »
    And returns us to the fact that the alleged victim gave her consent to sex using a condom. If Assange then chose to ignore that condition of her consent then he did not respect her wishes or act in a responsible manner.

    Is there anything in the rape laws of any country that provides for such conditions to be attached to the consent ?
  • OrriOrri Posts: 9,470
    Forum Member
    thms wrote: »
    by expressing his opinion he gives credence to the allegations.. assange is innocent until proven guilty..

    Nope, he is presumed innocent until judged guilty.
    However given his unwillingness to have the matter put to trial and clear his name he will always be an accused rapist.
    The whole innocent bit is more to do with being given a trial without prejudice in real terms, as in you don't get trapped in a frame of mind that assumes he's guilty and then use that to assess the possibility of him having committed that self same crime.
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Matt D wrote: »
    Rather difficult to give consent, or say no, while you're asleep.
    Or drunk (would you agree to a legal contract, oral or written whilst under the influence?), or on some prescription drugs or there'll be a lawyer who'll find a loophole so someone can withdraw their consent after the act Don't even have to perform the act to face quite serious, life-changing charges of attempted rape, sexual harassment and/or assault.

    The danger is, as has been discussed before by a number of forum members, is that this case and the subsequent comments by Galloway et al, could trivialise, belittle and treat an extremely serious crime as a weapon to ruin someone - already happened with personal injury - now individuals and companies are grossly over-cautious (the old "'elf and safety gone mad" argument) and I fear rape may end up the same way. I know there have been some tongue-in-cheek comments about 'no win no fee' or legal consent forms within packets of condoms, and this should in no way detract from the seriousness of the crime of rape, but we could end up in danger of creating a nervous situation where people will avoid having sex or going over the top in fear of being charged with a life-changing crime. Don't even have to be convicted to have your name treated as mud.
  • OrriOrri Posts: 9,470
    Forum Member
    JELLIES0 wrote: »
    Is there anything in the rape laws of any country that provides for such conditions to be attached to the consent ?

    Yes, the requirement there be a reasonable assumption of consent means that there can be an evaluation of what that consent entails. As such a condition such as "only if you use a condom" would make it certain in most that consent had not been given if a condom was not used, or at least make it uncertain that consent had been given.
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just when you think its just men that come up with the crazy....
    Sharon Barnes, a high ranking state Republican, came to the defense of her conservative colleague who she believes only "phrased it (his statement) badly."

    Barnes was quoted by The New York Times saying, "abortion is never an option." Barnes went on to biblically claim that, "If God has chosen to bless this person [the rape victim] with a life, you don’t kill it."
    Source

    I really really hope this is a bad misquote.
  • End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    What makes Assange deserving of special treatment before the Law?

    Nothing.
  • OrriOrri Posts: 9,470
    Forum Member
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

    "This warrant has been issued by a competent authority. I request the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order".
    It set out four offences:
    "1. Unlawful coercion
    On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
    2. Sexual molestation
    On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
    3. Sexual molestation
    On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
    4. Rape
    On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
    It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."



    So part of the allegations are that Assange was aware that he should use a condom and chose not to do so. Which would indicate that the concept of conditional consent does have a meaning under Swedish law.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 159
    Forum Member
    The key is whether the person performing the sex act can reasonably believe that the sleeping person consents. By the account that this woman gave there is no way that Assange could have believed that. They'd just spent much of the night arguing about him needing to use a condom, with her insisting that he has too. So to then wait until the morning, when she falls back asleep, and to penetrate her without a condom is clearly an act of rape.

    Whether that story is true or not is a different matter, but if this goes to court his legal team certainly won't be arguing that because he'd had sex with her once he then had the right to have sex with any way he liked once she fell asleep, regardless of whether she liked it or not.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    George Galloway: “Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion.”

    :eek: Whatever happened to romance?
  • AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,469
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    George has now been sacked from a journalism job with Holyrood.

    Mandy Rhodes, editor of Holyrood, said: ‘His recent outpourings about definitions of rape have left me gobsmacked.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2192107/Ecuador-president-says-Julian-Assange-stay-London-embassy-indefinitely-leaving-UK-taxpayer-massive-bill.html#ixzz24MhfZJd6
  • OrriOrri Posts: 9,470
    Forum Member
    I would not be surprised if Assange made it to Ecuadorian soil only to be shot by a sniper in an attempt to lay the blame at the USA or trigger the alleged dead mans switch that would release his final documents to the world.
  • penelopesimpsonpenelopesimpson Posts: 14,907
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Matt D wrote: »
    How is it not (allegedly) rape to (allegedly) have sex with someone without their consent and while they are sleeping?

    Oh, and he's not right... The law is quite clear. Sex with someone who is asleep = sex without consent = rape.

    What is a "real" rape victim?

    Is it only "rape" if someone is violently raped by a stranger?

    What about rape in a marriage or other relationship?

    What about "date rape"?
    In the context of what have read this case doedn't sound like your avaerage rape to me. We ladies do oursvelves disservice with pushing this to hard
    Is it OK for a man to have sex with a woman whenever he wants, regardless of whether she is conscious or not, purely because the woman consented to have sex with him on a previous occasion?

    So if a woman consents to have sex with a man when they sleep together, that somehow gives the man the right to penetrate her without her consent while she is still asleep the next morning?

    In the context of what have read this case doedn't sound like your avaerage rape to me. We ladies do oursvelves disservice with pushing this to hard
  • swaydogswaydog Posts: 5,653
    Forum Member
    2. Sexual molestation
    On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.


    Would a man who insisted on a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that the woman used a form of contraception also be an injured party if it turned out she did not.
    Would it be called sexual molestation.

    It happens all the time with women claiming there on the pill when they aren't in a attempt to get pregnant.

    Well, we know the answer is no and furthermore he would be liable to support the potential resulting child (and in some cases the mother) in such cases.

    Major sexist double standards IMO.
  • allaortaallaorta Posts: 19,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Orri wrote: »
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

    "This warrant has been issued by a competent authority. I request the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order".
    It set out four offences:
    "1. Unlawful coercion
    On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

    Following which she apparently didn't immediately report it, a time at which may have produced evidence of force.


    2. Sexual molestation
    On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

    At which point it also appears she didn't report any of the alleged offences.

    3. Sexual molestation
    On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

    And here we are, some days later, and she still permits him into her home.

    4. Rape
    On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

    So again, some days later, the "injured party" allows Assange into her home.

    It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

    Well according to the accusations, the first time Assange is claimed to have committed rape was on 13-14 August and from the wording it appears a condom wasn't used. Yet despite this, the "injured party" permitted Assange to enter her home.
    So part of the allegations are that Assange was aware that he should use a condom and chose not to do so. Which would indicate that the concept of conditional consent does have a meaning under Swedish law

    It may have a meaning but it seems it's the only thing that does and if your quote encapsulates all that happened, then Assange would escape conviction but I doubt he'd escape a deportation request from the USA.
  • swaydogswaydog Posts: 5,653
    Forum Member
    Another thing that doesn't sound right is the non use of condon "without her knowledge"
    But, by her own admission, when she became aware of the lack of condom, she did not ask him to stop.
  • allaortaallaorta Posts: 19,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    swaydog wrote: »
    Another thing that doesn't sound right is the non use of condon "without her knowledge"
    But, by her own admission, when she became aware of the lack of condom, she did not ask him to stop.

    Perhaps she was enjoying it. :D
  • swaydogswaydog Posts: 5,653
    Forum Member
    allaorta wrote: »
    Orri wrote: »
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

    "This warrant has been issued by a competent authority. I request the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order".
    It set out four offences:


    Following which she apparently didn't immediately report it, a time at which may have produced evidence of force.





    At which point it also appears she didn't report any of the alleged offences.




    And here we are, some days later, and she still permits him into her home.




    So again, some days later, the "injured party" allows Assange into her home.




    Well according to the accusations, the first time Assange is claimed to have committed rape was on 13-14 August and from the wording it appears a condom wasn't used. Yet despite this, the "injured party" permitted Assange to enter her home.



    It may have a meaning but it seems it's the only thing that does and if your quote encapsulates all that happened, then Assange would escape conviction but I doubt he'd escape a deportation request from the USA.

    I think the charges 3 & 4 refer to a different women but IIRC at least 1 of them went out to breakfast with the accused after the "rape", but only decided she had been violated after finding out about the other women.
  • allaortaallaorta Posts: 19,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    swaydog wrote: »
    allaorta wrote: »

    I think the charges 3 & 4 refer to a different women but IIRC at least 1 of them went out to breakfast with the accused after the "rape", but only decided she had been violated after finding out about the other women.

    Oops, yes you're right but in the case of AA, she claimed being raped 13-14 August but still allowed him back into her home 18 August.
  • swaydogswaydog Posts: 5,653
    Forum Member
    allaorta wrote: »
    swaydog wrote: »

    Oops, yes you're right but in the case of AA, she claimed being raped 13-14 August but still allowed him back into her home 18 August.

    OK i didn't know that.
    But i seriously doubt that he would be found guilty or even charged with these charges in normal circumstances and the fact that the charges were dropped at first, then reinstated from powers above does add to my suspicions of dark forces at work.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,797
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Plonker!

    "buy one insertion - get unlimited"

    (whether you want them or not, ladies and gentlemen)

    :rolleyes: to infinity
  • OrriOrri Posts: 9,470
    Forum Member
    allaorta wrote: »

    I think the charges 3 & 4 refer to a different women but IIRC at least 1 of them went out to breakfast with the accused after the "rape", but only decided she had been violated after finding out about the other women.

    And if you read into it you might find that the initial aim of both of them was to force him into having an STD test. They then went to the police to see if there was anything they could do to force him to do so. It's possible that they didn't think that it might be classed as rape given one of them is said to have refused to sign her statement when she realised that. In addition the level of danger from unprotected sex is higher the more partners both parties have. Finding out about other women would raise the perceived danger on both of them and given their first port of call was to ask Assange to get tested it's reasonable to assume that any presumed retro-active consent they had given was being brought into question. In fact if their approach had been more blunt and they'd said get tested or we go to the police it would be clear that they were no longer happy to let the issue pass.
  • OrriOrri Posts: 9,470
    Forum Member
    swaydog wrote: »
    then reinstated from powers above

    At the insistence of the legal representative of the complainants. Amazing, a legal system that enforces a right of appeal on the part of the alleged victims of a crime to have a case heard.
  • LabhaoiseNiMhaoLabhaoiseNiMhao Posts: 2,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JELLIES0 wrote: »
    Just imagine, you are in bed with a lady with whom you have had sex earlier that night. You have the urge for more sex so rather than giving her perhaps a kiss and a cuddle and then proceeding with the act, assuming she doesn't object, you make sure she is fully awake and you ask "Do you agree to full consensual sexual intercourse under the terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ?" to make doubly sure that you are not in danger of facing legal charges you get her to sign a piece of paper expressing her consent in writing.

    As i understnd she had objected to unprotected sex earlier and expressed so and he engaged in unprotected sex as she slept.
  • kerrminatorkerrminator Posts: 618
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    George could have worded it better but the whole thing absolutely stinks of a set up and the US and UK will likely silence Assange and throw a scapegoat to the wolves as an apology for breaking diplomatic laws

    This man is being hunted for his wikileaks involvement, nothing more
Sign In or Register to comment.