There is an interesting discussion going on at Cath Elliott’s blog on the Assange extradition case:
http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/02/12/ohhh-helena/
It is a feminist blog and whenever I turn up at those places the conversation turns a bit adversarial. But it is a subject I am very interested in, so I thought I’d see if anyone here had any comments, where the tone of discourse tends to remain more civil!
Cath focusses on comments by Assange’s defence lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC. She is upset because the feminist Helena Kennedy is also on his legal team, and Cath believes Robertson has undermined the law on rape, and the status of rape victims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/11/julian-assange-missionary-position-wikileaks
“Geoffrey Robertson QC told the extradition hearing, at Belmarsh magistrate’s court in south London, that any resistance had been “unarticulated” on the part of Miss A, who has accused the WikiLeaks founder of ripping off her clothes, snapping a necklace, pinning her down and trying to force himself on her without wearing a condom.
“In so far as Mr Assange held her arms and there was a forceful spreading of her legs, there’s no allegation that this was without her consent,” he said.
“Sexual encounters have their ups and downs, their ebbs and flows. What may be unwanted one moment can with further empathy become desired. These complex human interactions are not criminal in this country.”
The argument that Assange used the weight of his body to pin her down “describes what is usually termed the missionary position,” he said.”
I have not seen the transcript from the hearing. These comments are all I have. But on their own, they kind of make sense to me. Though, I do accept that if they make sense, then the current law on rape in the UK (let alone Sweden) doesn’t.
What do you think?
Quiet Riot Girl 
I think it’s really interesting how the Assange case has confused everyone as to who is on what side when it comes to feminism, etc.
and me. I think it is going to have some kind of impact on the law, eventually.
It is very interesting to me that it was this case that enabled Naomi Wolf to ‘come out’ about her views on rape anonymity. I don’t think she invented her view that accusers should not be anonymous, just because she supports Assange, as some feminists claim.
I am quite transfixed even though I find aspects of Assange/wikileaks/rape law/gender/Sweden very dull.
I don’t know what to think about the Assange case anymore. There have been some pretty awful rejections of any possibility that he raped those two women by Assange supporters, and on the other hand, there are those who have assumed guilt from the beginning, and dismissed any possibility that he’s being framed, or that there isn’t any clarity in what actually happened. Given the importance of Wikileaks, the lines are blurred all over the place – it might end up being impossible to learn what actually occurred in the end.
i agree Nathan. Which makes me think they should scrap the case against Assange! I definitely understand his reluctance to go to Sweden to face unspecified charges in such an atmosphere of confusion.
Have you seen this documentary “Könskriget” (Gender War) about radical feminism in Sweden, and its influence on the Swedish state?:
http://www.youtube.com/user/figaropravda#p/u
Its pretty amazing that such a fringe movement (one that still takes the idea of a Satanic Ritual Murder conspiracy dead seriously) has so much influence on Swedish state policy around gender.
Given the mainstreaming of utterly fringe feminism in Sweden, the fact that at least one of the Accusers, Anna Ardin, is part of that movement, the fact that she wrote a blog post on how to get legal revenge against a cheating partner, and the fact that the accusations came after Assange had been two-timing her with the other accuser, adds up to me being *very* doubtful about the truth of the charges against Assange.
One does not need to think that most women lie about rape nor that a male leftist hero wouldn’t be capable of raping a woman to have serious doubts about this particular case. In fact, I’d have to un-learn pretty much everything I know about Swedish feminism and Anna Ardin to find her halfway credible.
I agree it is like walking into a hornets nest.
people have been attacking Assange’s extradition lawyer for going too far in his comments but if i were him I would do everything I could think of to keep my client from having to go in and face those…. people.
i saw your comments on clarisse’s thread I won’t comment on there. I have left her house! I found maymaym’s comments to me about being a contrarian. which he also said on his own blog, because I disagreed with him about Palin and Giffords, very annoying. I don’t like a lot of what he says and how he says it but I have never pointed at him in public and said ‘you are this’.
I actually am not a ‘contrarian’. I don’t hold views because they are contrary to received wisdom. I hold them because I believe them.
i cant see the subtitled version Iamcuriousblue ! Is there one with subtitles?
There should be subtitles in the videos in the link that I sent. I see them. I also notice that I can pick up and move the subtitles around on my screen with my cursor, so the subtitles aren’t embedded in the video. Using a different browser and/or updating your version of Flash should work.
BTW, my comments on the “Smarter than me” thread are still in the mod que.
[…] them. I noticed that both men as a whole and individual men were being demonized by feminists. Julian Assange for example, still has not even been charged by the authorities, but feminist bloggers have already […]
[…] them. I noticed that both men as a whole and individual men were being demonized by feminists. Julian Assange for example, still has not even been charged by the authorities, but feminist bloggers have already […]
[…] lade märke till att både män som grupp så väl som enskilda män demoniserades av feminister. Julian Assange till exempel, har ännu inte åtalats av myndigheterna, men feministiska bloggare har redan […]