Since I joined the progressive blog, Liberal Conspiracy, I have put the cesspool that is Harry’s Place behind me. However, as I still have my log in rights, I thought I might draw your attention to John B’s demolition of the case against Julian Assange.
Here’s another treat for you Harry-dans. A follow up piece by my girlfriend.
***********************
This is a guest post by Hedwigca
As a leading feminist thinker, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to denounce the shameful assault on Julian Assange by the forces of Imperialism and Zio-Feminism.
Much of the groundwork of my thinking has been done already by my colleague at Liberal Conspiracy, John B who has brilliantly refuted the trumped up charges against Assange, upon which the shameful Interpol Red Notice is premised:
He’s sought on made-up-weird-charges that aren’t a crime in the UK, or anywhere else sensible.
…
Swedish law on this sort of thing is, actually so deranged that nobody in Angloland could comprehend it (except for people who’ve read Steig Larssen’s books, at which point various plotlines start making more sense: yes, that whole thing about Salander being held as a ward of the state for no discernible reason, which would have be overturned in a second in any Anglophone jurisdiction, was based on reality. Larssen’s early death? Well, I wouldn’t put money on natural causes…).
Yes, I expect that is why the Swedish Government is so keen to get Assange. If the investigation against him is dropped, no doubt it will be because among the undisclosed diplomatic cables that Assange still has in his pocket, is an admission that Larssen’s so-called “heart attack” was in fact a murder, by the Swedish Social Democratic Party, a notorious far Right party with links to the international fascist and Islamophobia network, that Larssen was investigating at the time of his death.
More on them, later. First, some theory.
As Leon Trotsky so eloquently put it:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
So it is with the law of Rape. For there is not one law of Rape, but two laws of Rape. Just as power relations between men and women are unequal, we cannot treat so called Rape allegations made by those who are powerful against those who are powerless, in the same manner as allegations made by those who are powerless against those who are powerful.
We must start with the Theory. Only then can we turn to the Facts.
I hesitate to use the term “Hierarchies of Opposition”, because it was coined by Helene Cixous – an Algerian Jewess and therefore an Imperialist – but it perfectly describes the reason that we must support Julian Assange. Assange is trapped in a Hierarchy of Opposition. He is also Opposed to Hierarchies. Yet, it is these very Hierarchies which now seek to question him for sexual offences.
Let us examine these Hierarchies.
First of all, we learn from Wikipedia that one of the women making these lying allegations is somehow connected with the Swedish Social Democratic Party, as is the lawyer who is representing her. The Swedish Social Democratic Party is a notorious far Left political party with links to that slatternly sexual libertarian movement, International Women with No Body Hair. It was the architect of Sweden’s ‘liberal revolution’ of the 1960s, in which women were persuaded to dress in short skirts and burn their bras which resulted in Rape.
We also learn from the “Crikey” website, some interesting facts about the Prosecutor:
The investigation of the rape charge was then reopened by Marianne Ny, head of Sweden’s prosecution service. … Ny is a prominent advocate of extending the crime of rape and sexual assault in wider areas of sexual behaviour
So the prosecutor is a Feminist. But what kind of Feminist?
Just as there are two laws of Rape, there are also two Feminisms. True Feminism and Zio-Feminism. I am a True Feminist.
Many women who call themselves Feminists have been Zionists. Phyllis Chesler is a notorious Zionist and Islamophobe. Andrea Dworkin was also a Zionist or at very least was anti-Palestinian (men) which is both Racist and Islamophobic:
She promotes a multi-racial unity among Israeli and Palestinian women rooted in a mutual “caring” and “nurturing” which supposedly confronts “men” while leaving Palestinian national liberation prostrate and stillborn at the feet of the state of Israel.
This is a fake Feminism, a Zio-Feminism, which seeks to promote Imperialism under the guise of “women’s rights”. Was not the justification for the invasion of Afghanistan, supposedly to create some Zio-Feminist utopia, in which girls could go to school? Except the school has now been reduced to a heap of rubble by a Pershing missile, powered by Intel chips made in Israel. Fired by a man who is drinking Starbucks. And who is probably also wearing a cheap cashmere sweater from Marks and Spencers, but made by children in a Palestinian sweatshop. Who uses Ahava face moisturiser.
That school, the school for girls, the school that was just incinerated, was the school built by Moazzam Begg. And Gita Sahgal wants to send him back to Guantanamo. She is no Feminist but a Tool of Imperialism.
Let us now turn to the facts of the case. This is what we know, according to the New York Times:
According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use.
Mr. Assange has questioned the veracity of those accounts.
The first point to make is that Julian Assange says that these two women are lying. We all know that some sorts of women lie about sex. It is no surprise to discover that one of the complainants is a member of the Swedish Association of Christian Social Democrats, a Christian Fundamentalist cult. Christians are notoriously hung up about sex, which they believe is a sin. Is it really so difficult to imagine that this poor woman is simply hysterical?
Julian Assange, by contrast, denies these lies. Given that Julian Assange is a man who has dedicated his life to the dissemination of truth, what reason could he possibly have to lie?
In any case, if a man like Julian Assange wants to have sex without a condom, then why shouldn’t he? He’s earned it!
Indeed, given that his sexual partner was some kind of fascist nymphomaniac religious nut, can it not be argued that Julian Assange was engaged in a form of defensive Jihad against an aggressive conservative sexual consensus sapping the anima and essence from intra-gender non-verbal communications and spiritual unity – a disorientation upon which Zionist/Capitalist commodification feeds? Yes, I think it can!
I disagree with my colleague John B, on only one issue. John fondly believes that refusal to stop having sex when a woman asks you to desist is “made-up-weird-charges that aren’t a crime in the UK, or anywhere else sensible”. Sad to say, this is the state of the law of Rape in England and Wales:
1Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
Now what does that remind me of?
Ah yes. The racist law of Rape in Israel.
I rest my case.