General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRape and the left: Assange, Galloway and the problem with women
By Ian Dunt | Talking Politics – 14 hours ago
... Several days have passed since Galloway's outburst, but when I talk to Harriet Harman about it she's still livid. "Thousands of women who have suffered rape, who wonder if they dare report it, will have read Galloway's comments," she says. "The message will be: 'Don't, because you won't be believed.' It has a practical impact. We don't want commentary which reinforces the notion women are asking for it."
Harman's response to the outburst is to frame it in the history of victim blaming and the belittling of rape complaints, rather than any particular failure of a political viewpoint. She's not the only one. While much of the left looks on aghast at the comments from their own troops, rape campaigners seem broadly unsurprised at the standard of debate. "Ignorance and misinformation around the type of women who become victims of rape - and the type of men who rape - are unfortunately cross-cutting and have never been solely issues for either the left or the right of the political spectrum," Katie Russell of Rape Crisis tells me.
Ignorance about rape — and in particular the obsessive attention paid to 'stranger-rape' - also contributes to the misunderstanding. "The disproportionate focus on 'stranger rape' in the media is a significant factor in the endurance of that particular myth," Russell says. "In practice, around 85% of women and girls who experience sexual violence know their attacker. The stranger myth is confusing and unhelpful in a number of ways, not least of all in the way it can be used to restrict women's behaviour" ...
Somewhere in Sweden, two women will have doubtless watched a news story reduce their own complaints to footnotes. They will have been appalled that anti-imperialism and the fight for freedom of information have been used to question their behaviour and lionise their alleged attacker. It will hardly have consoled them that this process is now prompting soul-searching on the left. But if there is a morsel of comfort to be had from a depressing week, it's that at least the left is doing some soul-searching. Despite the horrific comments from Akin, there is precious little of that going on in the Republican party.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/rape-left-assange-galloway-problem-women-144733581.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Nearly four thousand. Somewhere is Sweden there are close to four thousand women, PER YEAR, watching news stories reducing their complaints to footnotes. You know? The ones that Sweden has ignored, not bothered to prosecute, even though the rapists are right there in the country and not in the UK? The ones you seem to feel aren't quite as special as the Assange case, although you can't quite say why? And that's just one years worth of rapes in Sweden. For some reason, you aren't posting OP after OP after OP after endless OP demanding that their attackers be brought to justice. Sometimes what you don't say can tell on you.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)More women in Sweden report rape, approximately 46 out of every 100,000. This is higher than almost anywhere else but is probably due to reduced fear of the system and a greater likelihood of successful prosecution. Victim surveys find a similar incidence of rape to other European countries; about 0.5% per annum depending on definition.
More rapes are successfully prosecuted in Sweden than any other country, approximately 10% of reported cases. Even though better than other countries this is still not good.
Compare to the USA where social surveys have the incidence of rape at 5% of the female population (does not include attempted rapes) but reporting at 27 cases per 100,000. I could not find figures for successful prosecutions per reported rape but arrests following reports is less than 25% of reports.
These figures are easily checked
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)record for rape prosecutions (or even bringing cases to justice)
http://www.thelocal.se/39886/20120326/
"Rape convictions are already rare in Sweden. In 2010, there were 4,134 rapes reported to police, but only 313 resulted in indictments that were brought to trial, and of that figure, 33 percent were acquitted."
intaglio
(8,170 posts)They are published by the UN and are also on Wiki. Then do some searching of legal sites and Swedish government figures. The citations in Wiki are fertile ground. The searches took me about 5 minutes in total. Reading and understanding them took longer, of course, but it is something that has interested me before.
British data is produced by the Justice Ministry (formerly the Home Office) and, to be frank, the UK has an abysmal record of reports, cases carried forward and successful prosecution. IIRC Jack of Kent's blog did have some details but I haven't found them recently. they may have been on his previous blog.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)and here's what Amnesty International had to say:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT77/001/2010
Neither support the claims that Sweden has a better than average record.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I gave a number for cases that go ignored every year, while Sweden chases a political case. Nothing in your post affects that number.
Also, when you make these easily verified claims, please post easily obtained links.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)For pursuing rape cases to the benefit of women. The discarding of valid rape accusations is present in every country but less so in Sweden.
The Swedish record is still not good - but no country has a good record in this area
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)and Daphne II, as well as the international press, for a POORER than average record. Daphne II report also found evidence of discrimination in prosecutions; men were far more likely to be prosecuted if they were poor or minorities and they were far more likely to obtain convictions based on those stereotypes. AI found evidence of misogynist stereotypes among police investigators, "victim" stereotypes that resulted in cases being closed without prosecution. I'll be happy to link you to the reports. Care to link to the evidence for your claims?
Also, you still failed to explain what exactly your statement was supposed to refute.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)No because much of what I have quoted came from those
Thank you and goodnight
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)and you still haven't explained what any of this had to do with the post you originally replied to, or how it ties in with the number of cases that I cited which go without prosecution every year.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Those are the same figures that have shown what a horrific rape problem Sweden has.
The conviction rate in both the U.K. and U.S. is about 13% to sweden's around 10%. Sweden is NOT an aggressive prosecutor and they DO have a rape problem. K?
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)supposed to find out about them?
Assange is someone heading an organization that released unredacted emails containing names and other confidential information of people helping us -- at risk to their lives -- after promising that he wouldn't.
And now he's hiding behind his claims of political persecution -- though there are no laws in the US that could touch him -- in order to avoid prosecution for rape allegations.
What a hero.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)In the US a criminal charge has to be proved to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
How in the world would you prove the charge against Assange beyond reasonable doubt?
Do the Assange accusers think that women are always truthful, that men and women never have honest misunderstandings, that women are always right, always the victims?
True, rape is frequently in fact almost always a get-out-of-jail free card. That does not mean it doesn't happen. Every woman should understand that. It just means that there very often is no fair way to prove that rape of a grown woman by someone she knows or is in a relationship with is very difficult to prove.
It isn't a matter of left or right. It is a matter of evidence. And even if it is easy to prove that a physical relationship occurred, the circumstances of that relationship, which are by nature intimate and usually known only to the parties themselves, is most often impossible to prove -- especially following a consensual one-night stand.
As long as people keep posting about the Swedish charges, I will keep posting about the reasons that people find them to be very likely mere pretext.
struggle4progress
(118,378 posts)A Swedish court ordered Assange's arrest; a higher court upheld the arrest order when Assange appealed. The Swedes took out a warrant; Assange contested that for about a year and a half; the Swedes won at every level
It's now appropriately a matter for the Swedish criminal justice system
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and on top of that the expense and extreme concern about responding to the charge and enforcing extradition look very suspicious. Looks like political persecution plain and simple, and the longer the British continue to refuse to comply with Ecuador's request to grant Assange asylum, the more it will look like political persecution rather than a legitimate rape charge.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)Is that what you're saying? How is Assange's situation with those women any different than any other case of date rape, except there are two of them?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Here, the couple had consensual sex during the night, slept the night together in the same bed and then, she claims, he tried to have sex with her without her consent. That is not date rape, not at all. Not unless she now claims that the original sex was without her consent -- and from what I have read she has not claimed that.
It doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
But this is also the problem for the prosecutor in some other date rape cases. The prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is some believable explanation other than rape, then there will not be a conviction. It's really tough, but the defendant is also due his protection in the law. Fair? Maybe fairness just isn't always possible in the courts. The process just can't be fair enough because we cannot read people's minds.
Sometimes men rape. Sometimes women lie.
Rape has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt -- and that can be hard to do in some cases.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)He didn't "try" to have sex with her in the morning. According to her testimony, he succeeded in penetrating her while she was sleeping. That penetration was without a condom and without her consent; both because she was unconscious, and also because -- if she had been conscious -- she would have insisted he use a condom, as she had previously. So what he did, according to the details of her story, was rape. But it wasn't "stranger rape." It was "date rape."
I agree that this will be a hard case to prove. But I don't think, as some here seem to think, that because of who Assange is Sweden shouldn't even try to prosecute this case.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)never felt physically threatened by him, joked about the fact he wasn't using a condom. From text messages she sent at the time, she was awake. She had been up and had just returned to the apartment from getting breakfast. Assange would have good reason to believe she was awake and fully conscious. He denies that she was sleeping. It's his word against hers and the evidence is shaky.
He should answer the charges, but he doesn't deserve a death sentence or life in prison, even if the worst of the accusations are all true. For this reason, he should be given protection against extradition to the USA by the Swedish government, a measure which they are fully capable of providing.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)assuming the facts were as she described them. It was his legal responsibility to know that she was awake and to get her consent before he entered her.
And she didn't joke about the condom-- he did. Her former boyfriend said she'd always been adamant about using one.
http://www.justdatenow.org/dating-abuse-help/rape-resource-page/identifying-acknowleding-rape
Rape is defined differently in every state, but generally any non-consensual or forced intercourse is considered rape. . . If a victim is unable to give consent because they are intoxicated or asleep, that is rape as well.
SNIP
Many victims freeze as a result of intimidation or coercion, or do what their assailant asks in order to prevent further harm. This may still be considered rape.
Victims often dissociate during a sexual assault. They feel disconnected from their body as a way to get through the attack, and the shock that follows may prevent them from recognizing or reporting a sexual assault.
Rape does not always happen in extraordinary circumstances, and the assailant may act as if nothing happened.
These circumstances and more can create confusion, and make it difficult for the victim to acknowledge that they were sexually assaulted or raped. Further, if the victim knows the assailant, it may be difficult for the victim to recognize the fact that someone they know could do something so egregious. Even if a victim is confused, however, he or she can report exactly what they remember about an incident to the police or a counselor for help identifying what happened.
http://www.aaets.org/arts/art13.htm
Only 27 percent of those women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims.
Whether they had acknowledged their experience as a rape or not, thirty percent of the women identified as rape victims contemplated suicide after the incident.
Women who are raped within dating relationships or by an acquaintance are seen as "safe" victims because they are unlikely to report the incident to authorities or even view it as rape. Not only did a mere five percent of the women who had been raped in the Koss study report the incident, but 42 percent of them had sex again with their assailants.
Self-blame is a recurring response which prevents disclosure. Even if the act has been conceived as rape by the survivor, there is often an accompanying guilt about not seeing the sexual assault coming before it was too late. This is often directly or indirectly reinforced by the reactions of family or friends in the form of questioning the survivor's decisions to drink during a date or to invite the assailant back to their apartment, provocative behavior, or previous sexual relations. People normally relied upon for support by the survivor are not immune to subtly blaming the victim.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If there were no political aspect to this case, Sweden probably would not be prosecuting it. That is my opinion.
And how in the world can this woman prove her testimony is true. Why would she lie? There are quite a few reasons.
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #59)
MadrasT This message was self-deleted by its author.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Which is why he should be extradited to Sweden to face justice. Arguing about standards of proof in criminal cases and whether or not the charges would be proved at trial is, bluntly, wanking. The prosecutor has found grounds for prosecution; whether the prosecution case will succeed or not is not something that can be decided so long as Assange continues to evade justice by hiding behind a nonsensical fear of extradition to the US.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Assange is a highly controversial political figure who is being asked to face a shaky charge in what may turn out to be a kangaroo court.
The usual rules will not apply and should not apply now.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)It's for questioning, and the Swedish prosecutors could do the questioning anywhere.
This is clearly to get Assange into the hands of the governments that want his head.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)he is wanted for indictment, not for questioning. The Swedish legal process is significantly different to that in the US, or the UK. The accused has a second interview, before a magistrate, in the presence of counsel, after which charges are filed if appropriate. He is wanted for arrest and indictment, not for questioning.
It is not true that Assange is only wanted for questioning. The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. The prosecutor is presently disposed to charge him, unless any new evidence emerges that might change her mind.
If a decision is taken to formally charge him, Assange would face trial within two weeks of that decision being made. It is difficult to see how this could happen if the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge. Even if he were interviewed in the embassy, if a decision was then taken to formally charge him, it is somewhat difficult to believe that Assange would suddenly renounce his claim to asylum in Ecuador.
In these circumstances it is difficult to see why Sweden would or should agree to interview Assange in London rather than continue to push for extradition so that they can follow their usual procedures in due course. No other fugitive from justice gets to bargain with the authorities about the way in which their case will be dealt with. I don't see why Assange should be any different.
http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)"The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him."
That's an interview, it's NOT an indictment.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And it can't happen in London.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)"Assange is someone heading an organization that released unredacted emails containing names and other confidential information of people helping us -- at risk to their lives -- after promising that he wouldn't. "
Pwnmom, you just outed yourself.
Thanks for playing...
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)the moment he put innocent lives at risk for no good reason. He doesn't care about anything but himself and his power. Sometimes that coincides with doing good things, like putting out the Iraq war tapes; but sometimes it hurts people who shouldn't be hurt. He doesn't care, as long as it gets him attention.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)whatever works for you...
You've outed yourself as a repeating station for the RW and TPTB.
Thanks for playing...
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)as a rape apologist.
Thanks for playing . . .
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Didn't I suggest we try this whole thing at the Hague? That would suggest I'd like to see the whole thing tried.
If you're going to put words in my mouth, can I ask for some hot sauce?
I find your attempts under-seasoned.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners – the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde – who have worked with WikiLeaks publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.
"We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted state department cables, which may put sources at risk," the organisations said in a joint statement.
"Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were on the clear basis that we would only publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint editing and clearance process. We will continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless publication of the complete data – indeed, we are united in condemning it.
"The decision to publish by Julian Assange was his, and his alone."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables
Wikileaks recently published all its cables unredacted, naming sources that were removed by partner media organisations, including the Guardian.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said reporter Argaw Ashine fled at the weekend after being interrogated over the identity of a government source mentioned in a leaked 2009 US cable. Argaw was the local correspondent for Kenya's Nation Media Group.
The cable said Argaw was told by an unnamed source that the government would target six journalists from a newspaper seen as critical of the government. That paper closed later that year after citing harassment and intimidation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/15/wikileaks-named-ethiopian-reporter-flees
The release of the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables on Zimbabwe, which has caused a rift in President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party, now threatens to spark a showdown with so-called “sell-outs” in the country.
The Zimbabwe Defence Force (ZDF) has launched an investigation into two of its senior army commanders, Major General Fidelis Satuku and Brigadier General Herbert Chingono, for their secret correspondence with the United States envoy to Harare, Charles Ray, in January last year. In the meetings the two military strongmen allegedly derided the incumbent ZDF army commander, General Constantine Chiwenga, as being a “political appointee with little practical military experience or expertise”.
Satuku and Chingono face a military court martial, punishable either by death or imprisonment, if they are found guilty of meeting the US ambassador. Acknowledging the dire consequences if details of the secret meetings were be to leaked, Ray is recorded in the diplomatic cable as saying the two serving military officers took a “grave personal risk” in meeting him and should be “strictly protected”.
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-23-wikileaks-puts-zim-generals-in-firing-line
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Wikileaks seems to be saying there's a little more than you are letting on...
But feel free to keep going...
How's the cat and the filthy assistants?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)revealing the names of informants and whistleblowers and dissidents living under brutal and repressive regimes can only end badly; Assange has blood on his hands over the release of unredacted cables. Not as much as the US and UK governments, but that still doesn't make it right or excusable.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)On who you trust more...
The USA, mostly riddled by FIRE and the MIC
- or -
Wikileaks, mostly a bunch of folks looking to get brag rights via getting the truth out.
I'm old enough to remember the secret wars, the School of the Americas, and a little thing called Vietnam.
I'll go with a public trial of assange at the Hague, and kick in a buck or two to Wikileaks.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and it's honestly a bit rich to suggest that Assange should have some sort of whistleblower protection when he's clearly not prepared to extend the same notion of protection to people who, at risk to their lives and freedom, chose to provide the information he's relying on.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)I didn't have the energy.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)hand you a cup of refreshing caffeinated beverage.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Sweden's been notorious for its rape problem for a long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#Sweden
intaglio
(8,170 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)totally embarrassing.
I could respect them if they simply said that they totally hate wikileaks, and Julian Assange because he has effectively challenged the status quo RW war machine, and they want to see him die in prison.
Any little truth, no matter how unpleasant, would be preferable to this vast array of hypocritical bullshit.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)totally embarrassing.
I could somewhat respect them if they simply said that they totally hate wikileaks, and Julian Assange because he has effectively challenged the status quo RW war machine, and they want to see him die in prison.
Any little truth, no matter how unpleasant, would be preferable to this vast array of hypocritical bullshit.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)It hasn't made me respect them. It's pissed me off even more that they will support the abuse of rape charges to get a guy they personally don't like.
aquart
(69,014 posts)NOBODY SHOULD BELIEVE IT.
Is this the charge where she woke up in the guy's bed after having protected sex and found herself having unprotected sex?
Then my only question is how many times has Sweden prosecuted such a case?
Rape convictions are already rare in Sweden. In 2010, there were 4,134 rapes reported to police, but only 313 resulted in indictments that were brought to trial, and of that figure, 33 percent were acquitted.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)It makes no sense for the US to conspire with Sweden to extradite him there because if he goes to Sweden, the US would then have to get approval from BOTH the UK and Sweden to extradite him to the US.
It just doesn't make sense that the US would take such a convoluted route to get him here, when we have a perfectly good extradition agreement with the UK.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)He's not a U.S. citizen and he didn't do anything within any U.S. jurisdiction. Further, if they did bring him to trial they would have to produce evidence and that would bring the whole story under the rules of evidence which they want to avoid above all.
You have to follow the story from its beginning and see the progression. They tried to shut Wikileaks down, and they couldn't. So, they tried to take all his money and block them out of the credit card and banking system, but supporters gave him more. Then they leaned on the Australian government to charge him, but they couldn't make anything stick. Finally this fool handed them this gift, and here we are pretending this is about sexual misconduct.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)are so ridiculous.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)think he is perfectly justified in that concern. In case it has escaped your notice, we are not the good guys any longer. We are the fascist nation your history class warned you about.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)from being the center of attention. If he happens to do some good, that's fine. He gets lots of positive strokes. But if he does some collateral damage, he couldn't care less. Attention is the only thing that really drives him.
Hence, his balcony speech. A classic.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)a voice/forum to those that want to expose at least some of the evil that is done in our names.
All the rest is a waste of time and a distraction that helps the evil to continue.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)You could say precisely the same thing about our President. Do you really think he wanted to become a politician and then quickly move into the national spotlight and run for the highest office in the land for purely altruistic reasons? Don't be naive. Most public figures desire attention, recognition, fame, etc.
Whether they use it for good or evil is a different matter. Droning innocent people is evil. Bailing out corrupt banks is evil. Exposing corruption and war crimes is good. Have you lost all perspective or can you understand these basic concepts?
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)and he doesn't care who he harms in the process.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and "interviewed" without a lawyer (maybe six hours) until they find reasonable suspicion.
It looks like Sweden is a great place to hold what is called in the law a "fishing expedition." That's why.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Just asking...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We have a presidential election this year. And the DU board is being distracted with this absurd Swedish charge.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If Sweden had solid evidence against Assange, it would indict or charge him. It doesn't.
Fact is, the charge against Assange -- sex without consent the morning after a one-night stand with consent, is going to be pretty impossible to prove.
Why the Swedish government would waste Swedish taxpayer dollars on pursuing this leads one to suspect -- strongly suspect -- that the charge is just a pretext.
Those who think that Assange should go to Sweden need to present some evidence that the allegations against Assange could be proven beyond what has been presented thus far.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:47 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extraditionSmear campaign went out against David Allen Green according to his Twitter. I feel for him.
edit: and before anyone posts the Libertarian shill Greenwald have this:
@ggreenwald is only qouting half of my statement and distorts my conclusion http://gu.com/p/3ax4a/tw @davidallengreen
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
treestar
(82,383 posts)Swedish procedure does not work that way.
Time to end what? There is free speech here so long as it is not pro-Republicans. We don't have to end our questioning of this guy's claims. No way.
Nobody tells you to end your misinterpretations of Swedish law or your support for someone getting away with sexual assault under Swedish law.
djean111
(14,255 posts)the United States has nothing to charge him with, so he is okay.
This is the United States. The legal system can, and does, do (or not do) anything it wants. Look at how Cheney and Bush are running around free and sneering and smug.
I also believe that the Assange haters feel that being rendered to the United States would serve him right.
By the way, I think the "Julian-worship" meme is stupid; this is about the reach and overreach of governments.
Not about Assange personally. The Julian worship meme is used to belittle and deflect.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Julian's worshippers have it both ways - the US has nothing to charge him with but will extradite him - only from Sweden yet not from Britain.
It is about worshipping Julian. People like what he did so they think he could not be guilty of sexual assaults of any kind, and that in fact he should not even be questioned about it, and that the government of Sweden should recognize that, or worse, they blame the women who started the legal procedures and claim they are lying just because they like Julian so much.
Not charging Bush is not the same as charging someone without a reason or charge.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)to tell you what I think of being called a Julian worshipper who just doesn't understand rape. Almost.
I think I need to exit these threads for awhile, this "you just don't believe in rape" garbage is making me ill.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Very typical of your output from what I can tell.
Welcome to ignore.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)telling me that I don't understand rape. And furious at the RW women who tell me this also. Shamelessly disparaging progressives in any way possible is so consistent with the RW agenda.
I'd probably be banned from DU for voicing the terms I want to use to express my profound contempt for the RWers who are so pompously and repeatedly explaining to me, and other progressives, why and how we are not capable of understanding rape.
There are some posters here who are clearly using the issue of rape as a political football at the expense of everything else. It is appalling. and disgusting, and these posters should be ashamed of themselves. They will claim that their motivations are sincere, but, like naive conservatives, their motivations are completely transparent to most progressives.
Every day that I go to work, I need to employ a method of determining motivations for behavior. This method is known as Applied Behavioral Analysis. I use this method in order to determine the best course of action, and develop programs for behavioral therapies, to employ these behavioral therapies in service to persons who have clear behavioral challenges -- often in tandem with severe communication challenges.
My colleagues tell me I have an extraordinary gift for instinctively understanding motivations for behavior, and for determining and applying effective behavioral therapies. I know that this is true.
I was raped when I was a teenager. I came within seconds of being very forcibly raped in the parking lot of a bar less than a year ago. The security person for the bar saw the activity on a camera and drove off my attacker.
I know exactly what rape is. The fact that I am a liberal does not cloud my judgment on this. But thank you so very much, and bless your heart, for your concern.
Sadly, there are some documented instances of people using false allegations of rape as vehicles for revenge, for financial gain, for professional advancement in high profile cases, for disingenuous political purposes, etc.
Anyone here directly or indirectly fit into one or more of these categories by promoting a disingenuous agenda?
Almost all, but not every, claim of rape is legitimate, and those few who make false allegations of rape undermine the credibility of actual victims of rape.
Falsely accusing an innocent person of a sex crime immediately destroys that person's life. Even if they are completely exonerated, the stigma of sex criminal stays with the unfortunate person. I have a close male friend who was a victim of a false allegation of rape. I know that his kind, gentle man would not, and could not, harm another person in this way. The woman who accused him was not a nice person, and had a clear revenge agenda. My friend, who had never been arrested before, was arrested, fingerprinted, booked, thrown into a cage, and was thoroughly humiliated. He was never actually charged, and was, after a humiliating investigation, completely exonerated, and the woman who made these false allegations came very close to being charged with a crime for her malicious, vindictive lie. But courts are reluctant to charge and prosecute people who bring false allegations of rape, because it would be a deterrent to people who actually were victims of rape from coming forward and telling the police that they had been raped. The Sheriff's Dept. convinced my friend not to file charges for this reason.
Nevertheless, my friend was devastated, destroyed, first emotionally, then mentally, then financially, and then physically. He literally went off the rails for a period of years. He moved away from the area he lived, because he was always wondering if everyone was thinking that he was a rapist. The fact that the allegations had no merit didn't matter. The damage was done. He was socially stigmatized, and self-stigmatized.
This man is one of the most beautiful, genuine, and caring human beings I have ever had the good fortune to know.
The primary reason that this woman made these vindictive allegations was because she had been in a long term relationship with him, and he told her that he was gay. She was/is not a good person. She wanted to destroy this man, and used false allegations of rape as a weapon. She succeeded.
I know this story intimately. I helped him do legal research. Mostly, I helped him by believing him, and continuing to be his friend. Others he thought were his friends were not as perceptive as me. They scorned him, and abandoned him. He was so devastated, stressed, and depressed that he could not think straight. Oh, yeah - and this nightmare also drained him of every cent he had, and forced him into debt.
This was decades ago. Needless to say, we are close friends to this day. Like sister and brother.
Falsely accusing a person of a sex crime is also the perfect way to destroy a political enemy instantaneously. No evidence is necessary. All that is necessary are a few words. One wicked lie. Allege sexual assault, and you severely damage the person forever. Just like what happened to my friend.
Unfortunately, this makes it imperative that possible motivations for falsely alleging rape must be thoroughly considered when there is no evidence of a sex crime whatsoever except for allegations that cannot be substantiated in any way. There really are malicious, conscienceless people out there who have no qualms about destroying another person with a vicious lie. Just as there really are conscienceless people who sexually assault others.
Every allegation of rape must certainly be considered with the utmost seriousness, even when there is no physical evidence whatsoever that a sexual assault was actually perpetrated.
And we must also take clear evidence of motives for revenge, financial gain, and professional ambition by prosecutors with the utmost seriousness as well.
One last thing:
To everyone here, and every RWer, who is using these allegations of sexual assault against Julian Assange as a political football? Your disingenuous motivations and agenda in this case are indisputable in light of their embarrassing transparency from the POV of the majority of progressives.
I realize that there really are some progressive members here who have a heartfelt, genuine concern for alleged victims of sexual assault. These folks know who they are, and are not at all a part of the group of conservatives/RWers that I am alluding to.
And the conservatives who are using this issue as a political football know perfectly well who they are as well.
The prevalence of definable, consistent, and clear conservative agendas over a long term period of time point directly to duplicitous motivations.
What these people are doing is heinous, and destructive. Not only are they making themselves look like shills for a clear RW agenda, they are, by their clearly duplicitous words and actions, helping to weaken the credibility of many people who really are or who will be actual victims of a sexual assult. Their transparent political agenda that has very little or nothing to do with genuine concern for rape victims is disgusting.
Shame on them. Totally, shame on them. I'd ask the conservatives who are using this issue as a political football to stop this disgusting behavior, but I know that they can't, because this is an integral and important part of their obvious coordinated and consistent long term anti-progressive agenda and goals.
Ick.
Thank you for articulating that.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)The woman who was penetrated in her sleep without her consent because she required a condom be used before penetration which wasn't done may not believe she was raped. A lot of women are coerced into believing the drunken one night stand that they weren't conscious to consent to is just normal behavior. That does not mean those people are not being raped.
Sadly I feel for you that you have bought the right wing concept that the rare cases of false rape allegations (in contrast to the epidemic of rape that the world faces) makes, "it imperative that possible motivations for falsely alleging rape must be thoroughly considered when there is no evidence of a sex crime whatsoever except for allegations that cannot be substantiated in any way."
The number one defense in rape cases is denigrating the victim.
No, it is not imperative that "possible motivations must be considered" "when there is no evidence of a sex crime."
"She was drunk! I couldn't help myself. She wanted it!"
edit: and to be clear, the left and right appear to be divided on the rape allegations, it's not right wingers using it against the left as you falsely portray.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Shouldn't be hard.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)"The woman who was penetrated in her sleep without her consent because she required a condom be used before penetration which wasn't done may not believe she was raped. A lot of women are coerced into believing the drunken one night stand that they weren't conscious to consent to is just normal behavior. That does not mean those people are not being raped."
Well...show me where where in my post that I even so much as implied that this type of behavior was not rape?
"Sadly I feel for you that you have bought the right wing concept that the rare cases of false rape allegations (in contrast to the epidemic of rape that the world faces) makes, "it imperative that possible motivations for falsely alleging rape must be thoroughly considered when there is no evidence of a sex crime whatsoever except for allegations that cannot be substantiated in any way."
The above you did not misrepresent. I simply believe in a fair trial for anyone charged with any crime. And, apparently you do not. Difference of opinion. I'd say you were the one holding the RW opinion here. Extreme RW, actually.
"She was drunk! I couldn't help myself. She wanted it!"
That's waaaay out there in the the sweet by an by, bro. Totally outside of being relative to the realm of anything I posted.
"edit: and to be clear, the left and right appear to be divided on the rape allegations, it's not right wingers using it against the left as you falsely portray
Sorry, wrong again. You're in some seriously bad company ~ here, and beyond. If I were you, I would seriously consider reassessing my perceptions and my conception of what constitutes RW, and left.
"Limbaugh: Liberals Would “Help A Thousand Rapists” To Free “One America-Hater"
http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-liberals-would-help-a-thousand-rapists-to-free-one-america-hater/
Look again. That's clearly your dog. Not mine.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Granted, as a male, who's never been victimized by sexual assault, I don't have your perspective, which is why your post is so important. I do know when rape is being used as a political football, and when this issue is used as a stick to bully people who don't agree with them. Didn't you know, if you're skeptical about the charges against Assange, and suspect the whole circus is intended to persecute and railroad a journalist into prison for exposing the dirty laundry of corrupt elites, that means you're a misogynistic woman-hater.
This is a bullying tactic, and you're well within your rights to call it what it is.
Response to struggle4progress (Original post)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...trying to conflate Galloway with "the left", for example; or trying to argue that the only possible reason Sweden could have for wanting Julian Assange is that he is suspected of sexual misconduct, possibly rape.
Galloway is Galloway. He has a way with words, he is prominent, and his views on what may or may not constitute rape are (to say the least) misguided. I do not agree with his remarks.
Assange may have committed sexual misconduct or maybe even rape. What he also did, however, is provide a secure conduit for whistleblowers around the world to release information against the powerful of this world -- nations, militaries, corporations. By doing that he has become Public Enemy #1 for these entities, and they will chase him to the ends of the earth because of it.
When the U.K. threatened to storm the Ecuadorean embassy, they gave the game away. There is NO WAY such a threat would have been made, were the only issue one of possible rape. It simply would not have been done, had the alleged perpetrator been someone other than Assange. You know it, I know it, every thinking person knows it. Well, judging by your many posts over the last several weeks, perhaps you don't know it. But most people see clearly that this is no ordinary pursuit.
Sweden could make assurances about extradition to the U.S. but they refuse to do so. Since that is the case, and since we already know they have participated in renditions that resulted in torture -- well then, the only sensible thing for the person in question is to assume the worst. I know if I were in his shoes that is what I would assume. It's also what his lawyers assume, and what the Ecuadorean government has determined after looking over the situation.
In the meantime, the PTB are using feminism and leftist thought and trying to claim that Assange's defenders are hypocrites. But it is the PTB who have made a fair trial impossible, by refusing to make a guarantee they are very capable of making. I wonder why that would be? You'd think they would want to proceed with the judicial process rather than make an international incident out of it. And they would, IF the rape case is what they were really concerned with. Which it is not.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
