Pilger (and similar sexists) taken apart on Assange

December 20, 2010 at 12:02 am (Human rights, Jackie Mcdonough, men, misogyny, women)

Jack of Kent surgically dissects Pilger  on Assange:

.
Journalist John Pilger, a supporter of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, center, speaks to journalists outside the High Court, London, Thursday, Dec. 16, 2010. Julian Assange will be freed on bail and sent to stay at a British country mansion, a U.K.....Julian Assange  //

  •  Wednesday, 15 December 2010
    Pilger on Assange: a legal commentary
  • I thought it would be helpful to provide a commentary on today’s New Statesman article by John Pilger on Julian Assange.

    JP: “Guardians of women’s rights” in the British liberal press have rushed to condemn the WikiLeaks founder.

    Reply: In fact, they have not. Feminist and non-feminist writers have instead condemned the downplaying and denials of the sex crime allegations by supporters of Assange.

    JP: In fact, at every turn in his dealings with our justice system, his basic human rights have been breached.

    Reply: Julian Assange has now had two bail hearings in open court, at both of which he was represented by leading solicitors and barristers of his choice. At the second bail hearing he was granted – not denied – bail, although with conditions. This decision to give bail is now being appealed and so there will be a further hearing tomorrow.

    JP: It seems the lesson must be learned all over again as a group of media feminists joins the assault on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, or the “Wikiblokesphere”, as Libby Brooks abuses it in the Guardian. From the Times to the New Statesman, apparent feminist credence is given to the chaotic, incompetent and contradictory accusations against Assange in Sweden.

    Reply: Mark Stephens, the lawyer for Julian Assange, has complained his client still does not know the evidence on which the prosecution is relying. It is thereby inexplicable how Mr Pilger is any position to regard the accusations as “chaotic, incompetent and contradictory”

    JP: On 9 December, the Guardian published a long, supine interview by Amelia Gentleman with Claes Borgström, the “highly respected Swedish lawyer”. In fact, Borgström is foremost a politician, a powerful member of the Social Democratic Party. He intervened in the Assange case only when the senior prosecutor in Stockholm dismissed the “rape” allegation as based on “no evidence”.

    Reply: This is simply an ad hominem attack on Mr Borgström and carries no weight.

    JP: In Gentleman’s Guardian article, an anonymous source whispers to us that Assange’s “behaviour towards women . . . was going to get him into trouble”. This smear was taken up by Brooks in the paper that same day. Ken Loach and I and others on “the left” are “shoulder to shoulder” with the misogynists and “conspiracy theorists”.

    Reply: This sequence of contentions is at best unpersuasive. For example, Brooks did not take up this smear. Of course, the reference to “misogynists” (plural) can only be taken to mean the supporters of Mr Assange.

    JP: The Australian barrister James Catlin, who acted for Assange in October, says that both women in the case told prosecutors that they consented to have sex with Assange.

    Reply: If this is indeed the case, then this is for the defence to rely on in the event any charges are brought. However, quoting a defence lawyer is of course not determinative of any allegation.

    JP: Following the “crime”, one of the women threw a party in honour of Assange.

    Reply: Placing the word crime in inverted commas is to pre-judge the case, but even Julian Assange and his lawyer say they do not know the prosecution evidence. Mr Pilger is thereby not in a position to dismiss the alleged offence so casually. If such a party took place, and what it proves, then that is for the criminal trial and not an extradition hearing

    JP: When Borgström was asked why he was representing the women, as both denied rape, he said: “Yes, but they are not lawyers.”

    Reply: There is no direct evidence available to Mr Pilger as to whether the complainants have or have not denied rape. If the evidence of the complainants does not support any offence for which he is charged, then this would a matter for the criminal trial.

    JP: Catlin describes the Swedish justice system as “a laughing stock”. For three months, Assange and his lawyers have pleaded with the Swedish authorities to let them see the prosecution case.

    Reply: It would appear that they should perhaps have asked Mr Pilger.

    JP: This was denied until 18 November, when the first official document arrived – in the Swedish language, contrary to European law.

    Reply: Yes, Mr Assange is fully entitled to have the case against him set out in a language he understands. However, as already mentioned, Julian Assange still does not have access to the evidence on which the prosecutor is relying.

    JP: Assange still has not been charged with anything.

    Reply: No, as this is an arrest warrant.

    JP: He has never been a “fugitive”. He sought and got permission to leave Sweden, and the British police have known his whereabouts since his arrival in this country. This did not stop a London magistrate on 7 December ignoring seven sureties and sending him to solitary confinement in Wandsworth Prison.

    Reply: The test for bail is not sureties alone. And it is understood that Mr Assange himself asked to be placed in solitary confinement.

    JP: At every turn, Assange’s basic human rights have been breached.

    Reply: As noted above, there will be a third hearing in respect of bail tomorrow, in open court, where Mr Assange will have full legal representation.

    JP: The cowardly Australian government, which is legally obliged to support its citizen, has made a veiled threat to take away his passport.

    Reply: In fact, the Australian High Commission in London is providing assistance to Mr Assange.

    JP: In her public remarks, the prime minister, Julia Gillard, has shamefully torn up the presumption of innocence that underpins Australian law. The Australian minister for foreign affairs ought to have called in both the Swedish and the US ambassadors to warn them against any abuse of human rights against Assange, such as the crime of incitement to murder.

    Reply: The ease with which Mr Pilger makes these serious accusations of criminal activity against others contrasts with the ease with which accusations of criminal activity are dismissed when they happen to be against Mr Assange.

    JP: In contrast, vast numbers of decent people all over the world have rallied to Assange’s support: people who are neither misogynists nor “internet attack dogs”, to quote Libby Brooks, and who support a very different set of values from those espoused by Charles Reich. They include many distinguished feminists, such as Naomi Klein, who wrote: “Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!”

    Reply: As with Mr Pilger, one presumes that Ms Klein has had no access to any evidence against Mr Assange.

    JP: To hell with journalistic inquiry. Ignorance and prejudice rule.

    Reply: Indeed.

    NB: Catherine Bennett, in The Observer, also cuts through the crap coming from misogynistic Assange groupies like Pilger, Loach and Tariq Ali.

    93 Comments

    1. star said,

      Yet again the pro Yankee imperialist credentials of the blog come to the fore.
      The man was set up by a CIA honeytrap, is that beyond your understanding? It has parallels with what poor Tommy Sheridan had and is still going through. Fortunately in both cases most people can see through the lies, apart from those whose obsession with bourgeois gender politics blinds them to reality and they end up as cheerleaders for the other side, ie the rich and powerful.

    2. jim denham said,

      Just keep digging, pal. Fancy a whipping session when we come across some mouthy women? They deserve it, don’t they – the bitches? They hate people like Assange and Sheridan and the anti-imperialist regime in Iran, so the only way to treat them is a good anti-imperialist whipping, eh?

    3. star said,

      There are no allegations of whipping here, so what are you on about Mr Denham? Julian Assange’s personal life is his business and nobody else’s, just because some people get hysterical at any allegations of “rape” whether true or not it doesn’t mean it took place. look at the evidence for once.

    4. jim denham said,

      I think we’ll keep “star” here, for the time being anyway, as a kind of anti-imperialist court jester, even though serious Pabs and Tankies may object (with some justice) that he brings ’em into disrepute. He’s genuine, I promise you.

    5. star said,

      What is so disreputable in supporting Julian Assanges? Am not saying anything that hasn’t been said before by others in a far better position to know what happened than I am.

    6. jim denham said,

      “Am not saying anything that hasn’t been said before by others in a far better position to know what happened than I am.”

      Err: yes, fuck-pig.

    7. star said,

      What am i saying then? On I thought you wern’t going to engage with me? 🙂

    8. Kellie Strøm said,

    9. star said,

      More imperialist lies. Shame.

    10. jim denham said,

      Ever heard of Gregor Strasser, ‘star’?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser

    11. star said,

      I have. Your point?
      BTW I don’t always disagree with you. Your post on refugees and Australia was spot on and am generally in agreement with you on the Serbia/Kosova issue as well.

    12. Jenny said,

    13. maxdunbar said,

      Again: all the left needs to say is ‘I support Wikileaks but don’t trust Assange’.

      It’s Wikileaks the institution, not Assange the man, that should be supported

      What gets in the way is the tendency of so many leftists to kneel, defer, hero worship, arselick and fellate – as can be seen by his defenders on his thread, and the other two Assange threads.

    14. Steve said,

      Pilger – a great man, a great hero of left wing politics. I cannot imagine what you have against this guy…………oh wait now I think about it……….

    15. Mike Killingworth said,

      JP: “Guardians of women’s rights” in the British liberal press have rushed to condemn the WikiLeaks founder.

      Reply: In fact, they have not. Feminist and non-feminist writers have instead condemned the downplaying and denials of the sex crime allegations by supporters of Assange.

      Is this not a distinction without a difference?

      Truth is, any feminist who is not also a separatist is being irrational (q.v. Firestone’s Dialectic of Sex).

      Although I can see why, for political reasons, you might wish to occlude this truth. And yes, I do expect you to respond with personal abuse rather than reasoned argument.

    16. Rosie said,

      Is this not a distinction without a difference?

      No, read it again.

    17. Mike Killingworth said,

      Rosie, the reason I suggest that it is a distinction without a difference works like this:

      Let us suppose that a man, X, is accused and then acquitted of one or more sexual offences against one or more women (the precise nature of the offence doesn’t matter). What follows from the acquittal? At least one of the following statements must be true:

      – the judicial system is more concerned to avoid convicting “innocent” men (who are certainly not innocent of being accused) than it is in providing justice to female victims of male sexual violence;

      – the woman or women concerned are either stupid or vicious or both.

      Since no feminist can possibly sit comfortably with either of these statements her position is necessarily as I stated it.

    18. maxdunbar said,

      Anyway, has anyone noticed that Assange looks like a much younger version of Pilger?

      I suspect some kind of mad cloning experiment going on!

    19. Clive said,

      “Truth is, any feminist who is not also a separatist is being irrational…”

      Well, that’s sorted that out then.

    20. anonymous said,

      What about the actual cables, huh? What about the American mercenraries and Afghan warlords who are operating some kind of child sex ring?

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys

      http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/06/09KABUL1651.html

      Fuck Pilger. You morons should be concentrating on this – the US government covered up a major child abuse scandal and Wikileaks have blown it wide open. Or is collaberating with peadophiles also part of your “liberal values”?

    21. Rosie said,

      Truth is, any feminist who is not also a separatist is being irrational (q.v. Firestone’s Dialectic of Sex).

      Well, I’m a feminist, but I’m not a separatist and I think I’m rational. There are separatist feminists, but it’s an extreme position.

      Let us suppose that a man, X, is accused and then acquitted of one or more sexual offences against one or more women (the precise nature of the offence doesn’t matter). What follows from the acquittal? At least one of the following statements must be true:

      – the judicial system is more concerned to avoid convicting “innocent” men (who are certainly not innocent of being accused) than it is in providing justice to female victims of male sexual violence;

      – the woman or women concerned are either stupid or vicious or both.

      I don’t find it impossible to think that some women are stupid or vicious, malevolent or mental, manipulated or mercenary. I think your feminists who can’t think that about other women are some straw feminists you are presenting for the purposes of argument.

      In fact a well-known feminist, Naomi Wolf, indicated that she thought the women concerned were vain and hyper-sensitive false accusers. I think Naomi Wolf is a jerk, but she is a feminist, and doesn’t match your criteria of what these imaginary feminists of yours think.

    22. Rosie said,

      Anyway, has anyone noticed that Assange looks like a much younger version of Pilger?

      Well, they’re both from Australia. . . – I feel yet another conspiracy theory coming on. After all, the whole thing is a Zionist plot because Israel has not had a rough ride from the leaks so far. So Assange is Pilger’s son – that’s why he is defending him. In fact he’s his son by the present prime minister of Australia, who has been calling for cancelling Assange’s Australian passport, as she doesn’t want this revealed.

      Anonymous up there is repulsive but he has a point. There’s been far too much about Assange, Pilger etc and not enough about the substance of the leaks, or even if they have much substance at all.

    23. Rosie said,

      Over posting here, but Kenan Malik is worth reading:-

      http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/gp_wikileaks.html

    24. maxdunbar said,

      I thought most of the cables were informative and interesting, especially the stuff about Omar al-Bashir stashing his war crimes loot in London banks.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-sudanese-president-cash-london?INTCMP=SRCH

      Could provide reparations in the case of an ICC trial, and revelations may turn more Sudanese against him. If that happens, well done Wikileaks.

    25. anonymous said,

      I thought it was “informative and interesting” that the US government were asked to cover up a child porn ring run by their pet merceneries by the Afghan puppets, myself.

      So what about the rights of all the boys raped by Dyncorp’s paid assasins and their narco-warlord pals, eh? Do they not get any sympathy from you lot?

    26. baldric said,

      One of his accusers is a born again christian politicaly active in her country as a so called democratic socialist,(oxymoronic).Her allegation of rape, comes from, the condom burst,must have been full on.Wonder if that happened before, her road to Damascus.

    27. Steve said,

      “So what about the rights of all the boys raped by Dyncorp’s paid assasins and their narco-warlord pals, eh? Do they not get any sympathy from you lot?”

      Anon, the answer is no, which is why their own moralising should be seen as pure ruling class apologetics.

    28. anonymous said,

      So the rape of Afghan children pimped out to our puppet security forces by American merceneries is a matter of indifference to you, while these blatantly trumped-up charges against the man who exposed these crimes are supremely important.

      You’re either stupid, evil, or both.

    29. jim denham said,

      “You’re either stupid, evil, or both”: yeah, anon: everyonew knows that Shiraz supports the rape of children. When did you stop beating your bishop?

      More to the point: interesting, isn’t it, that Mr Assange is not actually in favour of *all* leaks. Today’s (London) ‘Times’ quotes him thus:

      “The leak of the police report to ‘The Guardian’ was claerly designed to undermine my bail application” he said. “it was timed to come up on thge desk of the judge that morning” (in fact the ‘Graun’ witheld publication until after Assange had been granted bail -JD)… “Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison and shopped [the report] around to other newspapers as well.”

      Apart from the sheer, breathtaking hypocrisy, note also the use of the third person (“Julian”): a sure sign of megalomania.

      So it looks like the love-in between the ‘Graun’ and Julian is at an end. A ‘Graun’ spokesman is quoted in ‘The Times’ thuis: “The argument that the papers involved in the nWikileaks cables should not report criticisms of him (Julian – JD) is one all journalists would find ridiculous. His lawyers have publicly accused the women who have made rape allegations of being part of a ‘honey trap’ and have said they are part of a dark conspiracy. They (Julian and his lawyers – JD) can hardly complain if their claims, made out of court, are held up to journalistic examination.”

    30. Egg on your face said,

      What the hell. All those who think Assange is being framed are ‘sexists’.

      Presumably this includes the director of Women Against Rape.

      Now doubt Denham will soon be suggesting that they change their name to ‘Women for Rape’.

      So why doesn’t Jim Denham just call them ‘cunts’ like he does with everyone else he dislikes?

      And I love the way that Jack The Bear makes light of the death threats against Assange by leading US public figures such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, which have been made in the mass media and whose veracity and existence are therefore as public and indisputable as the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

      He equates this as criminal activity with accusations against Assange that have not even reached the level of evidence to allow him to be charged.

      Oh goody, this amounts to a clear apologia for open, public threats of extra-judicial killing by the US state. Par for the course for this place

      He makes it clear that he believes Assange should not complain about being denied bail – even though he has not been charged. Thus giving support to an outrageous innovation – pre-charge remand in custody. So much for civil liberties.

      This blog should be called ‘CIA socialist’. Why not be honest and change the name?

    31. charliethechulo said,

      Eggface: why not be honest and admit that you’ll support anything and anyone that opposed democracy and supports tyranny m- especially of the clerical fascist variety. And I think you’ll find the vast majority of feminists and womes’ rights activists take a rather different view of the misogyny of Pilger et al than the occassional maverick like Naome Wolf and the person eggface seems so keen on. By the way, eggy: I get the impression that you haven’t actually read (or certainly, not understood) the Shiraz position on the Assange/Wikileaks affair (yes, we do seem to have a consensus here): defend WikiLeaks agianst attack from the US and other governments (despite some reservations), but do not defend Assange from facing due process over the sex charges. The two issues are quite seperable. Geddit?

    32. maxdunbar said,

      One of the many delusions you’re suffering from is that you can dictate the content and agenda of the blog.

      You can’t. You’re welcome of course to fuck off and start your own Assange groupie blog.

    33. Ed Duncan Laurence said,

      Every day in every way this blog earns more and more my admiration and thanks for its outspoken exposure of `leftist’ beau locks. An abuser of women stalks the land along with any number of Muslim terrorists enjoying our rather ludicrously over indulgent legal rights and women hating scum back him. I’ll bet they wouldn’t be so keen it it was their mother or daughter or sister who had been raped. Perhaps it should be arranged. Back to Sweden with you highness and face the music and hopefully a very long time inside. You couldn’t handle that could you? You need backbone for that let me inform you.

      I didn’t realise this blog was Brum based until the item about the Bull Ring the other day. We must get together for a glug and a chat sometime whilst public houses and a drop of the hard stuff are still allowed in the old place. I hope to persuade a lot more of my friends to support the work of this web site.

    34. Egg on your face said,

      Jim Denham/”Charlie the Chulo”

      “why not be honest and admit that you’ll support anything and anyone that opposed democracy and supports tyranny”

      Why dont you be honest and admit you are a vulgar, dimwitted anti-communist of the ‘Get Back to Russia’ variety. A stupid bigot of the Alf Garnett type. Stop pretending to be in some way on the left.

    35. Egg on your face said,

      “but do not defend Assange from facing due process over the sex charges. ”

      An interestingly ambiguous sentence, However, its meaning is clear. You are for imprisonment without charges of Julian Assange. You are in favour of the arrest warrant that does not require charges or prima facie evidence for someone to be rendered to another jurisdiction.

      And you have no problem with extra-judicial threats to kill even utopian left-bourgeois ideologues like Assange whose belief in due process and openness in government overflows the current boundaries of what the US ruling class is prepared to accept.

      The article above effectively says that Assange is guilty until proven innocent and mocks the demand for due process, and mocks condemnation of threats similar to those against Rushdie by ultra-right US reactionaries and Christian clerical fascists (or at least those prettty damned close to that).

      You are supporters of repression and extra-territorial US terrorism that is outside the framework of bourgeois democracy. That is the logic of supporting the ‘war against terrorism’ – you break with even basic bourgeois conceptions of the rule of law and become supporters of reactionary terrorism against bourgeois democratic norms.

      You are enemies of the workers movement, as indeed are your mentors in the CIA.

      • anonymous said,

        TBH the CIA are likely more honest than this lot. All they want to do is blow up terrorists and go home for grits. These assholes are much more KGB, as befits former “leftists”.

    36. Dave said,

      It can’t really be a surprise by now that the same part of the left that enthusiastically backed and/or did extrensive free PR work for fascism and terrorism in Iraq under the guise of “anti-imperialism”, that employed classic little Englander tropes to try to help the Afghans back into slavery, and that used anti-racist rhetoric to support Islamist racists is now willing to drop, if they think it means they can poke the hated demonic US superpower in the eye, any commitment to “bourgeois” women’s right by labelling the two women as CIA stooges and/or tarts who were well up for it, but then changed their minds—as irrational women are prone to do, especially if it’s their time of the month. And that’s not to even mention Assange’s kooky backwoods-survivalist worldview.

      • anonymous said,

        “that employed classic little Englander tropes to try to help the Afghans back into slavery, ”

        Does that include the Afghans that Dyncorp sold into sexual slavery?

    37. Steve said,

      “which have been made in the mass media and whose veracity and existence are therefore as public and indisputable as the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie.”

      Great point Egg!!!

    38. Dave said,

      Well, anon, if the accusation is true, those involved should be prosecuted, just as in the case of Assange.

    39. Rosie said,

      the Shiraz position on the Assange/Wikileaks affair (yes, we do seem to have a consensus here): defend WikiLeaks agianst attack from the US and other governments (despite some reservations), but do not defend Assange from facing due process over the sex charges. The two issues are quite seperable. Geddit?

      Couldn’t put it better.

      And I love the way that Jack The Bear makes light of the death threats against Assange by leading US public figures such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, which have been made in the mass media and whose veracity and existence are therefore as public and indisputable as the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

      I agree that the raving right media in the US and the likes of Sarah Palin etc are a total disgrace in what they’re saying re Assange and should be had up for incitement or whatever similar law holds in the USA They are not, of course, the government in power, unlike the makers of the Iranian fatwa. They are the opposition. Of course in Iran they would be silenced and mostly in jail.

      Also, the leader of a country taking exception to a novel because he is outraged by its religious content is rather different from the media and politicians taking exception to someone divulging state secrets, isn’t it? When Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the gruesome band call for Phillip Pullman to be put to death because of his hatred of Christianity, that would be getting a bit more serious. If Obama starts talking in that strain, then we’re really in for trouble.

      So Egg, in spite of Steve @ 3, that isn’t a great point at all.

    40. Rosie said,

      That should be Steve @37.

    41. Steve said,

      No I still think it is a great point Egg. As Arthur Miller once said there is a sizable portion of the US who are crying out for an Ayatollah. We should be defending Assange against these dark forces. If this was Iran Shiraz would be having a fucking hissy fit.

      We could also point out that many of the people put on Death row in say Iran who we on the left defend have been convicted of sex offences, often very much more serious than anything Assange is being accused of.

    42. Ed Duncan Laurence said,

      `but do not defend Assange from facing due process over the sex charges. The two issues are quite seperable. Geddit?’

      Precisely. Assange is trying to avoid due process by fighting this extradition on the most spurious of grounds. An accusation (two in fact) has been made. He should be on the plane full stop. The government should not pander to this time wasting coward and get him out.

    43. Egg on your face said,

      Assange has not been charged. If you support him being extradited without being charged that is not due process at all. The norm of due process for extradition is (1) that charges have to be laid, and (2) there has to be prima facie evidence to back them up. Neither is true in this case.

      Nor is imprisonment or house arrest without charge anything to do with due process. It is a criminal abuse.

      If you support that, you are an enemy of civil liberties and basically a scab. Your line of argument comes straight out of Langley, Virginia.

      • anonymous said,

        Succinctly put. Nice one!

    44. maxdunbar said,

      ‘You are enemies of the workers movement, as indeed are your mentors in the CIA.’

      How amazing is this. It is what Egg actually believes.

    45. Egg on your face said,

      I’ve actually never seen any evidence that Max Dunbar is anything than an elitist, arrogant, middle class prick with nothing in common with the working class movement whatsoever.

    46. maxdunbar said,

      You wouldn’t be able to recognise evidence of anything if it kicked you in the face.

    47. baldric said,

      Burst condom,come on how many times does that happen,buy a Lotto TICKET.It is a claim of rough sex even rape.When the police investigate rape and rough sex allegations,never a burst condom.Who is kidin who here, those shamed by their ruthless control deals, or the messenger exposing.

      • anonymous said,

        Funny, whenever I’ve had a burst condom it was the woman being rough. But anyway.

        If everyone was all so badly raped-up, how come one of the victims threw a party for Assange after the sexings and spent the whole time bragging about having shagged him? and they only went to the police after the women he’d been two-timing got together and compared notes?

        Doesn’t sound like rape to me, I’m afraid.

    48. maxdunbar said,

      I am working on a Shiraz comments drinking game:

      DRINK whenever someone makes a convoluted Marxist reference

      DRINK whenever someone suggests changing the name of the blog (to Shiraz Zionist, Shiraz Imperialist, Shiraz Tory etc)

      DRINK whenever Resistor lashes a bunch of irrelevant links together in lieu of a point

      DRINK whenever Laban starts going on about Muslim immigration

      DRINK whenever someone accuses the blog of being run by the AWL

      DRINK whenever someone accuses the blog of being a propaganda outlet for some intelligence agency (the CIA, Mossad etc)

      DRINK of course whenever someone makes a joke about Jim Denham’s alcohol consumption

      DRINK when the commenter appears to be drunk themselves

      DRINK whenever John G posts a comment (purely because you will need a drink to get through the comment)

      • anonymous said,

        OK, that bit about JohnG was actually funny

    49. Egg on your face said,

      Rosie:

      “I agree that the raving right media in the US and the likes of Sarah Palin etc are a total disgrace in what they’re saying re Assange and should be had up for incitement or whatever similar law holds in the USA They are not, of course, the government in power, unlike the makers of the Iranian fatwa. They are the opposition. Of course in Iran they would be silenced and mostly in jail.”

      They are still prominent representatives of the US bourgeoisie, which tends to have a division of labour between its various wings – hard cop, soft cop as it were. That class is certainly in power, whatever the formal party situation. Don’t think these threats could not be carried out because the Republicans are not currently in the White House. The two parties of the ruling class tend to act very similarly and often in practice in harmony, the differences being rhetorical.

      Assange has good reason to fear assassination by the US state under this administration. It was, after all, under the Democrat Kennedy that the assassination attempts against Castro first began.

      Mind you, it really would be nice if the Republican nutjobs were silenced or in jail.

      “Also, the leader of a country taking exception to a novel because he is outraged by its religious content is rather different from the media and politicians taking exception to someone divulging state secrets, isn’t it? When Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the gruesome band call for Phillip Pullman to be put to death because of his hatred of Christianity, that would be getting a bit more serious. If Obama starts talking in that strain, then we’re really in for trouble”

      I don’t think being murdered for offending nominally secular politicians is preferable to being murdered for offending religious clerics. If you get killed, you are still just as dead. What a strange point and an indicator of softness on ‘progressive’ imperialism and on the witchhunt against Assange!

    50. jim denham said,

      Eggface: the most charitable explanation of that last piece of incoherent rambling is that you’re a bit thick. Otherwise, you’re simply a pro-fascist.

    51. Rosie said,

      I don’t think being murdered for offending nominally secular politicians is preferable to being murdered for offending religious clerics.

      Offending? It’s mostly been anger at state interests being compromised. I don’t think any government would take that lightly. Some of the American response has been wounded, upset sounds that other people don’t think that much of American interests, so hard cheese to them, but some of it has been anxiety that relations built with other states have now been made more difficult. Part of Assange’s insurance has been to say that he has a lot more secrets that could be very damaging. Would any government be happy about that? So to present that as “offence” so you could then equate it with the ranting of theocrats trying to whip up religious rage over a literary novel is nonsense.

      I’m about 95% on the side of the leaks, but the more I read Assange’s own words and hear him being interviewed the more of a jerk he appears to be.

    52. Egg on your face said,

      “Offending? It’s mostly been anger at state interests being compromised.”

      “So to present that as “offence” so you could then equate it with the ranting of theocrats trying to whip up religious rage over a literary novel is nonsense.”

      Actually, I am far more interested in knowing the machinations of governments that lie to the populations about what they are doing than in the writings of someone who writes a comic novel lampooning a historical figure and gets himself into hot water with religious clerics who for all their ferocity are hardly central to the world system.

      Not that Rushdie is not worth defending, but I would place a rather higher priority on the defence of Assange – I do not recognise the right of governments to keep secrets from the populace and systematically lie about what they are doing. When the Bolsheviks published the secret treaties that fell into their hands, they were doing more or less what Assange has done. He is no socialist, but he deserves defence from anyone who is not a servant of imperialism.

      Talking of servants of imperialism, I see Denham had a good time with the master’s liquor stock on Boxing Day.

      And on Max Dunbar’s drinking game – be my guest. Have a swig on me. The more the merrier – or maybe the more the messier;-)

    53. jim denham said,

      Eggface: take the trouble to read what we’ve said. The ‘Shiraz’ position is that (apart from Assange’s disgraceful decision to give away the names and locations of anti-Taliban Afghan civilians) we defend Wikileaks in the face of state attacks – but that is a quite seperate issue from declar8ng Assange personally not guilty *in advance* of the sex charges and joining in the misogynistic chorus of Pilger, Loach, Moore, etc.

      Btw: not only is is Assange “no socialist”, but it’s becoming increasingly apparent that he’s quite happy to keep company with neo-fascists like “Israel Shamir” and his son:

      http://airforceamazons.blogspot.com/2010/12/i-blame-bonnie-and-clyde.html

    54. Egg on your face said,

      Yeah right, and that from someone who posts fascist Irgun tracts on this blog.,

      Denham’s ‘defence’ is worth nothing. This blog can’t even defend Assange’s right not to be imprisoned without charge, or now put under house arrest.

      And as anyone who has been subjected to gynaecological abuse here knows, Denham himself is a raving misogynist.

    55. charliethechulo said,

      It’s called “due process” Eggy: something that you, as a supporter of islamofascism, wouldn’t either understand or support: much better to simply kill people or cut off their extremities, eh?

      • Egg on your face said,

        Priceless!

        Imprisonment and house arrest without charges are ‘due process’.

        The rest is down to the booze.

    56. charliethechulo said,

      “Imprisonment and house arrest without charges are ‘due process’.”:
      Yes! For potential rapists.
      Would you have it any different. eggface?

    57. maxdunbar said,

      Egg

      What is your problem?

      We have said, many times, that we support Wikileaks, and freedom of information.

      The only reason you’re continuing this is that you have your head up Assange’s arse and want everyone else to crawl up there with you.

    58. Egg on your face said,

      Denham/Chulo

      ““Imprisonment and house arrest without charges are ‘due process’.”:
      Yes! For potential rapists.
      Would you have it any different. eggface?”

      Is that right, Denham/Chulo? So I take it you will be advocating a major change to British Common Law, and advocating the remand in custody or house arrest for all individuals accused of rape domestically, even if there is not enough evidence to actually charge them?

      That is, you are in favour of the abolition of the basic protection of habeas corpus for ‘potential’ rapists.

      Its also very interesting, and very freudian, that Denham calls Assange a ‘potential rapist’. This tacitly implies that he suspects Assange is not a rapist now, but may become one in the future. Now some extreme feminists believe that ALL men are potential rapists. I wonder if our friend agrees with that? If so, he should be banging on the door of Winson Green Prison demanding to be let in as a ‘potential’ rapist!

      I think most people who believe even in the basic concepts of the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, and other normal civil liberties like that are opposed to imprisonment and house arrest without charge.

      Actually Max, but this is rather useful. Because it has prompted the admission that Denham/Chulo is in favour of imprisonment without habeas corpus protection, a key component of what is often known as the ‘rule of law’.

      That is, imprisonment of anyone who is accused of rape even if there is not enough evidence to allow charges.

      What Denham/Chulo is actually saying is that he supports the provisions of the European Arrest Warrant that allow for remand and extradition/rendering of suspects without any requirement for properly filed charges or any prima facie evidence of a crime that can be shown as likely to stand up in court.

      The EAW has created a loophole which has allowed basic habeas corpus protections to be ignored. And Denham supports that.

      Its good to know that a self-proclaimed socialist supports this attack on the basic civil liberties of every single person resident or present in any EAW country.

    59. jim denham said,

      Eggface: what has happened to Assange is absolutely standard procedure: do you think he should be exempted from what any other person, faced by such charges, would be subjected to?

    60. Egg on your face said,

      What charges?

    61. jim denham said,

      They will be brought, as Jack has explained. Otherwise I would expect him to be released. Oh! He has already been released…what more do you want, eggface? Him to be found Not Guilty in advance? (Yes: you do, don’t you?).

    62. Egg on your face said,

      Will they really? Then why have they not been ‘brought’ already? Something to do with there not being enough evidence. If there were, they would have been brought by now.

      He has not been released. He is under house arrest. House arrest is not freedom. Its revealing that Denham thinks that it is.

      But its very interesting that JD supports this procedure, of remand and extradition without charges.

      Presumably if Ireland or Poland sought to extradite someone to answer questions as to whether there is enough evidence to charge them with breaking their abortion laws, Denham would support remand in custody or under house arrest in such a case. After all, the procedure would be exactly the same.

      No charges needed, no need for prima facie evidence. No need to even demonstrate that the laws in the two countries match.

      Or is Denham’s refusal to defend habeas corpus only for people he does not like?

    63. jim denham said,

      Eggface: this *is* habeas corpus: unless you think different rules should apply to your hero Assange than to anybody else accused of rape?

    64. Egg on your face said,

      Rubbish. Under the normal rules of habeas corpus, in order to be remanded, you have to be charged. That is the whole point of habeas corpus … to prevent imprisonment without charge.

      And house arrest is also a form of deprivation of liberty.

    65. Egg on your face said,

      And why doesn’t Denham address my point about Poland/Ireland and abortion laws?

    66. jim denham said,

      eggface: “Rubbish. Under the normal rules of habeas corpus, in order to be remanded, you have to be charged. That is the whole point of habeas corpus … to prevent imprisonment without charge.”

      If you were right, extradition would be impossible, eggy.

      Obviously, I would support any woman charged over Ireland’s (or Poland’s) reactionary Catholic anti-abortion laws. The point, however, is to to change the law in Ireland, not the rules of extradition: but…

      1/ It hasn’t happened, and isn’t lkely to, is it?

      2/ The point would be to change the laws of Ireland (and Poland), not the laws of extradition, eh? Unless you think that sex and drug criminals should go free?

      So stop bringing up these ridiculous scenarios to excuse/justify your horrible, pro-fascist politics, eggface.

    67. Egg on your face said,

      Prior to the European Arrest Warrant, the legal requirements for extradition were exactly according to what I laid out. There had to be charges. There had to be evidence presented of a prima facie case to back up those charges. And the laws had to be compatible between the two countries.

      Now that is no longer true, as the EAW has abolished those safeguards.

      Its really stupid to say that you would not oppose extradition for someone facing ‘questioning’ over Poland or Ireland’s abortion laws, but would try to change the laws of those countries instead. Which is the implication of what Denham is saying.

      Its a damn sight easier to challenge an unjust extradition request than to change the laws of another country. The one is an immediate task; the other may take decades.

      If you approve the principle of the EAW, you can’t be choosy about who it applies to. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite and everyone you tried to argue this with would spot that instantly.

      Who says that the scenario I laid out could not happen? Lots of things that once seemed improbable have happened over the past few years or even decades. And it does not appear that there is any legal obstacle to it happening.

      And alleged sex and drug criminals should not be imprisoned without charge.

      The fact that Denham equates these elementary legal protections with ‘criminals going free’ just makes him sound like someone on the Tory right.

      He should admit it, he doesn’t give a shit about due process or anything else like that in this case, he just want’s to see Assange destroyed and he doesn’t really give a shit how it is done. That is the truth about Denham. Rush Limbaugh is at least honest in advocating that Assange be murdered.

    68. jim denham said,

      Eggface is a hysteric. In a (rare) lucid moment, he states: ” If you approve the principle of the EAW, you can’t be choosy about who it applies to”. I agree. That’s why I take the position I do.

      Eggface appears to be the friend of sex criminals, paedophiles and terrorists the world over…Oh yes! I forgot! He *is* the friend of (Islamic) terrorists.

    69. Egg on your face said,

      Thank you Denham for clarifiying that you support the right of states to imprison people without charge and the abolition of basic legal safeguards such as habeas corpus. Thank you also for clarifying that you consider that the defence of habeas corpus safeguards amounts to being the friend of sex criminals, paedophiles and ‘Islamic terrorists’.

      Denham seems to be morphiing into Richard Littlepenis.

    70. jim denham said,

      And you, eggface, are a fucking fascist. I’d gladly see you locked up and key thrown away.

    71. Egg on your face said,

      Yes, and that’s your view of Assange too isn’t it?

      In vino veritas, as they say.

    72. jim denham said,

      Yup: you’ll get what you deserve. Like the Nazis at Nuremburg.

    73. maxdunbar said,

      Many people, getting bailed on serious charges, are given bail conditions (tagged, have to report to specific addresses etc)

    74. Egg on your face said,

      The Nazis at Nuremburg were generally executed. So Jim Denham thinks I should be executed. For what?

      Pointing out how bizarre his ravings are on this blog, and how far from socialism and Marxism they are. Pitiful, he has obviously lost all self-control and contact with reality.

      Unfortunately, that’s what he really thinks about the bulk of the far left. He thinks they are all fascists, who really should get ‘what the Nazis got at Nuremburg’. The firing squad or the hangman’s rope.

      Oh and Max, the penny still has not dropped. Bail conditions are indeed normal for people who have been charged.

      But Julian Assange HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED. Check your facts. That is what this dispute is about. If he had been charged, the situation would be different, but his bail conditions have been imposed WITHOUT CHARGES BEING BROUGHT. If you don’t believe me, google it.

    75. jim denham said,

      The chair, or lethal injection?

    76. Egg on your face said,

      Denham:

      “I’d gladly see you locked up and key thrown away.”

      Egg on your face:

      “that’s your view of Assange too isn’t it?”

      Denham:

      “Yup.”

      And this is supposed to be ‘due process’. This is supposed to be consistent with ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

      “Sentence first, trial afterwards.” (Alice in Wonderland.)

    77. jim denham said,

      As lenin understood, sometimes extraordinary measures have to be taken against enemies of the revolution…or (as at Nuremburg) enemies of humanity…like you, eggface.

    78. Egg on your face said,

      I wrote:

      “Unfortunately, that’s what [Denham] really thinks about the bulk of the far left. He thinks they are all fascists, who really should get ‘what the Nazis got at Nuremburg’. The firing squad or the hangman’s rope.”

      Denham responded:

      “The chair, or lethal injection?”

      Carry on fantasising, Jim. You will be quoted on this, and it will come back and haunt you.

      Fantasing in public about giving his critics the death penalty. Great stuff. Just what the doctor ordered!

    79. Egg on your face said,

      You can wish my death as much as you like, banging into your keyboard after who-knows-how-many pints.

      You’ve lost it. This is a public forum.

      You are only hurting yourself. No skin off my nose.

    80. jim denham said,

      Please fuck off then. And don’t come back.

    81. Egg on your face said,

      Nah, its funny watching you fall to pieces in public.

    82. jim denham said,

      ha, ha ha… you fascist.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: