Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

julian assange in private eye

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by TonTon View Post

    On twitter? I'm surprised you've not come across it before. How about manarchists?
    I sometimes think I live on a different Twitter to everyone else.

    Comment


      There are a very large number of parallel Twitters that rarely intersect

      Comment


        My twitter is heavily curated. As is my FB.

        Comment


          Originally posted by TonTon View Post

          Because doing so buys in to rape culture, when it comes down to it.
          I agree that not enough rapists are prosecuted and convicted. I also think that all suspects of crimes should be afforded the full rights and privileges of justice system. Surely these are two independent issues?

          ​​​

          Comment


            I don't think WOM is a particularly significant part of the justice system. Me neither.

            Comment


              I have great difficulty following

              Comment


                I guess I didn't understand how your post was relevant to the post you quoted in it, but had a go anyway.

                Comment


                  Well, I think WOM was saying that any extradition request, from Sweden or the US, should be examined for authenticity by a UK judge. You suggested that plays into rape culture.

                  ​​​

                  Comment


                    .
                    Last edited by TonTon; 14-04-2019, 10:02.

                    Comment


                      It's difficult understand where you are coming from, I'm constantly working with one line replies. Clearly I have misunderstood.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post
                        Well, I think WOM was saying that any extradition request, from Sweden or the US, should be examined for authenticity by a UK judge. You suggested that plays into rape culture. ​​​
                        Well, pretty much. I'm saying that if two serious accusations are made, you take them both* seriously. You don't take the the rape one more seriously because 'rape culture' and the conspiracy one less seriously because 'fuck the USA'.



                        * not necessarily 'equally' seriously.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by TonTon View Post
                          I don't think WOM is a particularly significant part of the justice system. Me neither.
                          I'm not saying that I get late-night phone calls from certain members of the US Supreme Court, soliciting my opinion on matters of great legal weight.

                          I'm not saying I don't, either.

                          Comment


                            RBG was just telling me how she was thinking of building a Sea Flea . . .

                            Comment


                              RBG better finish her shed before she starts anything new...

                              Comment


                                RBG better have a food taster.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by WOM View Post

                                  Well, pretty much. I'm saying that if two serious accusations are made, you take them both* seriously. You don't take the the rape one more seriously because 'rape culture' and the conspiracy one less seriously because 'fuck the USA'.



                                  * not necessarily 'equally' seriously.
                                  Not more, and not necessarily equally?

                                  I'm not sure what kind of seriousness we're talking about, but for me the idea that the nature of the crime would make no difference to how you look at it is a really odd one, and not one which I believe has much genuine currency in actually existing criminal justice systems. But anyway, rape is a special case.

                                  All I was actually saying, back there, was that to talk about sexual assault allegations of this kind as being potentially entirely frivolous is to play into rape culture.

                                  Comment


                                    Sorry; let's take a step back. Assange has been accused of two things: rape in Sweden and conspiracy (to commit hacking of a government computer) in the US. I think it's fair to say that those are both serious accusations. The asterisk was meant to sharpen the point that I'm not calling those charges equally serious. I'm not saying that one is more serious than the other, nor which one I think might be considered more serious than the other. I'm saying they're both serious charges. Not that one of them is clearly serious and the other is clearly frivolous. i.e., dodgy taxes or jaywalking or copyright infringement or something. Both are serious charges and both ought to be taken seriously.

                                    I really have no idea what 'rape culture' is meant to mean. But do I think that an accusation of rape could be used as a pretext to detain and deport Assange in an incredibly high level of international 'chess' involving the stealing of state military secrets and the possible hacking of a major election? Um...yeah...it did cross my mind.

                                    Comment


                                      Maybe it is being very lawyerly, but I do recommend that people read the indictment, which is only seven double-spaced pages.

                                      Not to cast aspersions on WOM's bottom line, which is accurate. I just find the very limited nature of the charge and the rather quotidian nature of some of the alleged acts to be interesting.

                                      Comment


                                        "Rape culture" is a way of describing the culture around the normalization, denial, excusing and enabling of sexual assault.

                                        Perhaps some people truly don’t understand what rape culture is.

                                        (So yeah, I would say that reaching for "it's a conspiracy" in this instance is an example)

                                        Comment


                                          Man, I'd hate to live somewhere where jaywalking is actually illegal.

                                          More to the point (but only very slightly so), tax evasion is "a frivolous charge" now?

                                          Comment


                                            If it's not illegal, is it really jaywalking?

                                            Comment


                                              Fair point.

                                              Comment


                                                Yet another plot by the US auto industry

                                                According to Peter Norton, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and the author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, the change is no accident (so to speak). He has done extensive research into how our view of streets was systematically and deliberately shifted by the automobile industry, as was the law itself.

                                                “If you ask people today what a street is for, they will say cars,” says Norton. “That’s practically the opposite of what they would have said 100 years ago.”

                                                Streets back then were vibrant places with a multitude of users and uses. When the automobile first showed up, Norton says, it was seen as an intruder and a menace. Editorial cartoons regularly depicted the Grim Reaper behind the wheel. That image persisted well into the 1920s.
                                                Another piece from the BBC.

                                                Comment


                                                  Emily Thornberry has said he should and it would be best if the party reiterated this.
                                                  Indeed. A "Sweden yes, USA no" should be a fairly easy position to sustain and articulate, so just do it. Clearly. That said, while I vigorously oppose the US's case against Assange (not least for the harm it threatens more sympathetic figures such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden), and think the public interest defence does apply to what Manning and Assange revealed about US conduct in Iraq and elsewhere, Assange is in a fairly fragile glass house on journalistic ethics given his cavalier attitude to source-revelation and his friendly relationships with journalism-oppressors elsewhere.

                                                  And yeah, fuck those who think the rape allegations are "a distraction from the Big Serious Big Boys' Politics". He needs to face them.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X