Right, since I’ve been
frantically hurrying with applications for this and that regarding my
upcoming M.A (along with a budding addiction to Tales of Symphonia),
I've been a little behind with the really important (and somewhat
relevent to my ongoing projects) news stories that have come in, so
rather than get even further behind, I'll quickly talk about them
here
The first two, joyeously
(and totally without gallons of sarcasm dripping from my every pore
as I say it) is about sexism and sexual crimes. I suppose I should
start with the utter farce that is the Julian Assange affair, an
utter comedy of errors that ensures that noone actually gets justice.
To those of you living in a box and unaware of the story, I'll
condense it as much as possible. Julian Assange is the head of
Wikileaks who is wanted by the Swedish authorities under allegations
of sexual assault which are under Swedish law considered to be rape.
A lot of people will note the pointedness of my description there,
but I want to avoid any accusations of partisanship, with this,
because I genuinely want both sides to get what they want. Julian
Assange fears he will be extradited in secret to the US (there's a
precedent for it in Sweden which even the UK hasn't stooped to –
yet) and since it is within the powers of both the UK and Sweden to
assure him that he will not be extradited to a third party where he
faces execution and/or torture, it surely should not be too much of a
stretch to offer him safety while he is being questioned. The UK
after all is the same country that allowed asylum for a former despot
who killed tens of thousands and raped or ordered the rape of
thousands. On the opposite side, you do have two women who are
currently being accused of being a honey trap but on that same note
they deserve their chance to be heard out and this saga in their
lives to be drawn to a close. I suspect at the end of it, most
people, regardless of whether they, like all of these ludicrous
forced dichotomies, side with one or the other being pulled by
misinformation on both sides, all want Julian Assange to not be
extradited to the US to be tortured and killed (potentially, there is
a precedent for this), while on that same note wanting justice to be
meted by and to all involved parties.
Nevertheless there have been
some crazies around to fuck that up.
In an update to the story
which helpfully links me to the next part of this, George “I Was in
Big Brother Once” Galloway made an ass of himself by claiming that
Assange is at worst guilty of “bad sexual etiquette, and arguing
that once you're in bed and have had sex people assume they are “In
the sex game” and thus he's not guilty. I'm not going to accuse him
of being a rapist cheerleader or a horrible misogynist brute of a
man, but he absolutely is an idiot. Not getting past the initial
“it's illegal in Sweden” thing, it should be noted that this
logical path is pretty dangerous. Essentially he's saying that once
consent is given that's it, the people involved have carte blanche to
do whatever they want with each other. There have been many legal
precedents that have shown this to be wrong in UK legislation (Most
notably DPP vs Morgan [1974], where consent was not given but
recklessly assumed) and of course R vs R [1991], which showed that
marriage (the ultimate consent into 'the sex game' in some circles)
did not imply consent. There are others, where the terms of consent
change but essentially UK law proves Mr Galloway wrong, let alone
Swedish law, where sex while sleeping (having given consent before)
and sex without protection are sexual offences that can constitute
rape. The issue is that while Galloway is a fool and is rightly
pilloried for this, he's far from the only one thinking this, and
believing in a very specific type of rape, the worst examples of such
come from over the pond...
Ah, the American right wing,
making Richard III seem increasingly pleasant with each passing day!
The order of the day, once again is women's health, being oddly
perversely interested in women's biology, which I assume is old white
politician's idea of porn or something, since actual porn is not only
sinful but found too often on pastor's computers for them to take the
risk. So yeah, it's more abortion talk, with two sides to it, both
as despicable and disgusting as each other. Do you pick Todd Akin,
whose beliefs on women's biology must go back to the Dark Ages? He
believes that somehow in cases of 'legitimate rape' (quite what makes
non-consentual sexual assault 'legitimate' was never explained) a
woman's body can shut itself down and thus stop conception. It's
scary how people this balls-out insane can hold positions of power,
but even he was pilloried for his position. Or do you pick Mitt “I
lied about pretty much everything except my silly name” Romney's
running mate Paul Ryan, who is one of the worst kind of bible bashing
politicians, believing that abortion should be illegal even in cases
of rape (and presumably that the rapist father deserves visitation
rights). The last time such horribly misogynistic legislation was
considered, they at least paid 60 silver shekles (well, their family
was, fucking Leviticus)! I could go on and on about this, but really
it would essentially degenerate into permutations of “WHY?! Holy
fuck why?!” and I don't think anyone needs to see that.
In other, less horrible news
(I stress the qualifier 'less'), the sad saga of Nick Clegg
continues, as his wealth tax idea (basically rich people pay money to
the country too! What a bizarre concept!) is ignored, not even put on
the fridge in the Liberal Democrat canteen. It wasn't an especially
good idea, but I suspect was never going to appeal to the Tory base
(I.e. Horrible horrible rich bastards). Kudos for trying though.
Finally for this little
catch up thing we have the Paralympics. After I outed myself as a
giggling pathetic Olympic fanboy/nationalist the last time we talked
about it, I will be a bit more reserved this time. The Opening
Ceremony is absolutely worth a look, if only to see Stephen Hawking,
and Ian McKellen playing John Geilgood's Prospero. That said, there
is a dark undercurrent with both of the Games involving their
sponsors. People have mocked how Coca Cola and McDonald's both
sponsored the games despite their large contribution to the ill
health of the whole world, as well as BP for polluting and killing
the rest of it, but ATOS is the big stickler for me. While the former
three harm a large amount of people and thus would ruin potential
athletes, ATOS sponsors an event that is celebrating the ability and
triumph of disabled people over their various adversities and yet at
the same time is not supporting disabled people to the point thatpeople are starting to die despite being determined 'fit for work' byATOS.Which is pretty literally like shaking your hand with one hand and
plunging the knife in your back with the other. Something needs to
happen when 32 people are dying a week under this new regime.
Now, under that delightful
note, pleasant dreams.
No comments:
Post a Comment