Re: Caitlin Johnstone on the subject Archived Message
Posted by dovetailjoint on July 1, 2019, 7:12 pm, in reply to "Re: Caitlin Johnstone on the subject"
No. The women criticising Melzer aren't correct. They are muddled about their definitions. What's classified in Sweden as 'rape' covers a range of behaviours that have been systematically broadened out in order to convict more men of sexual crimes, as part of a wider gender political struggle within Swedish politics. In short it was deemed problematic that so many men were being found not guilty of sexual offences by the courts, so the law and the definitions were changed in oder to address or remedy this problem. Whilst it's indeed possible to find specific examples of behaviour that might be covered by the allegations brought against Assange, that doesn't mean that he's 'guilty' of the same behaviour in the examples quoted. To campare the two sets of behaviour and draw conclusions, is wrong. What Melzer is drawing attention to and complaining about is precisely the loose and vague way the Swedes have applied the term 'rape' to the allegations raised against Assange. Rape used to have a far narrower legal definition and the vast majority of people still think that's what it means. Rape is using physical violence to obtain sex. If one is going to call consensual sex 'rape' then one is undermining the definition of rape almost to the point that it becomes meaningless and that's rather dangerous for women. This whole issue of consent is even more problematic, because it's even more vague and hard to define. But all this seems to be a kind of diversion from the core arguments made by Melzer in relation to Assange. It's obvious that the case against Assange is incredibly weak, otherwise he would have been charged when he was in Sweden, or certainly by now. I don't believe he'll ever be charged by the Swedes by anything anywhere near 'rape', perhaps, to save face, they'll try something like inappropriate sexual actions or molestation, but I doubt it. Even that would be hard to prove in a Swedish court. I reckon they'll cut their loses and drop it, without charging him and save themselves the absurdity of a trial where the judges throw the case out on day one.
|
|