The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

George Galloway: Assange is only accused of "bad sexual etiquette"

It can't be rape if you are "already in the sex game", argues Respect MP.

By Alex Hern Published 20 August 2012 13:45

George Galloway discussed Julian Assange on his video podcast.

George Galloway, the Respect MP for Bradford, has attacked the attempts to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, arguing that "even if the allegations made by these two women were 100 per cent true. . . they don't constitute rape."

Galloway launched the attack on his video podcast, Good night with George Galloway, embedded below.

The remarks occur 21:40 into the video:

Let me tell you, I think that Julian Assange's personal sexual behaviour is something sordid, disgusting, and I condemn it. But even taken at its worst, the allegations made against him by the two women – and I'm not even going into their political connections, I'm going to leave that for others and for another day. I'm going to leave the fact that one, maybe both, of his accusers have the strangest of links to the strangest of people, organisations and states, I'm going to leave that entirely aside.

Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape. At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this.

Let's take woman A. Woman A met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him. Claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know.

I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them.

It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, "do you mind if I do it again?". It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning. . .

I don't believe either of those women, I don't believe either of these stories.

Paragraph 109 of the Supreme Court's assessment of the European Arrest Warrant issued for Julian Assange shows that English law disagrees with George Galloway:

109. On this approach, then, intentional penetration achieved by coercion or where consent is lacking to the knowledge of the defendant would be considered to be rape. In our view on this basis, what was described in the EAW was rape. Coercion evidences knowledge of a lack of consent and lack of a reasonable belief in consent. . .

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Alex Hern

View the discussion thread.

59 comments

Mon, 2012-08-20 18:00 — admin

Comments will be closed overnight.

Mon, 2012-08-20 17:53 — sattar rind (not verified)

GG is right how could one blame on another that he had committed rape when you were in sexual game.

Mon, 2012-08-20 17:47 — hugh markey (not verified)

The outcome today would no doubt be very different but a little time-travel jaunt back to Hollywood in the early forties finds virile Errol Flynn standing in the dock accused of statutory rape.
The jury composed mainly of middle-aged women entranced by Errol's matinee idol appearance had no difficulty in finding the film star innocent of all charges. Of course Errol gave his autograph to the adoring ladies of the jury. What do you expect? The ladies were actually twittering his praises..
Flynn had such a bad record many were certain he was for the high jump Still, there's no accounting for taste.
No matter what the evidence, in those days many women were brainwashed by society into condemning their own sex .
There is definitely a dilemma facing all fair-minded people. Return Assange to Sweden for trial on one count and he may be extradited to the USA for trial on another.
Admittedly, a mixed-race president has been elected to the White House but if you recall Obama shut out a woman who was also running for the highest office in US politics.
And have you had a good look at the right-wing posse ridin' hell for leather down the White House trail. Mean looking bunch. Mighty like a lynching party to us.
Remember Tom Brown?

Dude Rancher

Mon, 2012-08-20 17:24 — meh (not verified)

john ringer is the only man that has spoken sense so far.

any non-consensual insertion is rape. and, in my experience, having sex with someone whilst they are asleep has never happened to me, or to any of the women that i have spoken too.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:15 — Herbert (not verified)

If Mr Galloway is right then clearly Mr Assange has nothhig to fear by going to Sweden and clearing his name.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:27 — Commenter (not verified)

No, if he goes to Sweden the Swedes will send him to the US. The sexual assault allegations are likely a fabrication to get him to Sweden, and then the US, who will imprison him, despite the fact that the things he "leaked" haven't had anything done about them.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:59 — Duncanm (not verified)

How do you know this? Why, if they wanted him, would WE not have extradited him? Why did they wait 6 months after wikileaks posted the most revealing evidence, in order to set up this whole convoluted 'sting operation' just to get him to pop back to sweden? Why do none of the stupid arguments put forward by the Assangistas make any sense whatsoever?

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:13 — john woods (not verified)

John Cronin's post was removed pretty damn quick.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:08 — christof (not verified)

I don't agree with Galloway on many things, but I'm totally with him on this. Assange seems a bit forward & creepy, but if I woke up to find someone having sex with me and I didn't want to, I'd tell the to get the f*ck off. I certainly wouldn't continue to share a bed with them for a week.
If the person threatened violence or had a history of violence, then that's a game-changer, but nowhere have I seen any evidence of him being anything more than a creepy letch.
If (on the basis of the evidence seen so far) he's guilty, then the law is an ass.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:12 — New stateswoman (not verified)

So only violent rape is rape? You go along with the legitimate rape point of view I assume?
So many people have so many views on how rape victims should be behave, or just women in general, no other crime elicits such vitriolic responses to a victim.
I don't know if he is guilty or not, in due course we may find out, but I really hate the warriors who come on to inform us all of what rape is in their view, not the law.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:06 — DKR (not verified)

John Cronin, Your islamophobia disgusts me. I am muslim and have a three graduate degrees and a doctorate. I teach at an university in the UK, yet I guess because of my ethnic and relgious belief your bigotry will fetch more IQ points than my years of work.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:04 — New stateswoman (not verified)

So it's acceptable to begin intercourse with someone when they are asleep? What about if they passed out drunk? He's saying it's OK because the girl said yes once. Saying yes once does not give perpetual consent. Women are not in a constant state of consent ffs.
It is rape, it is sexual penetration without consent.

Calling it 'bad etiquette' demeans the experience of thousands who have been raped.

And to the poster who said there is a difference between this and being forcibly held down...yes there is in violence, but not in terms of consent. Neither were consented to, so both are rape.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:20 — christof (not verified)

Describing cases of poor communication or poor manners, such as this as rape demeans those who have been raped or sexually assaulted despite clear, loud, unambiguous protestations that they're not in agreement.
Also rape isn't something that just happens to women.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:24 — New stateswoman (not verified)

The majority of rapes are against women, as is this case.

This is not poor manners/communication! How can anyone consent to something when they are not awake?
Agreeing to have sex once does not give consent for all future times.
I'm so horrified people believe this is just bad manners...

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:03 — Kstar (not verified)

The actual article is in a very logical sense flawed. it says that Julian did not rape a woman. However peniteable sex without the consent of another constitutes as rape. Does this artical actually state that in one instance at night you can sleep with someone. But in the morning penetrate them without consent (rape them). What vulgarity and barbarism would lead someone to think such garbage, let alone write an artical on it!

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:44 — Mark, Labour Party Member (not verified)

It is my understanding of police work that police often go to the location of the alleged offender to question them. Didn't the Met go to Portugal to question people in the case of Madeleine McCann? And one of Assange's defenders said on the news the other day that Swedish police had recently gone to Serbia to question a murder suspect. Murder,
somewhat more serious than this.

Now of course his refusal to go to Sweden is being used against him. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by the man, to be honest, but this whole thing stinks to high heaven and our government is up to their necks and beyond in it.

It is very rare that I agree with George Galloway, but the man does have a point.

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:24 — jonlincbrown (not verified)

Where is the presumption of innocence in any of this? This whole sorry situation seems based upon a presumption of guilt, whether based upon the alledged rapes or for publishing sensitive information is yet to be determined. The real casualty in all of this is the cause of justice.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:13 — Bob Hale (not verified)

Presumption of innocence equates to a presumption the victim is lying. Hardly supportive of rape survivors.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:22 — Mao (not verified)

Innocence must always be presumed until proven otherwise.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:34 — Bob Hale (not verified)

Why? Care to expand on that a little. I fail to see why we need to presume anything at all. Why should we take things for granted?

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:36 — Mao (not verified)

That is how criminal law works.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:43 — Bob Hale (not verified)

Sorry, I thought you were disagreeing with me. Didn't realise we were just getting snippets of the criminal justice system process.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:49 — Mao (not verified)

I don't need to argue the toss with you. It is just so.

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:03 — Loic (not verified)

Sorry but this is the final straw, your magazine has been getting boring for some time but am afraid will not be renewing subscription. The New Statesman appears to be endorsing rape. Disgusting. You are worse than the BNP.

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:39 — Alan Magpie (not verified)

Pardon? You do realise this is the Statesman's commentary on Galloway remarks, and does not constitute endorsement?

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:14 — MaryLS (not verified)

You need to read the details of this case. The statement "it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning." captures precisely how this case is hurtful to women.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:08 — New stateswoman (not verified)

Hurtful to women? When will articles on rape be hurtful to men? Why do women suffer again and again?
So because Assange is a top notch whistleblower he couldn't possibly be guilty of this? I don't know if he is or not, but trying to change the definition of rape to suit an agenda is what I would expect from Galloway. It's a shame to see it ratified by other idiots.

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:09 — Duncanm (not verified)

Its quite a task to get wound up by something that didn't happen.

NB George Galloway doesn't write for the Statesman, if that helps clear up the confusion.

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:02 — Old Hand (not verified)

To be fair, it is a brave choice of subject matter for a Jackanory audition.

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:51 — Duncanm (not verified)

You mean to tell me that George Galloway is an moron? I'm genuinely shocked and stunned at this incredible revelation.

let's try that thing where people's dumb, ignorant nonsense is simply ignored instead of being made into a piece worthy of discussion.

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:41 — thomas vesely

totally agree with article.

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:36 — puttytat (not verified)

This magazine is going down the pan! You clearly cannot see the wood for the tress here. This man is prepared to go to Sweden to answer these allegations (not charges as yet). All he wants is a reassurance that he won't be extradited to the US. Why is he not getting this reassurance?? This is the crux of the issue here...NOT the definition of rape!

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:06 — Duncanm (not verified)

You don't get charged until you're arrested. That's kind of how it works here as well! Remember the recent NI arrests? Charges happened *after* arrest. Pretty simple concept, huh?

As for the other point, must be the first alleged rapist ever to be allowed to set the terms of how he's treated. I bet all other alleged rapists are on tenterhooks waiting to see how this all pans out.

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:36 — Bibitybob (not verified)

For starters he's not accused of rape. Second, not many rapists all happen to ha e published swathes of documents exposing widespread corruption thought Western society. NI is hardly a good analogy, seeing how a) there was already heaps of evidence against them b) the allegations had existed for years but not pursued due to the police being in NI's pockets c) NI executives are incredibly rich and powerful, and hence receive the appropriate treatment. If you were to hack a computer as a whistleblower, you'd be thrown in the slammer and tried before you could say uncle. If you order the widespread surveillance of the British population to make money, you're treated like a Prince.

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:35 — Bibitybob (not verified)

You'll probably find his supporters agree that such actions are bad, but rather question the authenticity of them, especially given the convenient timing. Apparently one of the girls didn't even agree to signing the allegation given by police and the entire Adair is driven by Sweden's prosecutors. And why are a group of governments so powerful and conveniently effected by Wikileak's work so adamant to have him tried for lesser offenses than rape (not that they don't imply the opposite) when they all care so less about they either fail to reform the already broken laws, or are reforming them to make it even harder to prove or convict for rape?

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:32 — Devils Advocate (not verified)

I'll consent to have sex with you as long as both your hands are behind your back. If either of your hands comes out from behind your back, consent is withdrawn, ergo rape occurs and you'll go to prison for a very long time...

Ok the terms were defined, but is it rape if a hand was in the wrong place and consent for intercourse existed?

Go one stage further consent for sex with Condom, if the condom splits is it then rape?

Consent for sex is just that, imposing terms cannot be upheld.
Anything goes, or should be expected, until either party asks to stop.
If you pick up a stranger for one night, then you really do not know what you are getting into, what is normal for that person, might not be, for you!

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:34 — Duncanm (not verified)

Why don't you test out these theories and pop back here with the results?

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:23 — Yr a rape apologist (not verified)

"I'm just playing Devil's Advocate" - comparing a hand slipping in a sex game with a woman crying as a man pins her down with his body weight and attempts to forcefully insert himself inside her. You stay classy, "Devil's advocate". What a total idiot.

Mon, 2012-08-20 18:05 — Devils Advocate (not verified)

Yeah [YR A RAPE APOLOGIST] that's exactly how it happens every single time. It's not! Truth is rape comes in many forms.. Law enforcement, the perpetrators, and You need to accept that. Irrespective of whether you like the examples or not, otherwise you can't discuss it like a grown up.
And next time you want to quote something make sure it's in the comment box, attributing unsaid words to people (whatever handle they choose) is libel, that's a crime too.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:04 — Mao (not verified)

Unless the word "no" was used at the event no rape occurred. So the is no rape to apologise for. Crying is not evidence. These accusations can never be proved and are therefore false.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:49 — sam mace (not verified)

Just because something cannot be proved it doesn't mean it's false. Galloway is a pseudo intellectual his charlatanism is reaching an end game. These remarks are disgusting, if the allegations are true it's rape pure and simple. If you go to sleep, wake up and find someone penetrating you that is rape, there is no consent there and it doesn't matter if you've already had sex. A husband can rape his wife despite her having sex with him hundreds of times. If Bradford West re-elect him then they are fools.

Mon, 2012-08-20 16:54 — Mao (not verified)

You can not assert something that you can not prove to be true.

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:28 — Mao (not verified)

Man A has consensual sex with woman B. After sex they fall asleep. Woman B wakes to discover that man A's "naked erect penis" is touching her body. This is sexual assault.

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:22 — Bibitybob (not verified)

Why, may I ask, is a magazine concerned with liberalism and civil liberties being so hostile towards Julian Assange, even when it's patently obvious that he's not actually been charged with any crimes but is merely wanted for questioning? Isn't it the slightest bit funny that this allegation came so soon after the leak of all those diplomatic cables, and that the Western world is so dedicated to catch one person for an alleged crime that ISN'T considered rape, ( hence the Accusation of "sexual assault"), even if it means completely destroying the principals of the entire Vienna conventions?

And where's Bradley manning? What happened to him? What's gonna happen to the guy who published the documents he released?

NS has been nothing but bottom of the barrel, modern feminist garbage for ages now, and it's almost comical. In another article you linked someone saying "not using a condom isn't a crime" as some sort of proof of widespread misoginy when, guess what, it ISN'T. You used to actually cover real issues that actually mattered and people should know. Now you're just another authoritarian rag, except your strawman is rape rather than immigrants.

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:40 — Engine (not verified)

We who think that he has been stitched up like a kipper are in the minority .the yanks are after his tiny white arse and I just bet that the UK os Sweden will help !
If the UK does help , we're no better than a dictatorship where civil liberties, freedom of speech ,and the law of sanctuary are disregarded for the sake of saving face .
Dear America
Your lies and secrets are out there for all to see the horse has left the stable . Saddle up and mosey out if town ,Or Live with it .
P.S I just hope he lives a long and healthy life !

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:43 — thomas vesely

ditto

Mon, 2012-08-20 14:32 — CountBuckules (not verified)

Well he hasn't been charged because under Swedish law you have to be questioned by police before charges can be issued, and the fact that Assange refuses to be questioned at all is a bit fishy. Leaving aside the whole conspiracy aspect of your argument because frankly nobody really knows anything about it and its all speculation, those who seek to defend Assange because he isn't currently being charged with anything are doing so in ignorance of Swedish criminal procedure.