This time due to the bewildering logic of denial I keep finding in the likes of David Allen Green and other anti Assange foghorns.
One aspect of the insane arguments between Assange supporters and haters are "facts".
Both sides like to claim they have all the relevant facts. Of course. Being an Assange supporter I'm amused by the denial of simple fact I encounter.
Take a really simple one:
On the same day the women were first interviewed concerning charges against Assange, First prosecutor Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand unlawfully told the press Julian was wanted for rape. Julian was not interviewed or informed. He found out in the tabloid newspaper “Expressen” that he was wanted for double rape.
This is a simple statement of facts that have been recorded. But it's not a fact Assange haters are very comfortable with. You can see the bizarre lengths some haters will go to evade acceptance in this little snippet: http://storify.com/Anoninom/pgpboard-gets-twisted
In the UK at least, we take integrity of the court process rather seriously. In a case where such an unlawful leak has occurred (by the prosecution itself?!) it would be nigh on impossible to form an unbiased jury, and equally impossible to go ahead and prosecute the case. The prosecution has acted illegally to disadvantage the defendant. It's a serious flaw in Sweden's prosecution, not just a fact to argue about for no reason.
Now this brings up the "It's a matter for the courts" foghorn. Apparently that aces historical fact. What kind of logic is that? I was born. According to the foghorn, this isn't actually true unless a court finds it to be so. But lets go a little deeper. Time and time again you can mention this simple fact of a major breach of due process by the prosecution to the alleged victim's disadvantage and be told "It's a matter for the courts".
By taking this view, Assange hater isn't interested in protecting the rights of the potential rape victims. Having tarred anyone who defends Assange as a "Rape Apologist", they then go on to show they have complete disregard for the integrity of the case defending the potential rape victim's rights. You can see David Allen Green's wilful ignorance and denial here: http://storify.com/fluffkin/david-allen-green-drops-in-for-a-chat
Another way of looking at this strange attitude is that the Assange hater has a very strong interest in due process when it comes to having Julian sent to jail in Sweden, but an utter contempt for due process when it comes to some astounding flaws in the prosecution. "Does it send Julian to jail? Yes it's due process. Does it defend the alleged victim's rights? I don't care about due process". Once again. That is the attitude of a rape apologist. What the women of this world need is a strong determined interest in following due process by the prosecution to ensure that rape claim's are brought to court fairly and with good chance of success. David Allen Green and Alan Taylor have utter contempt for defending women's rights, they really are "Rape Apologists" because they don't care at all about the importance of due process in defending victim's rights.
[Later Edit: David Allen Green is a particularly strange case here. In some cases he does indeed defend rape victim's rights as in a recent case in the UK. So the case with David becomes even stranger. Why is he perfectly able to form an opinion on a case in defence of rape victims rights in any other case, but not in the case of Assange? Hmm. Double standards does not maketh the man Dave. What's going on? Social climber who doesn't want to rock the establishment boat? Someone leaning on him? Fear? Makes it worse in a way. A man who portrays himself as fair and reasonable caring more about his social status than the truth?]
The foghorn will smile smugly back and say, that no actually, by insisting the court decides they are defending the victim's rights. Sorry guys. That doesn't cut it. The facts undermining the prosecution are widely known and available. You are choosing to utterly ignore something that a sane balanced individual would be able to comment on given currently available information. If you have in interest in protecting the representation of rape victim's in court, then actually it's a pretty huge detail. The "let the court's decide" argument is simple evasion of an interest in protecting rape victim's rights in general. Why can't you discuss it, or in some cases even bring yourself to admit that it's true? On one hand you'll delight in any detail you can find that presents Julian in a bad light, so why can't you comment on problems in the prosecution? "Let the courts decide" is a smoke screen that makes you look not only stupid, but I'll say it again .. Like a Rape Apologist.
The very same anti Assange foghorn rape apologists will seize on any fact they can find at an absurdly superficial level. "Assange has had his chance of appeal and lost it". For example. Selectively ignoring the highly unusual way Assange's last appeal was overturned. It set a precedent in UK law by being refused on grounds that were not present in the appeal! That's pretty bad news for a fair legal system in the UK let alone for Assange. But the foghorn's are incapable of taking on board such detail. They in this case will stick to the "The court's decided" view and ignore the detail. Again. Any detail that contradicts their blind faith in the legal system is ignored or denied. In the case of David Allen Green, this makes him look like a joke. A self proclaimed legal expert with no interest in the legal process when it suits him?
To quote Craig Murray's recent blog post
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/
"Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six."
I'd recommend you go see the article that came from, and other entries in Craig Murray's site.
It's hard work keeping up the continual debate with the foghorn's but the more vile and insulting the foghorn's are, the more important it becomes to keep at it.
This is the kind of vile I'm talking about from the delightful @PGPBOARD (Alan Taylor)
@ArabellaSL @gerge42 @ingeniarius08 @PME200 @DavidAllenGreen Christine was so coked up on acid back then she probably remembers little.
I'd call that slander. It goes without comment from David Allen Green who is also fond of hurling the odd bit of abuse at Christine. A reminder to David Allen Green & Alan Taylor and your indefensible personal attacks. You're insulting the mother of a multi award winning journalist. I'm not aware that either of you have raised a child who has become as internationally significant as Julian has, or even that you have a single award between you, except perhaps for being rape apologist's? Here. I'll award you that one.
Award for Rape Apologists 2012
David Allen Green & Alan Taylor.
"For services in strongly defending a flawed potential rape prosecution at the expense of the not just the alleged victims rights, but the integrity of rape prosecutions in general."
No comments:
Post a Comment