Galloways only answer to criticism is to silence through legal action. I don't think the NUS are wrong on calling him on his recent remarks about 'bad sexual etiquette' or as the rest of us call it, rape. The NUS are not the only ones to criticise him over this, recently in Bradford we had a demo against his remarks in Centenary Square that Galloway ignored denouncing the protesters as simply Labour Party supporters. Galloway is an egotist and his recent comments even caused his party's leader to quit the party, he should be doing more for his constituency and stop trying to feed his massive ego.

Censorship
02.10.2012 21:49
Galloways only answer to criticism is to silence through legal action. I don't think the NUS are wrong on calling him on his recent remarks about 'bad sexual etiquette' or as the rest of us call it, rape…
… Galloway is an egotist and his recent comments even caused his party's leader to quit the party, he should be doing more for his constituency and stop trying to feed his massive ego


You’re the one pursuing censorship. You want to stop Galloway commenting on the Assange allegations. Yet, the public and progressives don’t need to hear your ignorance about the issue.

Galloway was speaking for many people, men and women, who were silenced by a mob mentality. He was saying that a man who assumes consent for sex in the morning after having had sex with a partner in the night should not be accused of rape.

Unlike the Bradford Anarchist, he was intelligent enough to see that it is absurd to expect that women should consult a lawyer every time they have sex with a man to help them work out whether they have been raped or not.

This was the position of those people critical of Assange. The position is ridiculous and absurd and people should say so.

But I would imagine that the Bradford Anarchist is so ignorant of the facts around the Assange case to know that that the consult a lawyer advice is precisely the consequence of criticizing Assange.

For those who don’t know the facts, the two women went to the police feared that they might have had a sexually transmitted disease from Assange. For the women to worry about that at that stage is in itself absurd. But what is even more absurd, is that they wanted the police to force Assange to have a sex test.

What this means is that the women did not approach the police in order to allege any type of sexual assault.

The people who were criticising Assange must believe that women are infantile. The NUS and the Bradford Anarchist ard doing exactly that.

Well this is a funny piece!

An "analysis" in three paragraphs? lots of talk about "smear", Rumsfeld and Assange.

Not much about the legal action. Is it a libel case?

If so, then doesn't it boil down to an understanding of the meaning of "consent" -
some people think when it hasn't been explicitly given then the sleeping partner is actually not "in the sex game" as George would say.

So those people, including - it seems - the NUS, might be pushed to describing those who disagree with them in this regard as "deniers". They say it is so - that consent must be explicitly given - others say it not so. They deny it. And thus they deny that what some think of as "surprise sex" is in fact, legally, rape.

The lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee.

Libel so often seems to be the favoured legal remedy of deluded Tories (Aitken, Archer) but George has won big on it in the past so you can see how he might think it worth one more punt, now that his party is suffering big name defections.

All it needed was a retraction, George. Everyone says stupid things sometimes.

Michael, Simon, it's not about Assange, or Wikileaks, or Rumsfeld. People in Bradford are furious with Galloway for being such an idiot.

But, in any event, it's an old-school heirarchical party we're talking about, at least as far as the defenders are concerned (the much-repeated and bizarre accusations in Bradford that all those outraged were members of the Labour party gave the game away there) so not sure why it's worth the bandwidth on IMCUK

Galloway may be capable of many things, but "censoring" something that's already happened is beyond even his abilities! Really... time travel? I don't think so. Either way, legal action isn't censorship if that action proves the NUS were either misrepresenting Galloway or just plain lying - unless of course you don't agree with the principle of libel? I don't think anyone here knows what the outcome of this action will be, any more than they know whether the claims against Julian Assange were manufactured to "get" the guy responsible for the biggest intelligence leak in military and political history ;)

Is this the photo that could clear Assange? Grinning for the camera, WikiLeaks boss and 'Woman A' who says he sexually assaulted her 48 hours earlier

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193641/Julian-Assange-rape-claim-Is-photo-clear-him.html

The Left were told what to think about the Assange sexual assault case as if they couldn’t do any thinking for themselves. They agreed with supposed ‘feminist’ arguments that sought to turn women into children.

And, when the media first broke the story, it strongly criticised the women. Something changed. In the recent coverage, the media then did an about face and the Left went in lock step with them.

Galloway was brave when he came out and attacked the idiotic consensus that developed. He did us a favour.

What exactly was idiotic about the statements that Galloway made?

Obvious questions that the Left should have asked on the Assange case and did not is:

1. why did the Swedish authorities need to question Assange to find out whether there was a sexually harassment or rape case AFTER the women had given them their story? Didn’t they believe the women? What is Assange going to tell them that will help make up their minds?

2. Why couldn’t the authorities make up their minds as to whether Assange had committed an act or rape, or an act of sexual assault or both?

The Swedish authorities were behaving totally incompetently on this issue. Yet, people who claim to be supportive of women were totally oblivious to this.

The Left who criticised Assange and Galloway think women are children. What kind of feminist or Left person would argue that a woman shouldn’t ask a new potential sexual partner about sexually transmitted diseases before they have sex. And then run to the police to compel him to disclose whether he has a disease after they’ve had sex?

Some of the so-called feminist arguments have been that the women did not know Swedish law enough in order to work out that they had been raped or sexually assaulted. It was in fact the police who began the rape/sexual assault allegations not the women. If we are supposed to take this seriously, it would mean that a woman would have to consult a lawyer after every time she had sex with a man.

Why didn’t anyone on the Left seem to know that the women made no accusation of sexual assualt or rape when they went to the police? Why didn’t they know that one of the women strongly objected to the police laying any charges of sexual assault against Assange? Why wasn’t anyone bothered that the Swedish authorities were ignoring the pleas of this woman?

The Assange case is either one where women behaved as if they were infantile or there was a set up.

I wish to state that based on my knowledge of the case, it was clear that one of the women was used by the other to engage in a politically motivated attack on Assange. It is clear to me that one of the women need support and be given protection from those who are pursuing the sexual assault case. It is likely that she is now being forced or blackmailed into attacking Assange.

It was interesting to see the familiar faces at that protest in Centenary Square. I think people need to realise that much of the impetus for that demo was not only driven by Galloway's comments on rape. Galloway’s campaign was incredibly divisive. He targeted the Muslim vote and engaged in much religious rhetoric beyond citing kismet. It is mine and others opinion that he has coned his voters and some of them now, from conversations I have had with them, are starting to realise this.

Before someone points out and cites Galloway’s argument that he won in Clayton and the Uni ward and that this, in and of itself, means that he did not just target the Muslim vote; well, when you vote your name is recorded and I have the electoral list and I can tell you that in those wards, it was the Muslim vote that got him into power.

It is not the fact that this is where the voting power base lies in Bradford West that has irked anarchists in Bradford. Rather, that Galloway exploited it and lied to them to get into power. Galloway is extremely dodgy as are Chamber’s Solicitors and the others that financially backed him. The term criminal is not too far off the mark to describe some of these financial supporters.

Of note is that Galloway made much of critiquing Labour activist’s previous methods for getting out their voters. I would like to point out that these same people Galloway was critiquing, based upon previous elections, switched from Labour to the Respect party to get Galloway into power. Ironic, eh?

There are youtube videos of Galloway visiting Muslim households where he says he can sort a few million to redevelop the Odeon (I have archived 14 of them). In this same video he mocks Marsha for his alcoholism and his illness prior to Marsha’s death. Consequently, his condolences delivered to Marsha’s family are risible and equally irksome.

There are also the accounts from witnesses that he intends to access sovereign wealth from the middle east to set up new businesses; the one cited by one of the Solicitor’s at Chambers was the luxury car industry. That may employ 30 people at most and the person likely to benefit the most, will be the couple of people that own the business. And these people that are pegged to run such a business, are likely to be the same that funded him in the first place for his campaign.

There is loads more to tell but this is enough for now.

Another Bradfordian
It is not the fact that this is where the voting power base lies in Bradford West that has irked anarchists in Bradford. Rather, that Galloway exploited it and lied to them to get into power. Galloway is extremely dodgy as are Chamber’s Solicitors and the others that financially backed him. The term criminal is not too far off the mark to describe some of these financial supporters.


This is precisely the sort of smear against a brave Left activist that Michael is complaining about. It gives the impression that Galloway is disreputable in comparison to most politicians or MPs. But such an idea is laughable.

This is the sort of argument a conman would put forward. Are you a conman Another Bradfordian?

Indeed, are you a racist conman? For only someone susceptible to racist inclinations would argue that there is something disreputable about someone who makes an effort to mobilize the black vote. If you’re saying that elections should focus on the concerns of white voters, say so.

I will deal with your accusation of racism first. I clearly state my position here as anger at Galloway and his team for conning those he targeted. Galloway did primarily target the Muslim vote and played an identity politics, full of promises and claims that can never be achieved in Bradford currently. Galloway and his team’s claim to be able to get sovereign wealth from middle eastern countries, needless to say from regimes that would make any left winger gasp in terror, is one such lie. I imagine these ‘nation state actors’ do not have good human rights records. One could say some are ‘criminal’?

If you live in Bradford and have had your ear to the ground you would realise that the black economy is very large and those whose interests lie here, have cast their tendrils far and wide into the more legitimate establishments in Bradford city, both political and economic. Patterns of property ownership and the state they are in gives you an indication of what Chamber’s Solicitors is like.

To engage in more general terms from a meta point of view. There were social tensions in Bradford long before Galloway turned up. In terms of racism in Bradford it is more complex than ‘white’ in contrast to ‘other’. There is a lot of racism between Iranian and Pakistani Muslims. The same can be said of racism between the West Indian afro community and both Iranian and Pakistani Muslims. Then we have all the other identity groupings and the racialised antagonisms between them.

My point here is that Galloway and his team primarily targeted one identity grouping and their concerns and exploited the former mentioned tensions as ‘muslim Vs other’. To the other identity groupings in that constituency, because they are a minority (and yes this includes white British), their views and concerns were not as valid, in terms of being courted in the previous election campaign and having their interests represented. At least this is what they believe. Many viewed that as a cynical and prejudiced act by Galloway and his team and as a nod towards which identity grouping holds the’ power’, in electoral terms. It was and is viewed to have added to these pre-existing social and radicalised tensions.

Simon, you need to stop using straw man arguments and realise that it is not rascist to talk about identity groupings as I have, and the methods people use to exploit such groupings to get into political office. You need to come and visit a place like Bradford and investigate what it is REALLY like in this city, before being able to state what you have. You would then appreciate what I and others are telling you.

Galloway is neither left wing nor a decent human being. He won't win his libel case but whenever he's criticised, he jumps to the telephone for his lawyer to make a case out of it. He won't win in the next election, he's failing on his election promises, the Odeon's got scafolding around it but nowt's being done, there's still a gaping hole in the city centre and nowt's being done about it, all he has done has attracted more controversy by making stupid remarks about 'sexual etiquette'. The Assange case aside, if you're in public office and try to dismiss sexual assault, expect backlash, he doesn't think before opening his mouth, it's like the window licker comment he came out with. I never liked Galloway, he's an egotist but I do admit that initially I went along with some of his supporters who said that he might be good for the city but so far, he hasn't been. I have e-mailed him personally with problems a constituency MP should deal with twice and had no reply, he's not looking out for anyone in his constituency but himself.

No Simon, I am not a conman nor a racist.
07.10.2012 08:43
Galloway did primarily target the Muslim vote and played an identity politics, full of promises and claims that can never be achieved in Bradford currently.

What kind of criticism is that? Most Parliamentary candidates promise things to their electors, except they make promises to white voters. Black voters have voted for Labour time and time again only to be let down by them. (Except when Blair decided that most working class voters didn’t matter much.) Why is Galloway’s case different?


08.10.2012 11:07
Bradford Anarchist
Galloway is neither left wing nor a decent human being.
The Assange case aside, if you're in public office and try to dismiss sexual assault, expect backlash, he doesn't think before opening his mouth, it's like the window licker comment he came out with.

To have an Anarchist say that Galloway isn’t left-wing is almost amusing. Check out where your philosophy has come from and who’s used it. Conran didn’t write ‘The Secret Agent’ for nothing.

As for Galloway comments, can’t Anarchists think for themselves? Or indeed, think?

Are you saying:
A man should be charged with attempted rape if he acts on his assumption that he should have sex a second time after having consensual sex the night before?

That a woman should consult with a lawyer after every time she has had sex with a man to find out whether the law says she has been raped?

I lament politicians more generally, Simon. I am critical of ‘all of the rest’ as much as I am of Galloway. However, as he is my MP I feel I have more of a right to criticise him rather than others.
It is interesting you make this point because it is the exact same point/’defence’ that Galloway used when criticised for the things I am articulating. My reply then is the same here; two wrongs don’t make a right. If you are going to criticise others you better make sure you are taking the moral high ground through your own acts and words.
It is interesting, Simon, that you have not actually been able to engage with my arguments more fully and seem focused on bringing it back to Assange, whilst those of us for whom Galloway is our MP prefer to look at his affiliations, promises and actual record on delivering. He didn’t deliver down in London and he won’t deliver here.
As to my brief mention of the social antagonisms in Bradford, as I said you are also ill equipped to critique my comments here (perhaps Bradford Anarchist is better suited) as you have not spent any length of time in Bradford and obviously have yet to come to terms with, your own political correctness.

"A man should be charged with attempted rape if he acts on his assumption that he should have sex a second time after having consensual sex the night before? "
If you've shagged them once, you can go as many times as you want, in fact, I might just go and shag my ex, she used to consent. Or you could of course not be a rape apologist and assume that consent is needed for every sexual act. Stop appologising for a disabled hating, rape apologising poor excuse for a human being and do something usefuel with your life.

Yes Galloway can be an arse, but I think this post was designed to warn people about how this issue is being exploited to divide people who oppose the cuts..... as for some comments being posted in response, more proof!!!!

Reads more like someone trying to defend the indefatigable.