180 Seconds with Craig Ranapia - 12 December

50 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Draco T Bastard,

    Except that it wasn't a "rape" allegation but something else entirely. The woman really did have voluntary sex with that man, ergo, it wasn't rape.

    Since Dec 2010 • 1 posts Report Reply

  • Nik C,

    How do you know that, Draco? Were you in the room with them?

    If they withdrew consent at any point, then it was rape.

    Since Aug 2009 • 11 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Draco T Bastard,

    Draco:

    Here's how it works -- like it says on the tin, I get 180 seconds (more or less) and operate on the assumption that listeners are fairly intelligent. Didn't really have the time for a detailed break down of Swedish legislation and jurisprudence around sexual assault.

    But let's just cut the semantics and angelic pin-head boogie wonderland, shall we? Where I come from sex without consent is rape (while it may be legally defined as "sexual assault" or "molestation" or whatever depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances); and trying to fuck someone when they're alseep or otherwise unconscious is just revolting.

    YMMV, of course.

    ETA: And just to save some time, I don't have moderator rights here on PAS. But I will ask Russell to delete any slut-shaming, rape-bingo comments or links to anywhere else that has published the names of the complainants or other personal details.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11786 posts Report Reply

  • Boganette,

    Draco: The charges are that the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of August 14 in Stockholm. The court was told Assange used his body weight to hold her down. The second charge is that Assange “sexually molested” Miss A . She told him she would not have sex with him without a condom - she withdrew her consent to sex. The third charge is of “deliberate molestation” of Miss A on August 18. The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

    If you think having sex with someone when they're asleep isn't rape, or if you think it's OK to continue a sex act once someone has withdrawn consent, or if you think it's OK to hold someone down in order to have sex with them against their will then you have serious fucking issues.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    I agree with your sentiment Craig but you should practice what you preach. First you point out that Assange is entitled to the presumption of innocence but then throw this out the window and go on to call them rape victims instead of alleged rape victims.

    Secondly, it seems that so far he is not receiving a fair trial. No comment from you on that. Do you not find it concerning that he wasn't remanded on bail while the U.S. blathers about indicting him so they can kidnap and torture him? As Katrin Axelsson of Women Against Rape notes, bail following rape allegations is routine: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-rape-allegations-freedom-of-speech

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Christiaan,

    I agree with your sentiment Craig but you should practice what you preach.

    You know something, Christiaan, I don't believe the first clause and I'd suggest you follow your own advice: It seems I'm being condemned for not talking about what you think I should, go on to attack me for saying things I didn't, and topped off the bullshit bingo by launching into some paranoid fantasy in total defiance of reality. (You do realise Sarah Palin doesn't hold elected office anywhere, let alone Sweden. Right?)

    I do have one question though: What part of this was too fucking subtle for you: "Let’s make one thing perfectly clear from the start. As this is being recorded, Assange is remanded to custody in England, awaiting possible extradition to Sweden to face multiple sexual assault charges. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a fair trial and a vigourous defence — no matter who or where you are."

    I actually assume my listeners are moderately intelligent, and can hold that in their minds for a couple of minutes without every third word being "alleged". In your case, I'm willing to make an exception unless you're just trolling.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11786 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    You know something, Christiaan, I don't believe the first clause

    Lovely. I may be many things Craig but I'm not a liar so you can stick that blithe comment where the sun don't shine.

    It seems I'm being condemned for not talking about what you think I should, go on to attack me for saying things I didn't

    I'm not condemning you for anything, I was simply offering mild criticism of your comments. Shesh.

    , and topped off the bullshit bingo by launching into some paranoid fantasy in total defiance of reality. (You do realise Sarah Palin doesn't hold elected office anywhere, let alone Sweden. Right?)

    I don't know what pink polkadotted fairy world you live in but the one I live in is one where the U.S. routinely tortures people and routinely flouts international law.

    I do have one question though: What part of this was too fucking subtle for you: "Let’s make one thing perfectly clear from the start. As this is being recorded, Assange is remanded to custody in England, awaiting possible extradition to Sweden to face multiple sexual assault charges. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a fair trial and a vigourous defence — no matter who or where you are." ... I actually assume my listeners are moderately intelligent, and can hold that in their minds for a couple of minutes without every third word being "alleged". In your case, I'm willing to make an exception unless you're just trolling.

    This is a cope out. My point was you said one thing but didn't but didn't follow through with it. If he's presumed innocent they're not rape victims. Plain and simple. Seems to me you made a Freudian slip and now you're overly defensive about it.

    You seem to have a confidence in authority that I don't come close to sharing and you've clearly made judgements about Assange, someone you've never met. I've never met any of these people and I don't see these rape allegations as anything more than coincidental, and while I don't trust the U.S. for a second I suspect he's probably better off in Sweden under Swedish law than he is in the UK (power brokers here are particularly deluded about something they call their "special relationship" with the U.S.).

    You have a legitimate gripe with some of the bullshit that has passed for comment on these rape allegations but it seems to me you could do with a dash of scepticism with regard to the implications of Assange being captured by the U.S.

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Christiaan,

    <q>Lovely. I may be many things Craig but I'm not a liar so you can stick that blithe comment where the sun don't shine.<q>

    Thanks for the interest in the contents of my anus, but I don't actually believe you because five weasel words were followed by several hundred of textbook passive-aggressive rape bingo.

    Let's see if I can fill up the card here:

    1) You don't qualify every reference to the complainants with "alleged", so you've made your mind up etc. Guess I still have a little more faith in the intelligence and attention span of my listeners than you do, but they can make up their own minds. They always do.

    2) And I've got to admire the epic reasoning fail in this gem: "If he's presumed innocent they're not rape victims. Plain and simple." Perhaps we can extend the presumption to the complainants that they aren't malicious liars?

    3) You've denied the accused the right to a fair trial. Well, apart from when I explicitly said otherwise, but moving right along...

    4) You're not talking about the "real issues". There's several threads here on PAS where you can chunter on to your heart's content about "the implications of Assange being captured by the U.S." or what a ghastly Yank-fellating hellhole the United Kingdom is. I'm not going to, and if you don't like it - tough.

    5) You don't know the accused, therefore have no basis to form an opinion on matters in the public arena. Why not go the whole hog and trot out You weren't there, how do you know? No; just no.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11786 posts Report Reply

  • Boganette,

    Weird how people trot out the 'you don't know him/you weren't there/he's innocent' lines about Assange but feel they can presume the ALLEGED rape victims are lying whores (despite not knowing them or being there).

    Why is it not enough to clearly state that someone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a fair trial and a vigourous defence? It seems that only in rape cases people feel the need to put out the idea that rape complainents are lying until it's proven they're not. And that 'alleged' must pre-face every single mention of women in cases likes these.

    I don't see people using the word 'alleged' when they make-up 'facts' about these women and smear and attack them online.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    I don’t actually believe you because five weasel words were followed by several hundred of textbook passive-aggressive rape bingo.

    That makes two of us then. I don't believe your hollow introduction because it was followed by a classic Freudian slip.

    1) 'You don’t qualify every reference to the complainants with “alleged”, so you’ve made your mind up etc.' Guess I still have a little more faith in the intelligence and attention span of my listeners than you do, but they can make up their own minds. They always do.

    You can pass the buck by appealing to the greatness of your audience or you could just take more care when apparently trying to make a point about someone's presumed innocence.

    2) And I’ve got to admire the epic reasoning fail in this gem: “If he’s presumed innocent they’re not rape victims. Plain and simple.”

    Sorry, where's the fail? Perhaps you could explain to your audience why there's no difference between 'alleged rape victim' and 'rape victim'?

    Perhaps we can extend the presumption to the complainants that they aren’t malicious liars?

    Of course. Where the hell did that come from? Perhaps if you attempted to address the criticism instead of skirting around it you wouldn't be projecting other people's arguments onto me?

    3) 'You’ve denied the accused the right to a fair trial.' Well, apart from when I explicitly said otherwise, but moving right along…

    I said nothing of the sort.

    4) 'You’re not talking about the “real issues”.' There’s several threads here on PAS where you can chunter on to your heart’s content about “the implications of Assange being captured by the U.S.” or what a ghastly Yank-fellating hellhole the United Kingdom is. I’m not going to, and if you don’t like it – tough.

    Fine, but you seem strangely offended that I might comment on this. My point was his denial of bail appears to be politically motivated. As Katrin Axelsson points out 'there is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety.' I think that's something you should consider more seriously if you're going to comment on this.

    Assange may well have done something wrong to these women, but that doesn't mean we should allow the U.S. to use it against him for political reasons, intimidating other journalists and chilling a new form of journalism in the process.

    5) 'You don’t know the accused, therefore have no basis to form an opinion on matters in the public arena.' Why not go the whole hog and trot out 'You weren’t there, how do you know?' No; just no.

    I didn't say you have no basis to form an opinion. I just think your opinion is naive.

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan, in reply to Boganette,

    Weird how people trot out the 'you don't know him/you weren't there/he's innocent' lines about Assange but feel they can presume the ALLEGED rape victims are lying whores (despite not knowing them or being there).

    Even weirder how people can project these arguments onto others when they said nothing of the sort.

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • Boganette,

    <q> As Katrin Axelsson points out 'there is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety. <q>

    You don't think it's worth maybe waiting until after the court case before you imply these women are lying and it's all a conspiracy?

    Oh but of course you're not implying anything about these women right? You're just "concerned" that nobody is aware of the big bad Assange conspiracy where the Bones Society or the Freemasons or the New World Order or *insert acronym here* are going to kidnap him and torture him and make him shut down WikiLeaks or some garbage. It's like a broken record. The Cult of Assange is alive and well. "Allegedly" of course.

    <q> I think that's something you should consider more seriously if you're going to comment on this. <q>

    And with that - you've missed the point of the entire discussion.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    Wow, well, what do I know? You already know what I know before I do. No matter that I say the opposite. I'm clearly just a lying weasel misogynous scumbag who needs to be told what he's really thinking and you're a paragon of feminist virtue sticking up for that most virtuous of underdogs America.

    I've never had a such a disingenuous exchange of words in my life. I've already stated on this very webpage that I think the allegations are coincidental not conspiratorial. But hey, what the fuck does it matter what I say about what I think? That's what you're here for.

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    And perhaps you'd care to take your accusation up with Katrin Axelsson: http://www.womenagainstrape.net/comment/reply/410#comment-form They're her words not mine.

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • Boganette,

    <q>I'm clearly just a lying weasel misogynous scumbag<q>

    You're the one labelling yourself not me.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Boganette,

    You should really take ownership of your words Christiaan. You quoted Katrin Axelsson for a reason. Don't be disingenuous.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Boganette,

    Also - what's your problem? I said allegedly.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    Yes, I'm sure you're well positioned to lecture me about taking ownership of my words... while you shove them down my throat.

    So what do you make of these words of mine? "I don't see these rape allegations as anything more than coincidental."

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • Boganette,

    Christiaan - again, I said allegedly. Allegedly you hold those views. So what's your problem?

    This started from you saying that Craig implied Assange is a rapist when he didn't. And that you feel these women must be called 'alleged' victims at every instance. You say he isn't getting a fair trial and claim the "U.S. blathers about indicting him so they can kidnap and torture him" - and then claim you're not into into conspiracy theories and the charges are 'conincidental'. Come on, read what you've written and own it. There was no 'slip' you just latched on to the idea that someone was saying Assange is guilty when they said no such thing.

    And why should I care what Naomi Klein thinks about this? By the same token you can support WikiLeaks and not imply these women are lying. Which was pretty much the entire point of Craig's post. Maybe you should listen to it again? In your rush to claim Assange is about to be kidnapped by James Bond villians you haven't even bothered to take in what this post is about. The wider consequences of questioning alleged rape victims without proof and putting them on trial on the net.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    Spare me your cheap semantics. Tagging "allegedly" onto to your own accusations doesn't relinquish your responsibility for them.

    You say he isn't getting a fair trial and claim the "U.S. blathers about indicting him so they can kidnap and torture him" - and then claim you're not into into conspiracy theories and the charges are 'conincidental'.

    Have you stopped to think for a minute that these charges might be true AND that the U.S. (and other powers) might seek to take advantage of them for political purposes?

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    Nice post Craig. Well covered.

    中国 • Since Jan 2010 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • Boganette,

    "Spare me your cheap semantics" - Pretty hypocritical there Christiaan!

    "Have you stopped to think for a minute that these charges might be true AND that the U.S. (and other powers) might seek to take advantage of them for political purposes?" - yep, numerous times. And I managed to do that without accusing people of calling Assange a rapist. Or implying the charges were false. You should try it.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2010 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    They're cheap. About as cheap as they come. Calling people "victims" in a court case, of any kind, before that court case has run it's course is not cheap however.

    To voice concern that WikiLeaks' enemies are using these charges, whether true or not, 'for political agendas that have nothing to do with women’s safety' is not to imply that the accusers are liars (I state categorically that I don't think that and I'm sure Axelsson would too), It is to voice concern that WikiLeaks' enemies are using these charges for political agendas that have nothing to do with women’s safety.

    Calling the alleged rape victims "rape victims" plays into the hands of those trying to use these allegations to attack WikiLeaks.

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

  • Christiaan,

    I'll add too that referring to them as alleged isn't accusing them of anything. It's called reserving judgement.

    London, UK • Since Dec 2006 • 120 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.