Assange again

[aliceliddell]

He is objecting to his ghost written autobiography coming out tomorrow. It includes his suggestion that the Swedish rape case was the result of either a conspiracy or a 'misunderstanding'. He says it is being published 'without his consent'. Oh, the irony.

I sniggered. A lot. Seeing this was one of those rare moments when I believe in karma.

beachcomber and I have a deeper appreciation of karma as a result. Unexpected consequences.

I was sniggering until I read this. I waited and waited and waited for Alexander Chancellor to make a snarky comment that would reveal the piece to be a subtle piss-take, and then realised that no, he is actually saying that these accusations are because 'hell hath no fury...' etc etc.

He pairs Assange with Chris Huhne, who might have the charges against him dropped (of trying to get his ex-wife to take his speeding points). Alexander, one can assume, does not approve of women being utterly furious when their husband lies, cheats, and leaves them for another woman. Alexander finds this all rather unseemly. Alexander presumably thinks women should hold their lips just that little bit stiffer. Alexander, oddly, doesn't seem to grasp that the police declining not to proceed with a prosecution is not an automatic signal that the accuser is a liar.

Alexander Chancellor is a chode, and I don't know why the Guardian permits such utter shite. A passionate defence of Assange is one thing (a wrong-headed, muddled thing, but one thing nonetheless), but an article that states that women will do all they can to have men hauled through the courts because we get all emotional when men aren't romantic enough is just crap.

Grrrrrrr.

I don't know what a chode is, but Alexander Chancellor wouldn't be my first port of call for pro-female, pro-justice discussion!

He normally bimbles on about trundling through Italy though, or his ver' naice home in France, or some such nonsense though.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, and in fact I'm not remotely surprised that he's pro-Assange, but I would have thought that for anyone brighter than a slug (which AC manifestly is), an argument of oooooh those women are stroppy bitches would be self-evidently crap.

I was reading the paper version and have only just noticed that his mini-column is titled 'Kate Winslet and the demise of the stiff upper lip'

Comment is free, bastion of liberalism. S'pose it's out of the question they could look up the definition of 'rape' in UK and Swedish law?

Oh God Victor, I read that Alexander Chancellor piece thinking he was being ironic (helped by the headline, "The 'unauthorised autobiography' of Julian Assange seeks to portray him as simply the victim of women scorned", which suggests the book isn't telling the whole story) but I have just reread it and you are RIGHT.

The worst bit is when he says "So, barring the possibility that he [Assange] is in fact guilty as charged, it seems that William Congreve was right: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." Ie, he sees the possibility that Assange is guilty as an unlikely one.

AFAIK Chancellor won't necessarily have written the title for his piece himself anyway. I think the person who did is more sceptical of Assange's version than he is.

the bitching at Kate Winslet just reads as so.... I don't know, lame but also entitled.
Like he gets to pronounce on how she should be comporting herself.

Alice -

because his argument is that since the women participated to start with, they could not withdraw consent later.

Where / when did he say that? I read the link that mooncup posted and am not aware of what else he's said about exactly what went on. All he seems to have said is that he didn't rape them.

Just to be clear - under normal circumstances, I'd be perfectly happy to accept the principle of giving the women the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're telling the truth unless I have reason to believe otherwise. But this is no ordinary situation - the guy has made a serious enemy of the most powerful government in the WORLD, who have egg on their faces and want to shaft him to hell for it. Seriously - what do you think happens to people who piss off the US secret services? They get a note home to mum?

He may well be guilty. I'm not saying for a moment that's not possible. But anyone who thinks the potential for political motivation behind this can just be ignored, is in serious denial about how politics works.

In an ideal world he'd go back and face a fair trial. But I can't say I blame him for not doing so, even if he's innocent.

Agree Sybil, the sub is clearly on our side :)

And yes, why is some aged man slagging off Kate Winslet's speech? What is the point?

confidence - the women who've borne witness against him are Swedish activists, aren't they? I find it hard to see how they could have been involved in a plot against him, short of having been in deep cover for years/bribed by US government which doesn't seem very likely.

I do agree with your broader point that we shouldn't assume his criminal guilt without a trial. But there is quite enough evidence to suggest he is a narcissistic tosser.

confidence that was the argument put out when this first started. I'll try to find the link about Israel Shamir, an anti-semite who is the sole, much quoted, source of the CIA theory.

MooncupGoddess: it's the Congreve quotation that really infuriates me.

This isn't just misogyny, this is extra-special wanktastic LITERARY misogyny. As if it's hard to find literature in which women are thin, one-dimensional freaks who embody all that is bad in society.

Try Sandra Cuffe Water.co.uk not sure about that link

That's meant to be 'Mostly Water'

I always wondered about that Congreve quote. Like where it came from and just what woman/women did bad and such

Yes, there is something very tutting about the way he uses the Congreve quote, isn't there. How irritating of these women not to lie down and take their mistreatment nicely.

One wonders if Congreve treated a woman like shit and she took a brutal revenge on him? Can but dream.

arf @ Congreve.
He is a Famous Dead White Male, a Great Man even, therefore he is Wise. His wisdom transcends the petty whinges of feminists, it taps into Eternal Truth. It's not tainted by the sexism of its age, it's Great and therefore Above That.

Sybil, I hadn't noticed that about the sub-heading. That's cheered me up (as has your summary of Congreve's Important Role)!

The autobiography, after all that publicity, has sold 644 copies. Popular, then.

Oh well, Congreve also created Millamant.

MIRABELL
Have you any more conditions to offer? Hitherto your demands are pretty reasonable.

MILLAMANT
Trifles; as liberty to pay and receive visits to and from whom I please; to write and receive letters, without interrogatories or wry faces on your part; to wear what I please, and choose conversation with regard only to my own taste; to have no obligation upon me to converse with wits that I don't like, because they are your acquaintance, or to be intimate with fools, because they may be your relations. Come to dinner when I please, dine in my dressing- room when I'm out of humour, without giving a reason. To have my closet inviolate; to be sole empress of my tea-table, which you must never presume to approach without first asking leave. And lastly, wherever I am, you shall always knock at the door before you come in. These articles subscribed, if I continue to endure you a little longer, I may by degrees dwindle into a wife.

Sounds like "A room of one's own" there.