So spending your life in North Fitzroy starts to generate some comforting illusions - in the relatively niche world of latte sipping left-wingish green electorate-dom you start taking certain things for granted. So the recent Julian Assange furore kind of caught me on the hop. On Saturday night, drunker than I should have been for these purposes, I engaged in an argument with a young avowed marxist/feminist, about the specifics of the charges Julian Assange is facing. I'm not going to bore you again with the specifics - suffice to say, my position is - he's been charged with rape (and it is rape, not condom mishandling or any other nonsense) not espionage, and if a giant pile of money is going to anyone's legal defence, it should be Bradley Manning who is actually in the grips of the US legal system and not Julian Assange.
My rhetorical skills were not exactly in fine form - trying to hold a complex argument in Yah Yah's whilst impaired is not exactly the best circumstances for a reasoned debate, and I may have said at one point "Socrates raped children" a charge for which I have no basis, and if untrue I send my sincerest apologies to Olympus. And my erstwhile antagonist in this debate was as impaired as I was, at least, so she may be forgiven her own rhetorical excesses.
Nonetheless, at one point, the defence of Assange was: "He was at Melbourne Uni. He's a nerd." This, as a justification on how he couldn't possibly be guilty of any wrong doing. I was stunned. Really? People still think that's a valid defence? It's the same argument as "We're in the same footy club. He's a good bloke."
The whole public structure of this argument follows similar lines - if you ask any of Assange's defenders about what the basis of their firm belief in his innocence is, a discussion immediately begins on the American Industrial Military Complex. The power of his enemies immediately obviates any positional that four different women might actually have a claim. This is repeated all the way up the line.
So whilst the public discussion and "Free Assange" movement is debating the relative merits of the wikileaks as a whole, it seems that the proper point of these arrests is entirely overlooked - the complaints of four women who are alleging rape.
Other bits that have brought up questions in my mind. Any discussion of rape nearly inevitably brings up the "false rape" scenario - it's nearly never actually specified what incident of provably false rape claims actually happened. This idea has almost a free floating status, an almost archetypal quality. And it's a quality that associates itself with almost every rape accusation that ever comes up.
It's not something that comes up with other crimes - when someone's murdered, no one says: "Well, there was that guy in Germany who asked to be eaten" or when a house burns down, no one jumps to the conclusion "well sometimes people burn their own houses down for the insurance."
But when you think you've seen it all, there are choice pieces of human detritus like this guy.
http://theothermccain.com/2010/12/06/unintentional-hilarity-feminists-ask-if-julian-assange-committed-rape-rape/
Aside from the masturbatory predator drone fantasies (which will be the subject of a later rant, fear not dear readers), this guy actually intones the ancient “blaming of the victim”, that is so beloved in Tehran and Saudi Arabia. "Buy the ticket, take the ride" he says. I'll spare you all the verbal revenge porn I wish upon this man, but it got me to wondering, why don't people treat ALL crimes this way. So, without further ado, I bring you my short, one act play –
Blaming the Victim - for all walks of Life
Scene opens on a courtroom. A jeweller sits in the dock, having just tearfully recounted his robbery at gunpoint by an armed assailant.
Lawyer: Is it not true, Mr. Jeweller, that in fact you sell jewellery for a living?
Jeweller: Yes, yes - it's my trade.
Lawyer: One of the world's oldest, is it not?
Jeweller: I don't really see what that has to do with it.
Lawyer: Isn't it true, Mr. Jeweller, that you handed over Jewellery to over 20 people that day already?
Jeweller: Yes, because they paid for it.
Jeweller: Yes, because they paid for it.
Lawyer: Aha! So you admit, you charge people money for jewellery.
Jeweller: Yes but what -
Lawyer: Is it not a fact that many people give Jewellery as gift?
Jeweller: Yes, all the time.
Lawyer: So is it not possible, that my client, having seen over 20 people walk in a walk away with jewellery that day, assumed that you were happy to give it away? You certainly showed enthusiasm when giving it away to other people.
Jeweller: Of course I was! They paid for it.
Lawyer: Yes, yes, we're all aware of what you're willing to do for money now, but how was my client expected to know? And is it not true that you had an abundance of jewellery on display that day?
Jeweller: Yes! It's how I let customers know what I have for sale.
Lawyer: A lot of people are much more careful with their jewellery. They put it in safety deposit boxes, or hide it. Such a flagrant display is bound to attract attention is it not?
Jeweller: That's the point of it!
Lawyer: Aha! So you admit deliberately flaunting your wares in order to attract clientele?
Jeweller: Yes but -
Lawyer: Surely if you wanted to keep your jewellery, you should have been more circumspect with it.
Jeweller: Yes, but that's not the point! I charge for jewellery! When I objected to your client taking it, he put a gun in my face!
Lawyer: But surely, if you wanted to avoid violence, you should have chosen a profession less prone to violent, dangerous situations.
Jeweller: (breaks down in tears)
No comments:
Post a Comment