Detective Gregory: Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Sherlock Holmes: To the curious incident of the two Swedish women withdrawing their accusation against Julian Assange.
Detective Gregory: But the Swedish women didn't withdraw their accusation.
Sherlock Holmes: That was the curious incident.
(With apologies to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his fine work.)
OK, I'm wading into a political minefield here, and I'm sure to hear accusations that I'm trivialising rape.
Nonsense. There are rape cases (I dare not use the word "legitimate" now that Todd Akin has soiled it in pro-life idiocy), and then there are rape cases where there are wheels within wheels. Only the incorrigibly naive would imagine that the Julian Assange case has no wheels within star-spangled wheels. (Do click on that link.)
As an exercise, I did what we are always exhorted to do in these circumstances - put myself in the shoes of Assange's two accusers for a few moments. What must those two women be feeling?
No one is making the case that Assange may have committed rape of the hostile, violent kind. The violation here, if any, is much more nuanced. Obviously, I don't know all the gory details, so my role-play is somewhat hobbled by my ignorance, but if I was a woman who thought Julian Assange went back on a commitment with me to use a condom (or something on that scale) and therefore filed a case against him for not doing so, what must I be thinking now when the whole issue has assumed the proportions of a major diplomatic crisis? Would I stay silent after all that has happened?
I think I would step forward and say, "Hey guys, this is being blown out of proportion. Julian went back on a commitment to me, but seeing that this has now led to him having to seek asylum in Ecuador and to the UK threatening to storm the Ecuadorian embassy, I think it's better I withdraw my case. I'm flattered as hell that my face is launching a thousand ships, so to speak, but I do have a sense of proportion and I think we should end this farce now. I still maintain that the guy played dirty with me, but this is ridiculous! I'm withdrawing my case. Sorry for all the trouble."
The fact that neither of these women has done this says to me that this is another curious incident of the dog in the night-time. Why isn't the dog barking?
I drew a cartoon to show what I think is happening with the two women (identified only as A and W).
The most charitable explanation is that they imagine they've mounted a tiger and can't get off now.
The more sinister explanation is that somebody has used them as a front and also kept them from backing out by putting the fear of Gaad into them, if you get my drift (I can't help remembering the limerick that goes "...at the end of the ride, the lady was inside, and the smile on the face of the tiger - Monkhouse").
What am I smoking? There is a site called "People OK with murdering Assange". The term "fatwa" is too mild for what these people are saying, and they're dead serious. This is an obese-wa from the land of the obese. The same UK that protected Salman Rushdie from an Iranian fatwa now seems eager to see Assange fall victim to the US one.
The more sinister explanation is that somebody has used them as a front and also kept them from backing out by putting the fear of Gaad into them, if you get my drift (I can't help remembering the limerick that goes "...at the end of the ride, the lady was inside, and the smile on the face of the tiger - Monkhouse").
What am I smoking? There is a site called "People OK with murdering Assange". The term "fatwa" is too mild for what these people are saying, and they're dead serious. This is an obese-wa from the land of the obese. The same UK that protected Salman Rushdie from an Iranian fatwa now seems eager to see Assange fall victim to the US one.
Just because this is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it isn't true...
No comments:
Post a Comment