Dear George Galloway

Trigger warning: This post links to descriptions of rape

Dear George Galloway,

Let me start by saying I admire your unending capacity to be a premium-grade tosser. Whether it’s getting snuggly with all-round fuckbags like Saddam Hussein and Assad, or whether it’s you claiming that gay people executed in Iran have committed “sex crimes”, I am perpetually impressed by your ability to fart around like an arseweasel and not have found yourself with an icepick lodged firmly in your occipital lobes.

Anyway, given your previous track record, I can’t say I was surprised when I noticed you defending Julian Assange. You’re both egomaniacal wankers in a similar manner, and you’d probably be well placed to form a comedy duo in a sitcom. By sitcom, of course I mean “gulag”.

The thing is, Gorgeous George, you seem to have got some facts twisted in chumming up to St Julian. You said “if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don’t constitute rape.” Now, while I fully appreciate your right to defend anyone you like and forge links with Ecuador’s future propaganda minister, there’s a few minor factual inaccuracies in what you’re saying.

Let’s start with the small stuff, that you’re coming across of something of a shitbadger by repeating tired old toss about this magical way of “verifying” rape allegations with some sort of “objective proof”. That isn’t how it works, and it’s kind of creepy that you think people should film their sexual encounters all the time. I mean, I know you don’t mind arsing around in a leotard pretending to be a cat, but really, George, exhibitionism isn’t for everyone. The fact of the matter is, decent people know there’s no such thing as this mythical “objective proof”.

And that’s precisely because of things people like you are saying, George. See, the allegations definitely do constitute rape. Let’s have a little look at what your pal Julian is accused of:

  • On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
  • On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
  • On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
  • On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
  • It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.”

So, the first point outlines pinning a woman down in order to force her into sexual activity. The second is tricking a woman into sexual activity to which she had not consented. The third is non-consensual–albeit non-penetrative–sexual activity. The fourth is having sex with a woman who is completely unable to consent. The fifth is exactly the same as the second.

You’ll notice, George, that the recurring theme throughout all of this is that the women were not consenting. There’s a word for sex without consent. Rape.

I find it rather concerning that you dismiss this as merely, as you put it, “bad sexual etiquette”. Bad sexual etiquette is not saying “thank you” before leaving. What Julian Assange is accused of is far more than that. It’s rape, George. It’s rape.

And it’s precisely due to arse-gargling ballfarters like you that this imaginary “objective proof” can’t work. Because there’s always scum like you who refuses to call a rape a rape. You’ll cloud the issues with rancid squid-ink because… actually, I have no idea how this state of affairs could possibly benefit you unless you’re a rapist. Would you explain to me why you so fervently pretend that none of this is rape?

Looking forward to hearing from you!

With contempt,

Stavvers xoxo

P.S. Apologies for the quality of my profanity. It tends towards the surreal when I’m furious.

P.P.S. I retract my remark towards the end of my letter comparing you to a squid. I like squids.

38 thoughts on “Dear George Galloway”

  1. Fucking excellent work, stavvers. I am not too familiar with his life and times but from the little I read about him conclude that he has to be one of the heaviest hitting woman haters of all time. What the fuck is it with these types?

    1. To be fair, he’s also famous for really dodgy race politics and also some pretty murky homophobia. He’s a prolific bell.

  2. You were screaming at the telly too eh?

    Anyway, bitches ain’t shit. Consenting to sex once means consent in perpetuity, innit.

  3. It’s my right to choose what happens to my body!!!

    And if anyone tried to make him do anything he didn’t want to do – or even slightly insulted him – he’d be screaming from the rafters.

  4. World Class. Absolutely World Class. Am looking forward to using my new phrase for the week, ‘arse-gargling ballfarters’. Humor aside, you make great points. Everyone has lost sight of what this is all about – rape, not a hiding in an embassy extradition side show circus.

  5. Offence number three sounds a little strange. I like it when I man does this to me. It’s foreplay in my book.

    Are these accusations actually signed by the two women? Or are these simply prosecutor’s notes?

    1. Now, I’m sure you’ll understand the difference between you “liking something” and consenting to it, and someone else not consenting to it, yes?

      And yes. Those are the allegations.

      1. Sure, but it doesn’t actually say it wasn’t consensual. It just says he did it.

        I know these are the allegations, but are they signed and confirmed by the women?

      2. I know what allegations are. What I’m interested in is who is making them. Are these the allegations of the police/prosecutors/state or the women.

        Did the women sign these statements or refuse to sign them?

          1. Yeah, but stavvers, were the alleged events witnessed by two men in good standing?

            Bitchez lie. They enjoy something then get confused and regret it. They revel in attention, even being called a “lying whore” is like currency to them!

      3. So what am I meant to make of this?

        “To be fair, there is evidence to suggest that at least one of the women was quite distraught to hear that her testimony was being extracted to buttress potential rape charges against Assange: when she realized that this was the goal of Swedish prosecutors, she decided to cut short her cooperation. She has also suggested that she never felt threatened violently by Assange.”

        1. That you also don’t know what rape is because it doesn’t have to be violent. You need to do some learning.

      4. Forget that sentence. It’s the fact that she appears to have withdrawn her co-operation that I’m interested in. And indeed if that’s the case then she may not have signed these allegations off as her own.

        1. In rape cases, it’s quite common to see the survivor downplaying or withdrawing their account when they get dragged through the mud, which has certainly happened to the survivors in this situation. Including, I hasten to add, by George Galloway, who named them.

          It creates an environment wherein survivors capitulate to the pressure of rape culture. That clear things up?

      5. So they’re not her allegations! It’s the state making the allegations based on their own notes of her testimony. Seems like an important point.

        1. They are her allegations which she regrets. Now, this is the last comment of yours I’ll be approving as you’re derailing with irrelevant shit. This happens frequently in threads about rape.

      6. I’m a little confused here. Someone on the internet said one of them withdrew their allegations so now that’s an irrefutable fact?

        Seriously. Learn to logic.

      7. [comment moderated due to being nothing more than a personal attack. And one of those tedious patronising ones too]

  6. Wow. I really like you. Bookmarked your page. This whole affair has become deeply disturbing in the way it’s become some sort of free-for-all have-a-go-at-women clusterfuck. Very depressing. The way the media generally portrays rape has a lot to answer for.

    Galloway has also come out now, by the way, to ‘clarify’ his comments which really amounts to just more strawman-ing in a longer version of all the other Assange spin bullshit to try and discredit these women.

    He shouldn’t be an MP of anything. Certainly not women in his constituency who I’ll presume have to deal with rape on a daily basis (as would be the case for women anywhere). I’ll throw men in as well there – obviously any rape victims. If you’re an MP and you think a straight up definition of rape by any sane agreement is nothing more than ‘sexual bad etiquette’ then I’d probably venture a guess that you’re not really trustworthy for public office.

    Great blog. Thanks.

      1. Here you go. I’m disappointed in the Guardian – this is clearly just a way for all the crap to get some air time. Still, gauging by twitter today and comments elsewhere generally, I think if anything he’s done the anti arsewipe narcissist egomaniac rapist contingent a massive favour. When Galloway climbs on-board, you know you’re on a sinking ship.

  7. [Comment moderated due to irrelevance and personal attacks. Maybe Jacques should have read the comment policy]

  8. Great blog post. I really do think that Bradford West have made a mistake by electing him. He is the type of guy, like Julian Assange, to pursue his own interests, no matter who he hurts or with no care for anyone else on his way in his little mission. This is a man who is supposed to be a Respect MP. I don’t know where the Respect is in his statement on rape!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.