Dissent Magazine - "Todd Akin, Julian Assange, and 'Legitimate Rape'"

[TomCADem]

Thought proving article on Dissent Magazine.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=819

Akin’s use of the word “legitimate” will arguably have longer-term (if subtle and immeasurable) repercussions than his easily debunked magical medical thinking. Outrage over Akin’s term “legitimate rape” has been, rightfully, widespread. This week both the New York Times and the New Yorker published pieces written by editors that noted the significance of Akin’s qualifying adjective.

In her blog, “Close Read,” senior New Yorker editor Amy Davidson asked, “What is ‘illegitimate rape’?” Akin offered some idea when he cosponsored a bill that tried to change language about federal funding for abortions for victims of “rape” to cover only “forcible rape.” And on Monday the New York Times published an editorial explaining that though Akin’s comments had proved embarrassing for many Republicans, his views fit with beliefs of the party’s abortion opponents. Many claim that women who are not really raped would abuse a rape exception to get abortions.

* * *

Another debate about what “really raped” and “not really raped” means is going on at the moment over the four allegations made against Julian Assange by two women in Sweden. These include one allegation that Assange had unprotected sex with a woman without her knowledge (she had specified that she only wished to have sex if a condom was used) and another accusing Assange of beginning sex with a woman who was asleep.

Yesterday the Times published an op-ed written by Michael Moore and Oliver Stone called “WikiLeaks and Free Speech.” The lauded left-wing filmmakers argued that since they believe WikiLeaks to be an important and worthy project, Ecuador, in granting Assange diplomatic asylum in its London embassy, “has acted in accordance with important principles of international human rights.” Presumably, the rights of the women who have accused Assange of sex crimes to see him fairly brought to justice are not covered by Moore and Stone’s version of international human rights. They introduced the allegations using a patronizing mansplaining tone: “Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations of sexual assault in 2010.” Legal expert David Allen Green had already addressed this point and other confusions surrounding the case for the New Statesman on Monday. “[T]o those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged,” he wrote, “the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.” The rest of Moore and Stone’s piece is based on the logic of the myths that Green’s post debunks.

[pnwmom]

1. Do you have a link for this, please? n/t

[TomCADem]

2. Sorry about that.

Editted to add the link.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. This is a link ot David Green's post...just for reference

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[pnwmom]

4. Thank you. That was very interesting. n/t