is she getting it?

fnarr fnarr etc etc.  @pennyred, who is a posh girl called Laura I believe, is to be congratulated for trying to get it right on Assange.  Unlike the middle-aged and elderly males of the "international left" (and George Galloway), who have come out in their droves to say that Assange is a hero and that he should therefore not stand to account for the rape he has been accused of, she has tried to say that no-one should have to choose between freedom of speech and respect for women.  Good for her.  It's only shocking that so many appear to believe, without evidence or due process, that Assange must not stand trial in Sweden.  What message does that send, especially to men on the left?  Laura quotes teenage boys in her piece who say that they do not think what Assange is reported to have done was rape.  What is going to happen in teenage bedrooms, cars and the car parks of night clubs as a result of this?  Does anyone care?  Well, Laura seems to, and I am pleased about that.  Read on in her piece in the Independent (link higher up) and you will see that she says "I believe women".  Well, I don't.  We tell lies.  We shouldn't, but we do.  All humans do from time to time, although we try not to.  Always believing women who accuse men of rape ruins the lives of innocent men, and those of their families and people who love them.  Never  believing them, which is what the elderly male left are telling us to do, creates a world in which women become pieces of property.  Which is obscene.  Laura is tying herself in knots here, but she doesn't need to.  Believing in freedom of speech, and believing that women have the right to the integrity of their own bodies, are not mutually contradictory beliefs.  And Laura is straying on to territory in which that is how they are seen.  And then she spoils herself by saying this:

The answer is, of course, that Julian Assange should be held to account, of course he should, and he should be held to account in a system where due process means something and women are respected, and currently that system does not exist. Come back to me when the 19,000 annual sex attacks committed by members of the US Army and private contractors against their fellow soldiers are prosecuted. Come back to me when Private Bradley Manning is free.

he should be held to account in a system where due process means something and women are respected, and currently that system does not exist  Er, yes it does, Laura, in quite a number of places in the world, and one of them is Sweden.
Come back to me when the 19,000 annual sex attacks committed by members of the US Army and private contractors against their fellow soldiers are prosecuted. Why?  Rape and sexual assault happen all over the world, all the time.  They're not worse when committed by the US military.  I would argue that they are worse when committed, say, against girls in Afghanistan who then have the "choice" of marrying their rapist or being killed by their family.
Come back to me when Private Bradley Manning is free. Why?  He shouldn't be released, not now.  He is to be charged with very serious offences against national security.  What he should have is due process, and the US government, and President Obama, should hang their heads in shame that he has not had it.  They have other things to hang their heads in shame about too, not least failing to intervene in Syria, but that is for another post.

So, Laura, a good try, and your heart seems to be in the right place, but don't spoil it with meaningless anti-Americanism.  Intellectual honesty is not that hard to achieve, if you only try.

what the Guardian doesn't want you to read

they've refused to publish this statement, so I will.  I got it from ITV, so who is the Filth hiding it from?

imprisoned for information

Hossein Roneghi Maleki

this man is serving a 16-year prison sentence for creating proxies to help those opposed to the regime in Iran have access to information on the internet.  As Harry's Place reminds us, the "green" protests died down rather after his arrest, because the opposition was fuelled by information and contact with the outside world.  Those outside Iran who have contact with Iran, who go there, who take its money (George Galloway) are better placed than most to call for the release of this man.  Anyone?  Anyone? (sound of tumbleweed).
When will the illiberal-minded, in the West as well as in totalitarian regimes like that in Iran, learn that you can't shut down knowledge, or information.  Even in the darkest days of Soviet terror, even in the gulags, well before there was the internet, there were clandestine leaflets and newsletters.  There may even be such things in North Korea today.  In Cuba people find ways to speak, and to read, and to be heard (step forward, Yoani Sanchez).  The mullahs can lock up one man, but they can't stop it.  Their days are numbered.

There have been disgracefully illiberal attempts in the West too, to close down the internet.  Laughable, I know,but such eminent figures as Jack Straw (whom I admire) have lent their name to such things, including the Dangerous Pictures act (remember that?), promoted by Martin Salter, which criminalises the depiction on line of acts which would be perfectly legal if actually depicted on film in a cinema.  Because we must Shut Down Teh Internetz.  It's easy to be flippant about such things when you live in a country where there is, more or less, free speech and freedom of information.  Nobody is going to put me in prison and threaten my family, whatever I say.