The NUS know that George Galloway is no rape apologist. But, despite having cast iron proof to that effect, the majority of their NEC voted to smear him as such, and demand students no-platformed him alongside fascists. They now find that they are threatened with legal action. These people are idiots. Had they consulted any competent lawyer they’d realise the clarification from George Galloway’s office put an end to any ambiguity that arose from his podcast.
Galloway’s podcast was ambiguous, and did raise questions as to what he meant. Galloway’s refusal to offer rapid clarification lead to the loss of the leader of his party: Salma Yaqoob. Although I was never a supporter of RESPECT, I am genuinely sorry that they departed on such terms. I am also disappointed that some of George Galloway’s supporters failed to understand the difficulty that he had caused Salma Yaqoob. I blame him for the loss of Salma Yaqoob. In other words, I am far from some fawning sycophant of George Galloway.
However, just because I am critical of Galloway, there is no way I am going to allow him to be falsely accused of being a rape apologist. The idiots and liars on the NUS NEC know that those falsely accused of being rapists get tortured and murdered, often themselves gang raped in prison by gangsters. To accuse someone of being a rape apologist is pretty much a cowardly way of implying they’re potentially a practising rapist. If you think rape is okay, then why not give it a go? So the NUS NEC knew they were inciting cretinous vigilantes to do their worst to George Galloway. Unlike Rupert Murdoch’s pathetic Rebekah Brooks, the NUS NEC did not simply whip up a vigilante mob and then say it wasn’t their fault a paediatrician was targeted by illiterate morons. The NUS NEC knew they were targeting in innocent individual and attempting to use their leadership role of students to mobilise their own mob. Guilty as charged, your honour.
Any ambiguity that arose from his podcast was swept away when his office delivered the clarification he should have issued previously, which would have satisfied Salma Yaqoob. The NUS NEC don’t dispute they read it, but didn’t pay any attention to its contents. Presumably they want to use the podcast to prove their case. But it does no such thing. Why not? The reality is that, given the context of Galloway’s clarification, the original meaning is obvious. Galloway was not suggesting that one party could unilaterally determine when someone had entered the sex game. That would not be a game. That would be a war. It would be sexual assault. And we know from the clarification that Galloway is opposed to that just as much as the rest of us. The reality is, whether we like it or not, not everyone insist on no forms of sexual activity while they are unconscious. I know this from personal experience.
A long time ago a woman asked if I had sex with her while she slept. I was horrified. I thought it was a sick joke. But she wasn’t joking. When she saw how upset I was she accepted it must have been a dream. But she went out of her way to tell me she wasn’t accusing me of anything. She told me if I wanted to do that in the future she wouldn’t mind. I told her I would mind. I never took her up on that offer. But I have little doubt that she found others who were less fussy.
Since Galloway’s intervention, I have heard a gay man on Radio Four (I think it was the PM programme) saying that he had been penetrated many times while he slept and he didn’t complain. He never reported this act as rape because his partner knew he didn’t mind. While consent hadn’t been given immediately prior to the act, there had been prior consent some time previously and both were happy with this arrangement. He also admitted that he had himself done this to others, but only when they both knew what the boundaries were.
So, dear NUS NEC members, should BBC Radio Four be forced to hand to the police the name and address of this gay man so he can be prosecuted for rape, along with all those sex partners who had sex with him while he was unconscious? Anyone who says yes is homophobic, idiotic and reactionary to the core.
What about women? What if a man decided to complain to the police about being sexually abused because he woke to find his partner was performing oral sex? I doubt any man would, but by the logic of the NUS NEC motion all such women should be named and shamed and the victim of the alleged assault be assumed to be telling the truth. Is there any doubt that different people draw up different sets of rules as to what is and is not acceptable? Maybe it is best for either horny partner to wait for the other to become more than a piece of meat to be groped. But if both partners agree to this, who is anyone else to tell them this is sexual assault? Who is the NUS NEC to insist on drawing up rules for other people on what kinds of sex they can consent to?
I don’t think I need to add anything. George Galloway is patently innocent of being a rape apologist. And if the NUS NEC don’t accept this, if they continue to libel him as a rape apologist, and call for the mobilisation of students to no-platform him, then they are idiots of the highest order. It will not be George Galloway’s fault if the courts hands over to him a very substantial sum of money. The NUS NEC office bearers can expect British students to be mightily pissed off at them. I hope they rush through votes of no confidence in the NUS NEC, to protect student money.
But if Galloway feels forced to sue the NUS for libel, I hope he will consider donating a large part of his inevitable award to a rape charity. I would suggest Women against Rape. I would also suggest he gets them on board, calling them as expert witnesses to help prove the NUS NEC motion was indeed libellous, as well as being damaging to victims of rape.