George Galloway has made his position clear on rape: no means no. Unconscious women (and men, btw) cannot give consent to any specific act while they remain unconscious. However, what Galloway said originally that created so many problems for him, was NOT wrong. It is not wrong provided his meaning is understood.
Galloway has to be held primarily responsible for not appreciating how what he said would be understood. He has paid a very heavy price for this, with the loss of Salma Yaqoob and a witch hunt from NUS careerists clutching at any straws to defend Ed Miliband’s wretched apologetics for NATO’s war crimes and attacks on students and defence of capitalist austerity. These NUS careerists are gambling away students’ money to get revenge for Respect’s utterly humiliating Labour at Bradford West and to ensure there are no more alternatives to Ed Miliband’s candidates. Any socialist who is ignorant of this fact needs to get up to speed. And pronto.
George Galloway has on more than one occasion made ambiguous statements and then refused to dig himself out of the mess he’s created as fast as he should have, as fast as a sensible politician would: the indefatigability saluting is by far the most notorious example of that. But when George Galloway spoke about people entering the sex game, he was referring to a game, not a war. It takes two (or more) to voluntarily play a game, and they have to agree to the rules and when it is over. Anyone who he thinks he/she can make a decision about when others enter the ‘sex game’ is a potential rapist. Anyone who acts upon such nonsense will have committed rape. However, we know for a fact that there are people who do accept a certain amount of sexual contact from a partner when they are asleep. That is a fact known to the police, Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, to defense and prosecution lawyers alike. Such people have given prior consent, even if many of us think they are playing with fire and they should never have offered such consent.
Anyone who engages in penetrative sex without such prior consent, merely hoping the unconscious person won’t mind all that much, is effectively a rapist. Julian Assange may fall into that category. We simply do not know. No one who wasn’t there knows that although those engaging in witch hunts against both Julian Assange and George Galloway don’t care about evidence. All they need are allegations.
If George Galloway was apologising for those who have sex without consent, then he IS a rape apologist. But the communications sent by his office to the NUS NEC prior to their libeling him as a rape apologist makes it obvious that George Galloway was not apologising for such people. George Galloway is therefore not a rape apologist. All of those who pretend he is are committing libel. Each and every one of them are guilty of the serious crime of whipping up a lynch mob. And they all know perfectly well that such lynch mobs are irrational, and they put their boots and razor blades where the NUS NEC majority’s mouths are. Those who have misidentified George Galloway as a propagandist for sex criminals are beneath contempt. They should be driven from office.