George Galloway: A statement from the editor

by Aug 22, 2012 84 Comments

George Galloway is no longer a columnist for Holyrood magazine and the reasons for that, I would have thought, are fairly obvious. Galloway has always courted controversy and while I have not always agreed with some of his views, I have admired him for staying true to his original political beliefs and particularly for his stance over Iraq. I had always felt that in an increasingly bland and corporate political world, he added some colour and was often an effective thorn in the side of the establishment. If nothing else, he provoked debate which is healthy. However, his recent outpourings about definitions of rape have left me, frankly gobsmacked. There is no excuse, ever, for sex without consent and regardless of the details of the Assange case, Galloway’s comments and inappropriate language about rape per se are alarming. I had hoped he might have taken the last 24 hours to reflect on his judgement and perhaps make some kind of public apology but that has not been apparent, far from it. So, it is with some very genuine regret that I have asked him to no longer write his column for the magazine.

Mandy Rhodes Mandy Rhodes

Mandy Rhodes is Managing Editor of Holyrood Communications. Mandy is editor of the flagship title Holyrood magazine and responsible for the editorial content of all other associated titles and products. Mandy graduated from StirlingUniversity in the early 1980s with a joint Honours degree in Scottish History and Sociology. She trained on a local newspaper in Wester Hailes and completed her journalism training at Napier University. She has worked for nearly 30 years in journalism in Scotland in newsprint, television and radio broadcasting and was part of the launch team of Scotland on Sunday. She has won numerous awards over the years including PPA Magazine Editor of the Year, Feature Writer of the Year and Columnist of the year. She was social...


  1. voidgrab

    Lang may yer Lum reek.

    I assume some Vituperation is being warmed up for hurling in your direction. Doubtless he will simply continue with the Blatherings he dignifies with the name of a Podcast, so don't feel you are denying the World his Wisdom.

    I am entirely supportive, for one, of your reasons for this decision. It also irritated me that he referred to the Women's "questionable Sexual history". In the event George one day comes across a Lock Forward who has been carrying a Torch for him these last 20 years, he might just be annoyed if a Desk Sergeant later said "Well what do you want me to do about it, Sir? You've a pretty questionable Sexual History after all"

    The World is better for fewer Mysoginists

  2. @Neuro_Skeptic

    "George Galloway is no longer a columnist for Holyrood magazine and the reasons for that, I would have thought, are fairly obvious."

    Mandy, you should just have left it at that. Then this statement would have been quite perfect.

  3. @mylastsong

    I agree with every word apart from the split infinitive at the end,

  4. Kieth

    A complete and hysterical overreaction. He was speaking his mind. Shame on your totalitarian mores

    • LeslieC

      Witness the tyranny of the majority and bending to it. Rhodes and her ilk are, as Galloway suggested, robbing the word "rape" of its meaning. Not a defense of Assange, but note that he is wanted for questioning, he has not been charged with rape or anything else. One man opines on this, and is fired? Where is the presumption of innocence? Certainly not in Rhodes' unprofessional little fit.

    • Sask

      Spoken like somebody who never has been raped and doesn't particularly fear eer being so.

      Funny how people with no knowledge or empathy think they get to dictate the terms of the conversation.

  5. Iain H

    Good! The man shouldn't be given any more publicity.

  6. @seriounsly

    Can I please take his place? I assure you, I have some controversial views myself. Equality being one of them …

  7. Duchess of Hackney

    George Porgy you can guest blog on mine, it would increase my traffic and because I half agree with you about Assange and rape.

  8. Craig McGarry

    There is a lot to admire with George but this time his arrogance (again ok in small, appropriate amounts) has got the better of him. He is basically saying "look, I know better than the rest of you" Dangerous for anyone, suicidal for a politician.

  9. Guido Fawkes

    So you sacked a columnist because you disagreed with him.

  10. Trinda

    good to hear this. He thrives with attention, he craves it. His column wasn't very enlightening anyway. I am appalled by his views on rape having been raped myself.

  11. T Balmforth

    I am no fan of George Galloway or his views but I believe you do your publication few favours by taking a partial stance as editor. There is already a surfeit of reactive feminism and not enough commonsense.

  12. flossiesdoll

    Thank you very much for this. Although it's never good to hear someone has lost a job, I'm pleased that someone is taking a stand against a man who uses his position to promote rape culture.

    • LeslieC

      Galloway did no such thing you puffed up slanderer.

    • Elle

      he never promoted rape at all. this is hysterical nonsense. He questioned whether it constituted rape if the sex was consensual and they had entered into a sexual situation for the man to then assume it was ok to have sex again. The woman went on to have more dates with Assange and tweet that she was with the coolest man. So George was asking a question not saying rape was ok. again people jump on the band wagon to vilify George Galloway

  13. Kate

    WELL DONE. This is such an important action to take; rape apologists in any form whatsoever cannot be accepted. Thank you for standing up, not only for all the hundreds of thousands of women who have been raped but for all right-thinking human beings. I'm seriously impressed and heartened.

    • tony

      He didn't apologise for rape and it is childish of you to suggest so. I would assume that you have not seen his podcast – in fact many of the people against have not seen the podcast. It has been cherry picked by his opposers and the words they have taken out have made him sound like a bigot.

      Have a listen and then come back….

      • Kay

        You need to look up what 'rape apologist' means.

      • RHF

        He didn't apologise, he excused and trivialised. I pity any woman who has to lay beside him.

      • sp79

        no, he didnt apologise for rape, he flat out denied it was rape.

      • Lee

        I think you need to look up 'apologism' in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with apologising.

      • Sask

        No, you're right. He denied rape, as described by the warrant, had even happened. In direct opposition to what the law says and what has been decided by the Supreme Court, as well as what any right thinking person would believe. He George Galloway has redefined rape law to say that once a woman has given consent once, a man can have sex with her forever after, her consent and her sexual health and her right to pregnancy are now defunct.

        What he also did was try to further undermine the credibility of the accusers.

        He did this for completely partisan reasons.

        He should not only have been sacked from this paper, he should be sacked as an MP and he should face sanctions. What he did was highly irresponsible, might well prove to have been incitement.

  14. David

    Its a shame you guys turned to the dark side and sided with the forces of darkness, we wont be reading your pants paper again….

  15. Adrian Boar

    You cowards!

  16. Ness

    Good riddance!

  17. Diane Langford

    Thank you for taking this decision. Galloway and others have tried to set up a false dichotomy between those who oppose imperialism and those who oppose rape! It's important not to let this stand as imperialism and rape are part of the same patriarchal, regressive and brutal world order.

  18. blottedcopybook

    I'm very proud that your stance has been so swiftly clarified, thank you.

  19. Jenny Kemp

    The right decison. Very pleased to hear it.

  20. tony

    I personally thought the man was simply stating his opinions and did so in a most articulate and balanced manner. He stated that once in a relationship certain mannerisms are not as necessary as it would be if they were complete strangers. There are countless times that 'i've made love to my girlfriend in the middle of the night without the need to ask her permission or send her a text message.

    If indeed she asked me to stop then we would stop and clear up the issues. She has woken me to make love and vice versa.

    Holyrood should be ashamed of themselves for bending over to the elite classes. Nevertheless, you have only enhanced his status as a soon to be Martyr.

    • Gerard

      Martyrdom sort of requires death.

      He's lost a paying gig. Boo hoo.

      His comments were entirely objectionable and he can easily survive the loss of revenue. I'm sure that he has an adequacy of leotards already bought.

    • Karen

      Think that's the difference! You woke your girlfriend to make love – Assange just carried on while this woman was asleep – that's rape!!!

    • Est

      Assange wasn't 'In a relationship' with the women, they had just met. The behaviour you have described between yourself and your woman comes out of trust through time spent together. It is not the same! The allegations are that the woman woke up to find him inside her and did indeed ask him to stop and he didn't, she then attempted to reach for a condom and he grabbed her arm and pinned her back. Does this sound like the sort of romantic midnight encounter you are referring to? I doubt it!
      You may have woken your woman to make love but I bet if you had just met and she woke to find you already inside her without a condom on she wouldn't find it OK.
      Comparing experience from an intimate relationship to that of 2 people who just met is absurd. Not all rape is committed down a dark alleyway by complete strangers, educate yourself because you sound like a rape apologist!

    • Eager Wally Gogo

      Genuine question – do you really not see any difference between you and your girlfriend waking each other to make love, and a man having sex with a sleeping woman (who he barely knew and had had sex with for the first time earlier that night)?

      FYI – I have seen the podcast.

  21. Comment Game

    You can't kick him out. You said yes to him once and now he's in the 'column game'.

  22. DC75

    I don't agree with what his views on what constitutes rape, but I don't think he deserves to lose his column because of it. Also, if you look at the reactions to what he said yesterday he's now opened a debate about what is and what isn't rape – which ironically is pretty healthy I'd have thought. And as for 'promoting rape culture' – if that isn't a hideous over-reaction, then I don't know what is. Good luck finding someone who has the ability to rattle the wasps nest like George frequently does – I have a feeling you'll struggle to find someone with the same profile.

  23. Nikki MacLeod

    Well done

  24. Radguy

    How about we throw in a humanist angle to broaden the definition beyond the "feminist" angle. It could be considered rape if a man specifically requests female contraception and consensual sex follows resulting in pregnancy. There are parallels with the no condom definition. I'm OK with both of these because both instances result in potentially undesirable consequences originating from a breach of consent.

    I think dismissing Galloway is a bit harsh unless he was unwilling to accept that we shouldn't really be talking about the alleged victim/s. I doubt that we would be, had an independent judicial officer (ie: a judge or oher independent suitably qualified individual) had assessed the warrant, as subject to this, I doubt the details would have been leaked. This would have prevented most of the distasteful mud slinging, and the warrant would not have been issued if an IJO had considered the allegations spurious.

  25. Janice

    Galloway's comments were not "alarming." They were simply a point of view. The idea that the word "rape" should not be diluted is a reasonable position. Indeed, it is a position held by many feminists.

    This action says more about Holyrood and its editors than it says about Galloway. I certainly won't be hurrying back to these pages.

  26. william mckinlay

    George Galloway is a blatant opportunist/ 'tiddlywinker' and all round political-fake -why you employed him in the first instance, is beyond the ken of most sensible folk ! Having said that , at the first sign of 'heat' , you lot have sacked him and cut and run ! which tells us all plenty about you and your high sounding so called principles ! Cowards !

  27. Tom Stanger

    Unlike most people including you Ms Rhodes George Galloway has actually looked into this matter, as would have been glaringly obvious if you'd bothered to so a little research by actually watching the podcast! Galloway by no means makes light of the actions of Julian Assagne, and scorns him publicly!

    You on the other hand bow down to public media, do no research into this and try to claim a moral high ground out of pure ignorance! Mr Assagne is NOT accused of rape, and a little research would have proven to you that BOTH women involved in this matter were publicly boasting of their sexual "Conquest" after the event and only very shortly before going to the police with these accusations!

    Now if I can find that out via a brief internet search I'm sure you as a so-called professional would have no problem? It seems however that investigative journalism is beyond your talents!

    Shame on you Ms Rhodes, I trust your resignation is in the post!

  28. MaskedSupermodel

    Well done, I commend your decision. Sadly all too many people still think that it's only rape if it happens down a dark alley with a stranger.

    The law is very clear on this subject – rape is sex without consent. You cannot give your consent if you are asleep.

  29. Jennifer

    Sacking someone for speaking their mind rather than speaking what power expects her/him to say is surely a sign of the times.

    Galloway's remarks were fumbled and unfortunate, but anyone in their right mind would not leap to the grotesque conclusion that he is therefore a rape apologist. How silly. Or, rather, how political…. It begins to sound like a hate crime to make such a serious accusation.

    Rape is a crime, but so too are false accusations. And it is no less a crime to misrepresent someone's intentions and manipulate language, and hijack high profile cases like this in order to perpetuate campaigns of gender hatred. Britain already has enough of the rhetoric of 'every man is a latent rapist' to make us all want to vomit.

    What I took from his words were that in complacent societies such as ours, it has become all too easy to use sex (and call it rape) to target and bring a man or woman into disrepute. And it has become all too easy to change the game and its goalposts to do that, to the point that you might as well forget sex unless you've got written permission from your lawyers.

    In either case, Galloway's words say one thing, and that is that there could never possibly be any justice for Assange now, because we have all somehow leaped to the conclusion and prejudged him as guilty. Galloway seems to have realized this, as surely as Assange and his supporters have. Rape stigmatizes in a way that nobody can any longer deny it without themselves being accused a rape apologist.

    Sad day for male-female relations. Victorious day for those who commit hate crimes and have vested interests in promoting the idea that all men are potential abusers.

    You undermine the laudable efforts of feminism when you judge consensual sex as rape in order to target innocent men. I'm surprised more feminists (women and men alike) have not been more vocal against the scurrilous media thugs who rob the word rape of all meaning and do violence to those men and women who really have been raped (or forced to have sex non-consensually).

    • GRE

      Rates of conviction for rape (and indeed of reporting it to the police in the first place) are shockingly low in Britain. It is not true to say that it is 'easy' to convict someone of rape.

  30. Fantail

    Brilliant. Well done. There is far too much rape apologism at the moment and not nearly enough time spent challenging the attitudes that lead men to rape and convicting rapists themselves.

  31. Dr Margaret

    excellent decision. there are still men in the world/scotland that don't understand…. so we need to continue to 'educate'…though some are beyond educating!

  32. Lilith Moon

    I'm a femminist, Ive worked with abused women. I watched the pod cast by Galloway, there were some things he said that he should have clarified a bit more, and where put across insensitivly, but, in this case, if the information coming out about the acusations is indeed true, then he was pretty much right, and he was talking about this case, he was not talking about women who are unconsious due to alchol who can't give consent, the woman involved was 'half asleep' (according to reports of what she actually said in her statement) if she was actually asleep, she woke up and continued to consent. Given this was a brief affair and he didnt know her very well, then it was as Galloway said in his pod cast, very bad maners, but it wasnt rape..

  33. Lilith Moon

    I belive from the reports, at no time have either woman said sex was without consent. Galloway should have thought a bit more about how he was going to word his pod cast so things couldnt be taken the wrong way, but he didnt, but that doesnt mean what he did say was wrong. People will hear what they want to hear, and lots of people dont like Galloway so have jumped on it. Taking the attention from the real issue of supression of our freedom to speak out on corrupt govenments

  34. @BelindaGraham6

    "There is no excuse, ever, for sex without consent and regardless of the details of the Assange case"

    Oh please! The woman consented to sex with him the night before and neither left the bed afterwards nor threw him out of it. What is a man to do? Ask for written consent before each and every session?

    If this isn't a set up, the likelihood is, as in other similar cases, that she expected a relationship out of a one night stand and when she was given her marching orders or he didn't call, she decided to cry rape.

    It all smacks of the type of case that shouldn't even be entertained in a three ring circus, never mind a court of law.

  35. Freya

    Thank you for taking a strong stand on these appalling comments. I am noticing that women support this more than men. What does that say about sexist attitudes in Scotland today where domestic violence is high? What a can of worms this has opened.

    To save us all guessing, Assange should go to Sweden and face his accusers. What is he afraid of? The truth? If he is innocent or guilty or there was a misunderstanding, let the Swedish court decide. It's a gross insult to the Swedish justice system to doubt its integrity.

    This crap about extradition to the US is a crock. Firstly there is no extradition request from the US. Secondly, if there was, Sweden wouldn't send him if there was a possibility he could face a death sentence.

    • Guest

      His "accusers" have dropped the case, as has Sweden. It was the Swedish politicians, on behest of the US govt., no doubt, who has reopened it. Have you heard the way we are questioning folks post 9/11 in the US, by the way? No wonder Assange wants to avoid that.

    • Guest

      By the way, I am not Scottish (American woman) nor do I support domestic abuse! Your inability to distinguish between the highly political nature of Assange's case and domestic abuse is saddening.

  36. Craig

    Mandy, you are a disgrace. Cowardly behaviour.

  37. paul

    Surely the solution would be to campaign for a law that makes any sex outside of marriage a criminal offence ? And as for sex within marriage, if the participants wished to engage in sexual activity, a written contract, signed by both parties, and witnessed by a disinterested party, would avoid some of the confusion about consent. Finally, to avoid consent assumed to be given when one or both parties are under the influence of alcohol, a simple breathalyser test, similar to the equipment required to be carried when driving in France, would ensure the parties were of sober and sound mind prior to the sexual activity.

  38. Richard Harwood

    So, no freedom of expression at Holyrood then. Galloway doesn't know the full details of the accusations against Assange, but then neither does the editor of Holyrood. That being so, he merely offered a personal commentary on what is actually on record. That's what free speech is about. And censorship – well, that's what the editor of Holyrood is about.

  39. Bill

    So another blow for ultra feminists against a dissenting left wing voice. You should feel proud.

  40. Jim O'Donnell

    Mandy, I somehow fancy, that Mr Galloway, will manage to delve deep inside his indefatigable reservoir of resilience, and resolute self-conviction, and stagger-on, regardless of "Holyrood's" indulgence, or indeed, your own inconsequential imprimatur. Perhaps the credentials of "sexier" copy/candidates, such as Alistair Campbell, would be more in keeping with your delicate sensibilities, and journalistic de jure/licence…:-)

  41. Spicy

    From the bottom of my heart – thank you. To this rape survivor, who has spent that past week reliving the trauma all over again despite the decades since, it means a lot to have someone take a stand against rape apologists.

  42. Tamara Bumpdeay

    Ah Tony, thank goodness there is no significant difference between intimate familiars and intimate strangers, eh?

  43. Anthony

    Galloway simply gave his definition as to what he thinks rape is not, if you listen to the video it is all there.

    And the question regarding Assange is not about the definition of rape it’s about whether he raped her at all…(an accusation he vehemently denies) what use is there for us to squabble and scream about the definition of rape when there may very well have been no rape in the first place? She claims he ‘pinned her down and didnt stop when she asked him to’.

    If indeed this happened and he raped her then why did she take him to a BBQ the next day? Why did she tweet after the BBQ that she’s having a great time with ‘smart and cool people’?

    Heck, why did she take him home AGAIN and have more sex with him AGAIN on more than several occasions and yet when she finally complained to the police she was complaining about the INITIAL sexual experience some several sexual experiences ago…These women are an insult to true rape victims and they give them a bad name. Galloway was indeed right about this.

  44. Anthony

    Sacking him is a disgusting and despicable act which is cowardly and supine. He is a man who has given his point of view based on the statements of the alleged victims themselves and based on lawyers,
    policemen and friends of the people involved. Holyrood believe they are heroic by sacking the man and people are supposed to think they are some kind of do-gooders who are speaking for the masses.

    Shame on you.

  45. Elle

    Shame Mandy I thought more of you. Have you actually listened to all of what George said. You will regret this decision as there is much more to this than meets the eye. You have fallen into a trap of joining the powers that be who would like to silence both Galloway and Assange. Or have you?

  46. couchtripper

    I've never seen so many comments on an article on this site. Well done you for jumping on the bandwagon for a dollop of publicity.

    As for those who think Galloway will go quietly into the night – haha.

  47. LeslieC

    Holyrood are cowards, won't publish responses critical of Ms Rhodes' professionalism in this matter, but permit repeated slander of Mr Assange and Mr Galloway. Shame.

  48. LeslieC

    Rhodes never discussed this matter with Galloway, and so the public firing is self-serving and unprofessional. One need but skim a couple of her articles here to realize that this woman can't write well, only by slandering Galloway and Assange (who has not been charged with any crime) has she succeeded in bringing activity to a Holyrood comments page. Shameful.

  49. Rose

    I am a woman and, more importantly, a victim of rape, unlike the majority of those who are passing judgement on Gorgeous George for his controversial comments. I was raped at the age of 15 and it was a hateful, violent, aggressive rape by a much older, married man who I did not want to have any kind of sexual relationship with. I was not sleeping contently with this man after having had mutually enjoyable sex with him as 'Woman A' was when her lover, allegedly, woke up and restarted their sex play. To call this rape is to belittle the trauma of real rape victims and to make it even harder for us to be taken seriously and treated fairly. Keep telling it like it is Georgie!

  50. Molly

    Another survivor here. Thankyou for dispatching this rape apologist.

  51. Hibou

    By equating Assange's conduct with rape you do a great disservice to the thousands of women who suffer abusive sex in the UK and elsewhere. When men are charged with rape on insufficient evidence to convict, it discourages women from even attempting to obtain justice.

    It seems very unlikely that Julian Assange could be convicted of rape in the UK according to reports of what happened. So why sack George Galaway for stating what may well be correct under Scottish law ? At least it is a credible opinion.

    Even in Sweden, the prosecutor at first dropped the case because she didn't think she could convict on the evidence, and it was only taken up again at the insistence of politicians. Assange has still not been charged with anything.

    The women concerned only went to the police when they found that Assange had slept with both of them within days. They asked that he be tested for HIV, not that he be charged with rape.

    I hope you will re-instate George Galway. Even if we do not always agree with what he says, as you wrote, "he provoked debate, which is healthy".

  52. Lark

    Can I add that although I do think that Julian Assange was very likely set up although we don't know that for certain, people need to separate that from the comments George Galloway made about rape and his views towards Assange. Agai,n as somebody who was attacked, in a way even Mr. Galloway would agree was rape, I can't think that it's any less worse if your partner initiates sex while you are asleep, which ever gender you are and if you say no they ignore your wishes. Either gender can say no at any point as far as I'm concerned. The whole media reaction this week has caused me a lot of pain. It worse as I suspect Mr. Galloway was just saying it to keep himself in the limelight and to court controversy so thank you for dropping him.

  53. Sask

    For those who say he was just stating an opinion, I would say none wasn't. He was inciting rape by excusing it and denying it and redefining it. His words are like manna from heaven to men out there who only need the approval of others to do what they do. I have already seen numerous men parrot them when exusing their own rapey behaviour on forums. His words will also have made the c'imstefoe reporting rape that but harder. His words have done genuine damage.

    George Galloway is entitled to an opinion, but he is not entitled to promote his opinion, especially when his opinion is demonstrably false, ignorant and utterly irresponsible and harmful.

  54. Sask

    What is very depressing and very revealing that across the Internet it's men who are making light of these allegations, joking about them, dismissing them, taunting women with them, admitting to having done mailable things themselves many times.. If that didn't tell us all we need to know about why sacking Galloway was the right response, I don't know what does.

  55. Jennifer

    You have done the appropriate thing. It's good to know there are decent publications out there with morality, as this is such a rarity nowadays. Anyone who disagrees with your decision needs to take a long hard look at their behaviour.
    Thank you for giving hope that the dreadful crime of rape will one day be addressed. George Galloway has revealed to everyone his beliefs which are unacceptable to any decent person.

  56. ariane

    Having sex with someone without consent is, and always will be, the same as inflicting violence on them without their consent. In fact, it is worse. Forcibly inserting a part of your body into another is violence.

    • Guest

      That is absurd. I have been married to my husband for 5 years. Are you stating that we need explicit consent every time we have sex or else we are raping each other? After a consensual sexual relationship has begun, human nature implies consent unless a "No" phrase is clearly verbalized. She never said no to Assange. Read the supposed victims actual statement before commenting, please!

  57. ariane

    Thank you for tasking stance against the alarming rise in misogyny. The more we simply allow behaviour of this kind to go unremarked upon the more it will become the norm. And that won't be good for anyone.

    • guest

      I'm a woman. You are accusing Galloway of hating all women because he thinks what Assange did is not rape? That is absurd. Clearly, you can't discuss the details of the actual case, you simply parrot explosive phrases, like "misogyny". I resent the damage this does to real cases of rape and genuine feminism. Shame on you.

  58. Guest


    I'm a woman.

    I have been sexually assaulted and molested before, several times, in ways that were definitively against my wishes (such as a drunk boss who was twice my age pawing me) and ways that were more gray. Every time was quite unpleasant and scary.

    I support Assange and based on what the "victim" said, the fact that she was not scared, had not explicitly said no, and dropped charges, defining this as rape is hooey and a revolting disservice to women who have truly been molested. Anyone who disputes this, should read the actual statements.

    But even if it was true, Galloway is still entitled to his opinion and shame on Holyrood for sacking him. Who owns Holyrood anyway? Needless to say, that here, in the US, our "news" comes basically all from 5 massive conglomerates, 6 if you could NBC. That tally includes PBS and NPR. You have 5 or 6 CEOs who basically single-handedly control the flow of what most people around here consider "news". So clearly, opinions are bought and sold all the time. Clearly, Holyrood is now in that camp as well.

    Furthermore, I'm an American. So I happen to know how crazy the US is regarding Assange, how Sarah Palin has bragged that if she had been President Wikileaks wouldn't have been tolerated (basically implying she'd consider torture or whatever to stop it) and that when folks such as Sen. Liebermann suggest a kill switch and censoring abilities (because, after all, in his words, "China has it", so we should too), it is people like Assange that they have in mind. To imply that this is all about consent and not about sequestering free information is absurd.

    Clearly, Ms. Rhodes' opinion is a slap in the face to real rape victims and a pandering to this American farce!

  59. Ricardo

    I do not know what George Galloway said, however I am concerned that the case of Assange , seems to me to be a little made up, to silence a man that does not bow down to the authorities, and in fact publishes documents and stories that the establishment are more than uncomfortable with, and that I find more scary than Assange himself.

Leave a Reply