Now that my disastrous math final has terminated its final bracket, I have a buildup of creative and intellectual energy that I am itching to inflict on some topic but to be frank, it's a pretty boring news Monday. I suppose you don't want to release anything interesting in the news on a Monday, since everyone and their dog is trying to catch up with all the news they missed over the weekend (Miley Cyrus smoked a bong?!) but it is a disappointment to find that the most interesting thing resides in the Wikileak founder's briefs.
If you haven't heard that he's being held in Britain on charges of sexual assault let me welcome you to December, but the fine details are being so mangled by the press that it's almost unintelligible. Worse, we've taken a step back in terms of open-mindedness and some people have examined the ladies' histories to decide whether or not they feel the women are truthful. Look, she maintained a blog about using the courts to get back at your unfaithful lover, she's probably lying. They went out for breakfast afterward, obviously she didn't regret anything.
Let's be blunt here, the case shouldn't be going anywhere. The precise complaint lodged by the women is not that he raped them, but that he balked at using a condom, which at worse showed he has poor sense. The fact that the women still chose to have sex with him when he wouldn't wear a condom shows they have poor sense themselves. But the inevitable conclusion is that if we are going to prosecute this man for having sex without a condom, we have to prosecute the women as well, since they agreed to have sex with him without a condom. They met a man and a few days later consented to sex with him without adequate protection. They both got burned a few days later because it turned out he was seeing multiple people. You would assume that in a couple hours they should have been able to tell he was an upstanding, committed gentleman.
There's no reason to be dragging these ladies' characters through the mud, they can probably do that themselves; they were bit in a relationship, we've all been there, they're learning a hard lesson. However, lying to get into someone's pants is not a criminal offense, even if maybe it should be (Remember that case about the lady who slept with a guy because he told her he was Jewish and he wasn't?) If we start prosecuting this stuff, we're also going to have to start prosecuting make-up, hair extensions, and push-up bras. So in essence? This case is a farce.
Last thoughts: he is being held without bail. Let me say that again; he is accused of having sex without a condom so he is being held without bail. (We have a guy putting stuff in people's drinks to make them sick, and all we say is "Be home before eleven, okay?")This feels far too much like the international community holding on to his collar just in case something bad happens because of his leaks, "Just stay where we can see you..." or because they might want to prosecute him on charges of espionage, which I am not really "up" on, but I'm not sure it is related to cases where you are voluntarily given documents that you did not ask for (Next stop: Unlawful giving, where someone donates in your name [not with your name] to an embarrassing charity). The fact that none of the talking heads are addressing this issue, however, bothers my soul. This is clearly a human right violation, but we're just going to sweep it under the rug. I would be willing to bet that this man will not spend Christmas in Britain, that extradition is going to get fast-tracked, and they are going to appeal until such time as they have exhausted every possible avenue. Ridiculous.