Curious Hamster offers up an intriguing little tale of comment censorship over at the Daily Torygraph…

Last night, I noticed that “journalist” Con Coughlin has a blog at the Telegraph. His latest post references the “Iran is taking over al-Qaeda - nuclear armageddon - we’re all going to die!!” article which he wrote and which appeared on the front page of the Telegraph the other day.

Strangely, my comment didn’t get past the moderators even though I went out of my way to be polite (not always an easy task for a gruff Scotsman but I’m pretty sure I managed on this occasion). Even more strangely, other comments, including one saying Con “sounds like an idiot”, did make it past the censors so criticisms are obviously acceptable in some cases. And another comment has been accepted which was submitted after mine last night so it’s not like it’s stuck in a queue.

If you’re wondering quite what our friendly inquisitive rodent managed say (politely) to deserve the blue pencil treatment, then read on…

Perhaps I’m jumping the gun here but it seems that the Telegraph might not be overly keen on its readers knowing about Coughlin’s long standing relationship with MI6 or the fact that he was taken to court after he participated (perhaps unintentionally) in one of their disinformation campaigns and (knowingly) falsely described his source as a “British banking official”. It’s not altogether beyond the bounds of possibilities.

Remember, this is guy who’s writing front page articles on the subject Iran allegedly ‘taking over’ Al Qaeda, on the assumption that we, the British people, are way too fucking stupid and gullible to ever understand the difference between a Sunni (or Wahabbi) Muslim and a Shi’a Muslim.

And if you genuinely don’t get the difference, then let me explain it in rather more familar terms - the idea of Iran taking over the running of Al Qaeda would be the equivalent of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness being appointed the joint-leaders of the Democratic Unionist Party.

Naturally, it would be rather unfortunate for the reputation of Con Coughlin, were the article that relates the story of his dealings with MI6 to become inadvertly linked to the words Con Coughlin and time they were entered into a certain search engine. I’m sure that the last thing that Con Coughlin would want.

After all, who would even wish to think that a respected journalist like Con Coughlin might be involved in the dissemination of ‘black propaganda’ for MI6:

Revealed: the Iraqi colonel who told MI6 that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes

By Con Coughlin (Filed: 07/12/2003)

An Iraqi colonel who commanded a front-line unit during the build-up to the war in Iraq has revealed how he passed top secret information to British intelligence warning that Saddam Hussein had deployed weapons of mass destruction that could be used on the battlefield against coalition troops in less than 45 minutes.

Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, 40, who was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the western desert, said that cases containing WMD warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own, towards the end of last year.

He said they were to be used by Saddam’s Fedayeen paramilitaries and units of the Special Republican Guard when the war with coalition troops reached “a critical stage”.

These would, presumably, be the same WMD warheads that weren’t found by UN Weapons Inspectors, US investigators working on behalf of the Iraq Study Group or the US and British military.

For the record, inspectors in Iraq had their first actual ‘find’ only a couple of weeks ago, which turned out to be a stock of unused and unusably degraded chemical shells left over from the Iraq-Iran war of the late 1980’s.

Not, of course, that any of this detered Lt-Col al-Dabbagh from continuing.

In an exclusive interview with the Telegraph, Col al-Dabbagh said that he believed he was the source of the British Government’s controversial claim, published in September last year in the intelligence dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes.

“I am the one responsible for providing this information,” said the colonel, who is now working as an adviser to Iraq’s Governing Council.

He also insisted that the information contained in the dossier relating to Saddam’s battlefield WMD capability was correct. “It is 100 per cent accurate,” he said after reading the relevant passage.

Interesting that the Daily Telegraph, and Con Coughlin in particular, should be the ones to get an exclusive interview with an MI6 informer.

Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, by the way, is now known as plain old Ali al-Dabbagh and has (conveniently enough) gone up in the world as a member of Iraq’s parliament and official spokesman for the Iraqi Prime Minister.

And don’t think it stops there…

The devices, which were known by Iraqi officers as “the secret weapon”, were made in Iraq and designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. They could also have been launched sooner than the 45-minutes claimed in the dossier.

“Forget 45 minutes,” said Col al-Dabbagh “we could have fired these within half-an-hour.”

You fucking what? The devices were known as “the secret weapon”????

Who the fuck is writing this guy’s material? Baldrick? Is the bit about Saddam having a ‘cunning plan’ coming up next?

On a credibility scale of 1 to 10 this ranks somewhere below an old Dangermouse script that was rejected because even a six year old wouldn’t buy it.

Local commanders were told that they could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam. “We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon,” he said.

The only reason that these weapons were not used, said Col al-Dabbagh, was because the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam. “The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight,” he said.

“If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences.”

Yes, okay. But where are they then?

Col al-Dabbagh, who was recalled to Baghdad to work at Iraq’s air defence headquarters during the war itself, believes that the WMD have been hidden at secret locations by the Fedayeen and are still in Iraq. “Only when Saddam is caught will people talk about these weapons,” he said.

So what you’re saying is that Saddam’s ‘Fedayeen’, i.e. his most fanatical fighters - the literal meaning of Fedayeen is ‘one who is prepared to sacrifice his life’ - were:

a) told that they would only have a short time to use these weapons,

b) then decided not to use them because they didn’t want to fight for Saddam, which makes them possibly the least fanatical bunch of fanatics in history, and

c) then had enough time to hide the fucking things so well thatmore than three years later we still haven’t found the fucking things.

And let’s also not forget that, “Only when Saddam is caught will people talk about these weapons”, which appears to be a statement that Mr al-Dabbagh might like to revise not that not only has Saddam been caught, he’s also been tried, convicted and sentencd to death, and still nobody seems to be fucking talking.

Let’s put this story in context.

It’s written by a journalist who’s been outed, in the past, for publishing propaganda for MI6 and based on a interview with a former Iraqi Lt-Colonel who claims to have been the source who told MI6 that the Iraqis had WMD’s that could have been fired within 45 minutes, even though no actual trace of any of these weapons has ever been found and who is now the official spokesman for the Iraqi government, having also been an ‘advisor’ to the previous transitional Iraqi Governing Council.

And this is all completely on the level…

Nah. Fuck Off.

Here’s a question for you. Is it possible, do you think, to find a newspaper columnist who’s opinions are so far ‘out there’ that they make even the apocalyptic world of Mad Mel Phillips look like an oasis of sanity in and insane world?

(And before any starts, let’s stick to the UK and leave Americans like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin out of this)

Well, it seems the answer may well be yes - step forward Julie Bindel.

How ‘rape’ has been raped

The real message behind today’s news that use of date rape drugs is rare is just the latest way to blame women for being raped.

So, the logic here seems to be that an ACPO sponsored study into a very specific form of rape, that which relies on the use of two drugs, Rohypnol and GHB, to incapacitate the victim shows little evidence of that these drugs are in widespread use, implies that women are to ‘blame’ for being raped.

This is almost too stupid to merit comment.

That the result of this study are what they are should be no great surprise to anyone.

What the general data on rape shows, and has consistantly shown since rape was first formally studied, is that, in the vast majority of cases, rape is an opportunistic crime.

Genuinely predatory rapists, i.e. men who go out specifically with the intent of seeking a victim and, especially, ones who go out specifically equipped to carry out a rape, are relatively rare, and I think most people would consider that a man who takes a drug such as Rohypnol or GHB with them on a date/night out is demonstrating a degree of intent, not least as Rohypnol can only be obtained, legally, on a private prescription, and its production was discontinued in 1986.

That doesn’t rule out its opportunistic use as, like other benzodiazapines, it can be used recreationally, but then one still has to go to some effort to obtain the drug, making its widespread use in opportunstic raoes rather unlikely.

Once upon a time, there was a crime called rape. In recent years, the laws on rape have been repealed - not on statute, but by public opinion. Now there is something called “real rape”. It is a hideous crime, but different to what used to be “rape”.

This is bullshit. Actually it’s rather more than bullshit, it’s a complete inversion of history.

Both the public, and legal, perception of the nature of rape has increased, not decreased, over time. At one time, for example, rape within marriage was not only not legally recognised but actually considered impossible; it being consider the wife’s ‘duty’ to put out for husband any time he felt the urge, whether she wanted to or not.

Similarly, perceptions of what is generally termed ‘date rape’ have changed considerably over the years. Before the 1980s the term ‘date rape’ would not even have been used by the media, let alone the general public. The over-persistant date who wouldn’t take no for an answer was, more often than not, treated as something of a ‘occupational hazard’ for the single woman to the extent that such incidents were rarely, if ever, reported.

The image of the predatory, masked rapist remains a powerful one in modern society, not least because it is one of the few ‘clear’ images associated with what is otherwise a highly complex issue, but it by no means either as dominant or as influential an image of rape, today, as it was in the past.

Research published today, in which no link to the date-rape drug Rohypnol was found in 120 cases (but in which many of the women had been drinking) just goes to show that the idea that men are ever responsible for rendering women unconscious is ludicrous. Indeed, it is women who are getting themselves drunk, and therefore are wholly responsible for getting themselves raped (but not as in “real rape”, so it does not count).

The report says nothing of the sort, as might be expected given that its published by the Association of Chief Police Officers - which also, one suspects, might explain why Bindel provides a link only to a BBC report about the report and not to the report itself, although the other possible explanation for this; that she simply hadn’t bothered to read the actual report before developing a flux of the typing fingers, seems equally plausible.

Has she actually read the report proper - drug-facilitated-sexual-assault.pdf - she might well have noticed this passage, which entirely contradicts her comments:

In a report published by Amnesty International (October 2005) a telephone survey of one-thousand people was carried out. Their findings suggest that  a significant proportion of the public are of the opinion that victims of rape could contribute to the commission of such offences by their mode of dress and behaviour. Moreover the voluntary consumption of excess alcohol could be a contributory factor. The Matisse research team unequivocally rejects such assumptions and supports the view that rape and other sexual assault cannot be condoned or its severity qualified by applying social or individual value judgements.

However, the research team does support the view that any voluntary consumption of alcoholic drink and/or a cocktail of substances might lead to the debilitation of an individual thus making them more susceptible to a sexual predator. 

Never mind the facts, eh. Not when you’ve got a good old rant coming on.

“Real rape” can only be committed against women possessing at least three of the following traits - virginal, sober, of impeccable character, elderly, horrifically injured, unknown to the accused, drug-free, mothers of small children, or vicar’s daughters. The rapist is required to be mad, masked, have previous convictions for sexual and violent crimes, and keen to confess when caught. They also need to have recorded the entire attack, with the woman screaming, “No! Stop! I mean it! This is not an S&M game!” Just in case he changes his mind in court, and the jury believes that she likes sex that way.

In the bad old days, any old woman could cry rape, and sometimes even get away with it. First, women who had actually had sex with the accused, or other men in her life previously, would then claim that, this time, she was forced. This type of complainant was soon weeded out.

New legislation was brought in (as a trick) that gave these slags a false sense of security. It became, supposedly, almost impossible to introduce evidence of her previous sexual history. But then, if it got to court (and some actually did), the defence would slip it in through the back door, and - bingo! - the accused was acquitted, and she had been taught a lesson never to try that one on again.

You see, in Bindel’s warped little world, the only evidentiary requirement in a rape case can be satisfied by a quick medical examination of the defendent.

Judge: Would the prosecution call it’s first witness.

Prosecutor: Certainly, your Honour. The prosecution calls Dr Smith to the stand…

…

…Prosecutor: Would you state your name and occupation for the record.

Dr Smith: Certainly. My name is Dr Smith, and I am a Police Surgeon.

Prosecutor: Thank you Dr Smith. Can I ask, have you examined the defendant.

Dr Smith: Yes.

Prosector: And does the defendent possess a functional penis.

Dr Smith: Yes.

Judge: Right, that settles it then. Guilty as charged… Off with his head…

You see Bindel doesn’t live in the real world. The world she inhabits exists only through the looking glass and its one govened by the feminist Taliban in which all men are guilty and the Lord Chief Justice is the Queen of Hearts.

You think that’s a bit extreme? Try this…

Then came the women who would, as a type of leisure activity such as shopping on eBay, make false accusations of rape against poor innocent men. She was soon taught a lesson, as police began to arrest and often charge them with perverting the course of justice. Some women are now in prison for this offence, which makes it extremely unlikely that women will report rape at all now (thereby freeing up the police to catch real criminals).

So justice means nothing, innocent men should go to prison and women never, ever, make false accusations of rape - and even if they do there should be no consequences attatched to such behavoiur because you never know, he could be a rapist, just one who hasn’t actually committed a rape just yet, so its best we lock him up just to make sure.

Never mind that little things like making a false allegation, perverting the course of justice and perjury are criminal offences (ask Jeffrey Archer about that last one), which makes the kind of people who do those things real criminals, as real as any rapist.
The thing is here that the real problem with Planet Bindel - apart from the fact that it doesn’t exists outside her own head - is not just that she’s a mad as a stadium of Mad Hatter’s watching a display by the combined drums onf pipes of the Mad Hatter’s Marching Band, but that her views are both infantilising and extremely dangerous…

…not men, but to women.

If you are a woman and you do worry about the possibility that you might become a victim of rape - sadly, this is not an unreasonable thing to be concerned about by any means - that the very last person you should be listening to, and especially taking advice from, is Julie Bindel.

Yes, in an ideal world, women should be able to go out, wear whatever they like, get completely and utterly shit-faced and return home safe and sound and in the sure and and certainly knowledge that the only guys they’ve shagged that night is someone that they really, really, wanted to.

But then we don’t live in an ideal world do we, folks?

We live in a world where, yes, some men are predatory rapists.

And some men don’t know when to take no for an answer.

And some men think that a women who’s so pissed she doesn’t know what she’s doing is their ‘lucky day’.

And some men even get as shitfaced as women do and have no idea who it was they were screwing last or even any real ideal whether they actual wanted a shag in the first place - just like some women do.

Women are not responsible for being raped and they are certainly not to blame if it does happen to them, but in the real world, unlike on Planet Bindel, women do have a responsibilty to themselves to look out for their own safety and security and to manage the risks they take as they go about their lives, the same as everyone else.

Having the right to wear what you like and drink yourself insensible is like having the right to stick your fingers into a working bacon slicer. You’re perfectly free to do it, but would you really want to take the risk?

This is where swallowing the views of someone like Julie Bindel becomes completely infantilising by proposing that a woman’s right to indulge in certain type of behaviour is absolute to the point of abject stupidity rather than mitigated by a responsibilty to exercise just a little bit of common sense and an appreciation that the real world is both far from ideal and contains risks to which some attention should be paid.

And that is why such a view is also dangerous, because it pays no regard whatsoever to the question of risk, because, it not only suggest, quite rightly, that women are not responsible for or to be blamed for rape, but it also, wrongly, suggests that women have no responsibilty toward themselves for their own safety, for managing the risks they take and for denying potential rapists the opportunity they’re looking for.
And in that, Julie Bindel can quite rightly be considered the rapist’s friend.