GEORGE Galloway was last night branded "grossly irresponsible" by the female leader of his Respect party for claiming the rape claims against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange amounted to no more than bad "sexual etiquette".
Salma Yaqoob, leader of the small left-wing party, described the backbench MP's comments as "deeply disappointing and wrong" as the controversy over his remarks continued.
In a posting on her own website, she said the "political issues" surrounding Mr Assange's case should not be used to diminish the seriousness of the accusations against him.
She added: "Let me be clear, as a politician and as a woman, rape occurs when a woman has not consented to sex.
"George Galloway's comments on what constitutes rape are deeply disappointing and wrong."
Earlier, Jo Swinson, Liberal Democrat MP for East Dunbartonshire, criticised Mr Galloway, saying: "I am appalled that a Member of Parliament could be so grossly irresponsible as to suggest that sex without consent is anything other than rape.
"Mr Galloway should apologise and retract his comments immediately."
Ms Swinson, who is parliamentary aide to Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, added: "As a public figure, rather than obsessing on conspiracy theories he should be sending a very clear signal to any victim of sexual violence that sex without consent is always rape."
Mr Assange is seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after claiming political asylum to avoid extradition to Sweden to face questioning on sexual assault allegations.
The Wikileaks founder fears that if he is extradited to Sweden, he will be transported to America to face charges over his whistle-blowing website.
In his online broadcast Good Night with George Galloway on Monday, the MP for Bradford West spoke of the sexual assault allegations made against Mr Assange by two women the campaigner met in Stockholm two years ago. One claim is that the Wikileaks founder had sex with a woman while she lay asleep.
Mr Assange denies the charges against him.
Mr Galloway said: "Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were 100% true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape. At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it."
He went on: "Woman A met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him, claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again.
"This is something which can happen, you know. I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion."
He argued the sexual assault allegations were part of a "set-up" aimed at delivering Mr Assange to the US authorities, which have been angered by his website's publication of state secrets.
Yesterday, amid the furore caused by his comments, Mr Galloway issued a statement, saying: "No never means yes and non-consensual sex is rape; there's no doubt about it and that has always been my position. But if my remarks on the podcast need clarification I am happy to do that."
He went on: "I don't believe, from what we know, that the Director of Public Prosecutions would sanction a prosecution in Britain.
"What occurred is not rape as most people understand it."
The Scottish MP pointed out how it was important to note the two women involved did not initially allege rape.
A week after their assignation with Mr Assange both women went to a police station "not to allege rape but to see if it was possible to force Assange to have an HIV test".
An arrest warrant was issued and then withdrawn with a chief prosecutor saying: "I don't think there is reason to suspect he has committed rape."
Meanwhile, computer hacking collective Anonymous said it had attacked the 10 Downing Street and Home Office websites among others in retaliation for the UK's handling of the Julian Assange case. It claimed responsibility on Twitter for the denial-of-service attacks, although by yesterday the websites appeared to be working normally.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article