So, just who is on trial over those WikiLeaks sexual assault claims?
No one knows what happened between WikiLeaks ‘face' Julian Assange and Misses A and W in those sexual encounters in Sweden.
Not me. Not you. Not John Pilger, nor Jemima Khan, nor Naomi Wolf. Or a saddo hiding behind a username. No one knows.
What we do know, though, are two things. First, Assange is charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion — which sounds pretty serious to me. And secondly, that his accusers are being victimised with websites openly asking people to dish the dirt on their sexual history to show, well, that they're lying sluts.
I may say Miss A and Miss W — because this is a newspaper and not the febrile free-for-all fantasy world of the web — but if you want find out their names, addresses, phone numbers and details of their sex lives, just ask Inspector Google because their private lives are being raked over by illiberals on the blogosphere.
Why the rush to denounce these women as CIA plants, or crazy humourless Swedes (ah those old racial stereotypes), or feminazis ... ? Because they're inconvenient. And, just like convenient women, they just can't help asking for it.
Hence the “rubbishing” of the charges and of the Swedish legal system.
Just as Roman Polanski, another hero of the Left, didn't — to use Whoopi Goldberg’s infamous defence of the filmmaker — “rape-rape” his child victim (after feeding her drink and drugs), so Assange's charges are inherently ridiculous. Because because
Hence, all those absurd comments about Sweden having a law about a condom breaking during sex. It doesn't. Or having a law against “surprise sex” (and what's that exactly?) It doesn't.
Sweden must be made to look stupid at all costs — and if that means the PC-brigade portraying it all as “PC madness gone too far”, then so be it.
No one knows what the basis of the charges are. Very few of us are experts in the mechanics of Swedish law.
All we do know are alleged leaks, second-hand statements, some loosely translated Swedish and the white noise of the internet.
And the white noise is all directed against two women, as usual. All that’s missing is a few photos of misses A and W in short skirts — that would be the clincher.
For many Assange is simply too important for the rule of law. Because in the eyes of the illiberal Left he is good, noble and heroic; that means he cannot be guilty.
And even if he is, er, he isn't.
Isn’t it strange how many commentators have drawn upon all the old arguments to show this wasn't “rape-rape”. They claim that A and W “flung themselves” at Assange. They “were groupies”. They “socialised with him afterwards”. And it seems, according to some, that women can't withdraw consent once it's been given. After that, anything goes, short of beating them with a carjack.
In all the kerfuffle, you'd think the British legal system — normally lambasted by the Left as being a “rapist's charter” — displays the wisdom of Solomon in regard to what does and doesn't constitute rape. No one seems to have pointed out — in their hurry to rubbish the Swedes — that they may actually be able to teach us a thing or two in this area.
But for the illiberal Left there comes a point when sacrifices are needed, as long as they are by someone else. These two ladies are being offered up by US-haters and gangs of internet saddos worldwide in a greater cause ... er, assuaging their own universal sense of being feeble, disappointed, impotent individuals.
And, I’d wager, all of them chaps.
Mind you, once the case is off the front pages, the same people will hang, draw and quarter you for a mildly racy remark in the office.
I don't know if Assange is innocent or guilty. And neither do any of the other commentators.
But the sexual smearing, the misogynistic lynching, of Misses A and W, should give all women a pause for thought about who their real friends are ...