…if no-one thinks it’s a smear…
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to find the timing of Interpol’s warrant for the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who turned himself in to British authorities today, curious. The charges — “one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape,” according to a statement from Scotland Yard — were brought against him in Sweden last August, yet he suddenly graduated to “most wanted” status just after releasing over a thousand leaked diplomatic cables in late November? It would be irresponsible of journalists, bloggers and average citizens of countries most eager to plug the gushing WikiLeaks not to wonder if those dots connect.
Still, as the New York Times put it, “there is no public evidence to suggest a connection,” which some members of the public seem to find unbearably frustrating. With no specific target for their suspicions and no easy way to find one, folks all over the blogosphere have been settling for the next best thing: making light of the sexual assault charges and smearing one of the alleged victims.
Alexandra Heller-Nicholas writes:
The danger here is that I think we can by now safely say that we can’t rely on the courts – in any country, in any situation – to be able to distinguish a real rape claim (and protect the rights of violated women) and a ‘fake’ one (protecting the rights of falsely accused men). It scares me that I so easily assumed these women were lying, and that has made me question who I am and what I stand for, both personally and professionally. It scares me that ideologically the best case scenario here is that these women are telling the truth and the system works to find justice for them – if they are lying for political reasons, then a rape trial getting this much exposure where the public find themselves questioning even once the truth of the accusations does so much damage to the plight of actual survivors of sexual assault that it will put us back centuries.
If Assange really did assault any of these women but we are happy to dismiss these charges as political conspiracy reliant upon what appears to be Sweden’s unusual rape laws, we are in real trouble and it is far too close to regressing back to the figure of the ‘heroic’ rapist for my liking. But if our governments are prepared to mock the real trauma of actual rape survivors by promoting fraudulent charges to their own ends – which is not a definite, but certainly a possibility here – then for citizens, media consumers, and people who rally against the horrific reality of rape that faces legions of women on a daily basis, the outlook is equally as grim.
If the CIA, or whichever shady power responsible for an alleged smear-attempt on Assange’s character really thought that a charge like this would work, then I don’t think much of their abilities. Sure, everyone’s against rape aren’t they? It’s a bad thing, right? Except that time and time again, we declare rape to be wrong, then just re-define it out of existence so that nobody that we either know or like or admire could ever be capable of committing it.
If Wikileaks was the only reason that people decided to get their shit together to take a sexual assault charge seriously then that’s a really sad indictment on business as usual. It’s not an argument that he should be let go because Roman Polanski didn’t have to face the justice system. As far as the actual case is concerned, my only comment is that I hope that truth and justice are served. Whatever the result, it has no bearing on whether Wikileaks is a threat to society or a brave act. But next time a sports star is accused of a similar crime, there are a lot of so-called progressives about who should remember their response to this before condemning the ignorant debate that will no doubt inspire.
I was very troubled by an interviewee on RN this morning who was downplaying the sexual assault allegations, even referring lightly to the possible withdrawal of consent – and not challenged by the interviewer. If a less glamorous character than Assange was being accused of coercing women into unprotected sex, there would be cries for the full weight of the law to be applied. As I recall, Sweden were already considering laying charges months ago, and have been carefully considering ever since. I’m not sure that there’s a conspiracy to deliver Assange to the US. He may indeed be a rapist – I hope not. I hope he can clear his name in court.
Thank you Anna Winter.
Anna, you talk of rape being constantly “redefined” and quite rightly intuit that a normal person knows what “rape” is and abhors it.
But who is it that “redefines” rape away from rape, so that, so that we end up with a case like Assange’s, where there is no actul rape, ecept by the arbitrary pronouncements and definitions offeredby the pedatic and the sexual Taylorists with their stopwatches?
What do you mean by ‘no actual rape’ paul walter. Were you there? Isn’t that for the courts to decide? Or does everyone adhere to the paul walter standards for rape these days?
If we followed your version, Mindy, I’d probably be in jail just for thinking about sex.
The allegations are that he pinned one woman down and had sex with her against her objections (coercion and molestation) and that he had sex with the other woman while she was asleep (rape). These are not obscure Swedish laws. If the same allegations were made here, he might well be facing two rape charges.
And yet twits like Paul Walter declare that this is a “redefinition” and there is “no actual rape”, on the basis of what? That they quite like what Assange does In his day job. Well, that’s not good enough for football players and nor should it be for trendy activists. Let the evidence be tested in court.
Get over yourself paul walter. Think what you like in the murky recesses of your mind. You have no idea what my version is. I don’t care what JA thinks about, it’s what he does to women that is the concern here. No one has been charged with thinking naughty thoughts. Try again.
I fear I agree with Anna on both “side” fo this. Yes, they are serious charges, and should be investigated. But yes, it does seem odd that the Swedes sat on their hands for months before suddenly declaring him “Most Wanted” just after the US started persecuting him. The links between the complainants and the US are not helpful there. In the UK, for someone who voluntarily surrendered to police to be denied bail does seem a little unusual. But I’m the legal beagles who know more have opined on that subject.
Robert, the difference between “pinned her down and had sex with her” and “rape” sounds like one of those fascinating legal arguments that leads to exactly the object that PW raised: when the legal definition of rape is so different from most people’s expectations, it’s the legal system that ends up in disrepute. To me, the allegation is about as clear-cut rape as I can imagine, so to hear that leggaly it might not be rape makes me wonder just how far from sanity the Swedish legal system is. If, of course, your explanation is correct.
well, lets see, but isn’t the potential “smear” issue here that:
a. the charges are possibly *not* charges of rape or sexual assault, but some other charges? What he’s charged with is unclear – but the one clear thing about it appears to be that its not about whether sex was (initially) consensual.
and yet
b. the media repeatedly refers to these charges as ones of “rape / sexual assault”.
If the above is true, I’d call that a “slur” without hesitation.
*sigh* My doubts about the rape allegations have nothing to do with the women involved and everything to do with the actions of Swedish authorities. The decisions to drop and reinstate the case seemed dodgy to me in the light of other circumstances. But now the charges seem to have been upgraded from offences that would not enable extraditon to be sought to those that do allow it.
Robert – link? Plenty of competing reports which bear no relationship whatsoever to what youve just written. eg here:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/wikileaks-julian-assange-faces-sex-charges-over-one-night-stands/story-e6frf7lf-1225967535427
FWIW (very little at this point, I’d say) note also accusations of a “honey trap”, and alleged links of one complainant to “US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups”.
In fact, you know what: I’ve been following this story quite closely, and havent seen ANY allegation or detail of the sort you raise at 6.
So link us up, or stop making unsourced claims. One of the two, please.
There would of course be little debate about all this if Assange had not leaked confidential US cables passed on to Wikileaks. People would probably just wait quietly for the results of the trial. And, depending on the verdict, nod or shake their heads.
On the broader question of whether a rape victim is believed, or some-one is falsely accused of rape by a woman for reasons of revenge etc … this is not an area of law that I usually follow at all closely. All I can say is, if some men I know were accused of rape I’d believe it instantly. OTOH if other men I know were accused of rape, I’d never believe it. Similarly, while I would believe most women if they accused some-one of rape, I have known a few,a very few, women who are unprincipled enough to make false accusations of rape against a man for any number of reasons.
“If the CIA, or whichever shady power responsible for an alleged smear-attempt on Assange’s character really thought that a charge like this would work, then I don’t think much of their abilities. Sure, everyone’s against rape aren’t they? It’s a bad thing, right?”
There’s some middle ground missing here, wherein the allegations are being genuinely pursued by the complainants (honestly or otherwise), and yet have been hijacked, fast-tracked and made international by more powerful actors as a means of trapping Assange (with or without the complainants’ knowledge/complicity).
Under such a scenario, the ‘choice’ of rape allegations as the means to the end of securing Assange in US custody is probably no such thing – just opportunistic.
Couldn’t agree with you more, Anna.
LE, I’m not sure I’d use an article with the words “Swedish law considers unprotected sex as rape” as proof of anything other than “This is a stupid article.”
I mean really? They’ve banned breeding?
Lefty E: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html
The same appears in multiple news sources today, the SMH, the Age etc.
And to follow on from Su, Lefty E.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLBCkkC5l0NVV0gEYkAA04x83Wrg?docId=B32488671291733403A00
Well, they are socialists Anna.
Fair enough, Su, have been busy and hadnt seen today’s additions – consider my comments withdrawn, Robert.
(I dont think its too much to ask for links though!~)
Lets see how it proceeeds at trial. I do wonder how this all fits with earlier reports that neither woman was claiming the sex was non-consensual.
If it was James Arkwright facing the charges, would so many people be leaping to his defence or would everyone reserve judgment until the facts are known?
Similarly with Roman Polanski, would so many celebrities have been so quick to jump onto the “Poor Roman” bandwagon if it was Ron Piper who had drugged and raped a 13yo girl 30+ years ago?
I don’t have a strong opinion about Julian Assange; but afaic being the prime mover behind wikileaks doesn’t mean he couldn’t have done what he’s been accused of doing.
I was hardly endorsing the article Anna (hello! its the Feral Hun!!) – merely pointing out the inconsistency of Roberts unsourced claims against prior reports I’d read.
I now accept he *could* have so linked – but merely didnt.
Lefty E @9: “but the one clear thing about it appears to be that its not about whether sex was (initially) consensual and yet b. the media repeatedly refers to these charges as ones of “rape / sexual assault”.
The fact that the sex was initially consensual doesn’t preclude the possibility of rape. If consent was withdrawn during sex, or consent was contingent on a condom being used and a condom was not used, you end up having sex without consent: ie, rape.
Obviously, this matter needs to be dealt with strictly according to due process. We need to ensure that ostensibly inculpatory evidence is properly examined and that if Assange has indeed infringed the consent of these women in his sexual dealing with them, then appropriate sanctions follow, regardless of whether they are connected with the CIA, or a plot by the US. That is key because all victims of rape or other forms of sexual misdealing are entitled to be protected.
That acknowledged, I find some of the text by Anna Winter problematic.
That’s a near ubiquitous position, yes.
I’ve never heard anyone whom I’d regard as sane say otherwise. Occasionaly, rabid reactionaries in bidding wars over mediaeval punishment add this to the mix, but these people are not saying this in public in their own names.
I don’t see that is true at all. Indeed, what we have learned from the Swedish case is quite the opposite. In Sweden, regulation of sexual matters includes something like an onus of proof that one has indeed secured informed and specific consent to unprotected sexual contact.
And in Australia and many other countries we now have, (quite rightly) laws that remove the rights of males to “conjugal” rights over wives and longterm sexual partners. Prior consent doesn’t count, and rightly so.
I have no problem accepting that people we otherwise admire can do dreadful things. I certainly don’t know enough about Assange to evaluate the character of his sexual dealings with others. Yet the facts of this case smell all too convenient to his powerful enemies to be mere happenstance. Assange may not be a 21st century iteration of the Scotsboro Boys, but we do know that when you have the resources of the US state to work with, one can make almost anything appear to be so for a while.
Jane – the important difference between Polanski and Assange is that no hegemonic world power wanted Polanski dead for reasons entirely unrelated to sexual misconduct.
Counterfactuals are like, really fun and shit… but ultimately each case stands on its own merits.
It’s my fervent hope that if Assange coerced or forced anyone into having sex, he is found guilty of it and sentenced accordingly.
Questions about due process would still, even in that event, be perfectly pertinent.
Thanks for that helpful statement of the obvious Anthony, but the point I made was about the media use of the term “rape” before any charges were even laid.
Hmm, now that Ive had a chance to read the news, note its ALSO being reported today that:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/std-fears-sparked-case-against-wikileaks-boss-20101208-18ou0.html
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/assange-wanted-by-us-for-espionage-offences-20101208-18ouj.html
“But next time a sports star is accused of a similar crime, there are a lot of so-called progressives about who should remember their response to this before condemning the ignorant debate that will no doubt inspire.”
Applause to Anna.
@ Lefty E – well if the sentencing rates for rape are anything like in Australia -i.e. very low, then maybe they thought it wasn’t worth the hassle of pursuing it in court. Or they didn’t want the media to blow it up into a huge story about them and a famous guy. It looks like, unfortunately for them, the Govt got involved as a way of bringing down Assange. Still doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.
It’s very common for their to be a delay between an alleged rape occuring and the complainant going to the police. It happens for a number of reasons. Fear of the way they’ll be treated by the police and legal system, fear of the man involved, fear of being disbelieved, shame, guilt, uncertainty about whether the rape actually occurred (this is particularly so in date rape). A gap in time is evidence of absolutely nothing.
Lefty E: Perhaps I should have provided links, but those details have been widely reported through the day, and they were referred to in the first article linked in the post, so I didn’t bother. But then you clearly didn’t click through, despite claiming to be following the story closely.
Here is my understanding of the allegations (and I stress that’s all they are at this stage), based on reading a dozen reports of the courtroom proceedings that all seem to include different (but consistent) details.
* Assange was staying with A. They had consensual sex, using a condom at her insistence. The condom broke. Some reports say she believes he deliberately broke the condom, but it’s not clear that’s part of the charge. After the condom broke, she asked him to stop. He held her arms, pinned her down with his body, forced her legs apart (the “coercion” charge), and had unprotected sex with her (the first “sexual molestation” charge).
* In a separate incident several days later, he pressed his erection into the small of her back (the second “molestation” charge).
* Assange also had a consensual sexual relationship with W. They had sex using a condom at her insistence. Afterwards, she went to sleep, and when she woke up he was having unprotected sex with her (the “rape” charge).
Assuming the women are telling the truth, the charges seem apt. (Arguably the first incident would also be rape, but I presume there are forensic reasons for the prosecutors opting for the lesser charges.)
Until someone can point to evidence of a conspiracy (shouting “the US wants to prosecute him!” is not evidence) I don’t see why he shouldn’t be extradicted.
(On the whole, the reporting has been atrocious. The clearest summary I have seen of the four charges is in this report under the heading “The charges” which quotes the prosecutor. Basically everything else in the article is flat wrong. Guy Rundle also gave a summary (in Crikey, paywalled) of the charges although he wrongly described the first incident as “rape” when the charge is actually “coercion”.)
Fair assessment, Mindy @28.
True Fine, a gap in time evidences nothing in these matters. Lack of an intial complaint to sustain subsequent charges will be a red rag to the defence lawyers, of course – if such was indeed the case.
Suffice to say, today’s reports deliver more than one story about all this.
Good post Anna.
It’s simply impractical for the court to find in this case. It’s like trying to divide by zero.
Will be interesting how the court views the evidence of two complainants. Will they be witnesses for each other as well? It’s an absolute mind-field.
It’s not an argument that Assange should be let go, because of how Roman Polanski managed to evade the US legal system. But it is a precedent of sorts. A poke in the eye for Western justice.
Another audience for this discussion is the people who have been smeared by the leaking, namely the Islamists, Chinese, etc. It’s hard in this case to separate the general from the particular — who will decide what is in the public interest? Certainly, it won’t be the public. But perhaps they can have the feeling, that a discussion was had.
Perhaps, Wikileaks will take apart the legal system as well, now?
Quite frankly it doesn’t sound like rape in the Australian sense of the word. Using the Australian rape defence rebuttal these women boasted about their conquest of Mr Assange and have written blogs describing how to smear someone’s character in the manner they have done.
For those who are interested there is a facebook Julian Assange defence page.
I think its very tacky to use RAPE as an excuse to lock up someone for political crimes. It demeans the charge of rape for genuine rape victims in the future.
My comment copied across from Troppo:
Finally, on Moz’s suggestion at #8 that “it does seem odd that the Swedes sat on their hands for months before suddenly declaring him “Most Wanted” just after the US started persecuting him”, this article makes it clear that the Swedish Special Prosecutor re-opened the investigation into Assange on 1 September i.e. long before the latest Wikileaks document dumps were mooted and long before Assange became a particular target for US retribution.
The sports star analogy isn’t quite done. It’s wrong to think that one can clinically remove this type of problem without regard for its context. The allegation against Assange has a particular context, as does the Mathew Johns saga. They are different — for the “victims” as well. Idealising rape equally detract from a discussion about it’s effects, how to deal with it, etc. Feminist critiques are very important, but normativising responses to something like “rape” is not a good reflection of this type of critique, I would have thought…
In terms of the rush to show why the alleged victim couldn’t possibly a victim, and how the incident couldn’t really be considered rape-rape, I see very little difference.
Can someone please enlighten me as to why they would even try reaching an opinion about Assange’s guilt or otherwise, no matter how tentative, on the basis of newspaper reports and the statements of the prosecutor? I mean do you people follow every sexual assault story in Sweden with prurient interest and have long speculative conversations about whether the accused is guilty? Why stop at Sweden? There must be thousands of sexual assault prosecutions initiated around the world every week, can’t we please have a thread about each one to play armchair jury and consider our verdicts?
i haven’t read such egregious nonsense since the threads earnestly discussing whether Haneef was a terrorist on the basis of all that compelling evidence released by News Limited and the AFP. And this is from people who in other circumstances are the first to decry the unreliability of the MSM and politicians. It’s pathetic.
Thanks for this post, Anna.
Christ! CIA plots, backwards/confusing laws, missing evidence, poorly drafted arrest warrants, pleas of innocence, shady anti-western links. What on earth are we talking about?
We sound completely bonkers! We won’t know up from down in a minute, how cold even the smartest and most thoughtful posters here be getting caught in this tar-baby of an issue?
No verdict will be accepted, every move is political, victims will either get lost or steam rolled we don’t have a single hope that we will ever know the truth here.
If this is some sort of orchestrated attack, its both brilliant and insidious. If its not, it’s an incredible accidental win for the worst forces within out governments.
The Swedes made a massive of brining the charges, with the defendant still not having advice as to what he was being charged with by them. The way the Swedes went about it, refusing numerous attempts of Assange to be interviewed ‘to clear his name’ according to his solicitor.
After a month he asked permission to go to the UK which was given by the prosecutor, which was quickly followed by an Interpol Red Notice for his arrest issued by the prosecutor (the Chief Prosecutor having dropped the charges and another prosecutor reinstating them, apparently after political interference – I don’t know where that rumour comes from), though it appears they may actually want him for questioning, which you wonder could they not do that in the UK, everything so arse about and unclear.
Then the actions of the women unintentionally muddy the waters and taint the charge as one women sought out the other and after that they decided to go to the police. Now the story was they wanted Assange to have a STD test which he refused, and possibly this lead them to see redress and also lead to the comment by that he has an attitude problem with women or wtte.
It of course doesn’t help and brings further concern into the whole affair that Assange is wanted by the US.
The entire events, time lines, circumstances and so forth create a great deal of doubt and must have a bearing on reasonable doubt.
If the allegations are truthful then it will be the circumstances surrounding all events and the incompetence of the Swedish that will cause the women to not succeed, regardless of truth. You would have to be very worried about the safety of a conviction given all this, though that presupposes what evidence might be bought to bear.
Thanks, Anna, it seems unlikely that collusion to charge Assange could have occurred before the leaks issue hit the fan. I can imagine two friends exchanging notes after feeling more than somewhat abused by a guy with whom they had started out having consensual sex and deciding to pull him into line with what is in Sweden a legitimate charge. It’s important that if possible the ‘rape’ allegation is not trivialised as it has been by many. Assange clearly moves in cosmopolitan circles where free-wheeling attitudes to sex would make wearing protection an imperative.
How authorities have dealt with it since then sounds like typical bureaucratic legal administration until his notoriety suddenly came to notice. Powerful interests presumably then did what they could with this sliver of an opportunity to nab him and hope to extradite. Added to that would be his own sense of vulnerability and indeed perhaps his culpability. He’d be kicking himself for his carelessness, I imagine, if those women are indeed telling the truth.
Ken@38: “Can someone please enlighten me as to why they would even try reaching an opinion about Assange’s guilt or otherwise”
Who are the “they” you’re referring to?
“forced her legs apart”
“pressed his erection into the small of her back”
Robert @ 30, as far as I can tell, those two details exist only in the page you linked to, and the page they were pasted directly from, which appears to be an alternatively written version of the Guardian article Anna linked to above.
The Guardian did not run with them, and despite their obvious salaciousness, none of the other international news agencies present in the court room (all of whom have very little to run with at this stage) chose to run with them either.
?
CIA analyst calls them trumped up charges.
And goes over the circumstances. Says the CIA has been involved in getting the process going of getting Assange to Sweden for further rendering….apparently Assange was warned by the Australian service that he could be subjected to a honey pot.
Assesses that Assange is in danger of targeted assassination.
Also criticises Australian govts behaviour toward Assange.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/20101208-mcgovern.mp3
Did I say it only existed in 2 pages? I forgot to include the shady looking tabloid site whose account has been suspended within the last 24 hours.
Not just their one internet account, btw. All of them.
Anna @ 37,
are you being objective now, or subjective? Objectively, the context and the “crime” are extremely different. Subjectively, I would also make different assumptions about the ability if the victims in the situations in which they were in. This is just my interpretation, what I find most likely.
Joe, I’m talking about people who victim blame and minimise rape. If that isn’t you, then it isn’t you.
Nick @ 44 and 46:
I also referred to Guy Rundle’s report of what was said in court. He was present. He says that one allegation is “that Assange used his body weight to lie on her, pushed her legs open and forced s-x” and another is that Assange “pushed his erect p-nis into her back without permission, while sharing a bed”.
Lefty E@25: “Thanks for that helpful statement of the obvious Anthony, but the point I made was about the media use of the term “rape” before any charges were even laid”
For my next trick, another statement of the obvious: I suspect the reason the media were using the term rape was because way back in August that’s how the Swedish director of prosecutions was labelling the charges.
Maybe the translation was wrong. The Swedish penal code seems to have a limited definition of rape, based on force/violence. But to go back to my original point, the conduct described would probably support the charge of rape in many other jurisdictions (including Victoria).
Anthony, the Swedish penal code’s definition of rape is not limited to force/violence. It also includes “sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state.”
The official English translation of the sex offences chapter is here.
OK Robert, but lack of consent, which is the defining element in Victoria, is only obliquely referred to: ie, intoxication, sleep, drugs etc. necessarily involve lack of consent. What about fully conscious withdrawal of consent? Or if consent was contingent on certain conditions that were then not met? It seems a different definition of rape than what we use.
That’s a good point, Anthony. That may well explain why “sexual coercion” and “sexual molestation” have been laid in relation to the first incident.
Great post Anna.
So, are wikileaks posting the detail? If not …. why not?
“Assesses that Assange is in danger of targeted assassination.”
I assess that he’s not. In fact, his threat to have the decryption code the entire unedited lot (already distributed widely in encrypted form)released if anything happens to him suggests to me that he’s already won, nothing will happen to him but more empty bleating from embarrassed political elites; States will simply have confront new limits on their power in the internet age, and will instead tighten up on the original leakers, which, as even our own Foreign Minister Rudd has apparently worked out, is the real problem the US faces, not Wikileaks:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40559236/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
Wikileaks wins this round at least, US and associated lickspittles lose in a highly embarrassing fashion, decide McDonalds-style to cut losses and stop drawing attention to it next time by not jumping up and down demanding the right to hoodwink their own citizens.
The smear is doing its work satisfactorily. It has created doubt about Assange’s credibility and his character. It has switched the focus of attention from the contents of the leaks (and the wrongdoings of governments) to the alleged wrongdoing of the man who distributes them. All this despite the fact that Assange has not been charged with any offence – he is ‘wanted for questioning’, despite already having been interrogated by police over the same matter and the inquiry dropped (by a more senior prosecutor who concluded there was “no reason to suspect he has committed rape”. I don’t suppose Assange can complain about how his identity was leaked to a Swedish tabloid newspaper, despite Sweden’s usually strict rules on confidentiality in rape and sexual assault cases.
The whole affair has done some good in that it has shown exactly how the commercial and political establishment really work when faced with a serious threat over which they have no control. Amazon, Paypal, Gillard etc have shown their true colours.
Joe @ 33
In adversarial jurisdictions normally no–that’s hearsay evidence. OTOH it’s also collusion which by itself has significant negative effects for the prosecution. I suspect in Sweden it may be somewhat different.
See this article. Assange’s lawyer claims they offered to speak with Special Prosecutor to clear his name but were ignored. The Special Prosecutor says she has been “unable to question him”. Who knows which is telling the truth? Lawyers are almost by definition int the business of bending/interpreting the facts to fit their client’s case.
Rape/sexual assault is in essence a sexual act committed without consent. It doesn’t necessarily require overt application of force by the alleged offender nor overt resistance by the victim as long of lack of consent is clear. Consent may be withdrawn, and continuation of a sexual act after withdrawal of consent is a sexual assault.
Similarly, a sleeping woman cannot consent, although I suppose it’s conceivable that consent to continuation or resumption of sex might have been given before the woman fell asleep. See this Google extract from a leading Australian text on criminal law. However, the fact that consensual sex with a condom occurred earlier in the evening cannot without more convey consent to later sex without a condom while the woman is asleep.
From discussion so far there don’t seem to be terribly radical differences between Swedish and Australian law in these regards. What these women allege if true would be sexual assault in Australia as well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html
I hate to link to the Daily Mail but this is the most detailed description of the incident that I’ve found yet. It’s from the Mail and therefore not from a source you would expect to be sympathetic to Assange, and therefore interesting.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to find the timing of Interpol’s warrant for the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who turned himself in to British authorities today, curious.
Yeah, you do. I doubt that the Swedes dance to anyone else’s tune.
It doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. More a muddy and opportunistically exploited mess. Bit like life anyway.
I can imagine Julian behaving badly in bed, the women in question approaching the police with a range of issuess in a range of moods and the whole matter starting to fizzle out until the US Gov leant on the Swedes to turn up the heat and get out the birch branches.
Yes, the older woman has some dubious and strongly politicised links but would most professional activists in small but well networked countries. Though tis true, given the prevailing socio-sexual standards of those who champion Julian most,that non-consensual or gamed sex is a permanent blot on the escutcheon and so a great fit up opportunity. Anyway it would be boring not to speculate.
Also wondering why people think The Company is behind it. CIA and State hate eachother. I’d imagine the prevailing mood at Langley would be “Cocktail hour! Hey, didya see the latest Wikileak. Remember that Dudley-Do-Right prick who was Ambassador in Lagos about three years ago.”
If it is a honeytrap, then I bet it’s been outsourced to deniable contractor with lots of psychologists and game theorists on the payroll. Looking at you SAIC and Booz Allen.
Nabakov,
I wouldn’t blame the CIA but I would question the Swedish prosecutor. Submission to authority (including imperial authority) is often spontaneous and unrequested – witness our own PM’s performance in this regard, on this very issue.
I remember reading in Gore Vidal’s memoirs how he is not printed very often in the Scandinavian countries because they are ultra-submissive to the American Imperium. I thought that odd when I read it – surely the Scandinavians are all ultra-progressive etc. But this incident makes me wonder.
The key will be if he is extradited to Sweden whether they then allow him to be extradited to America to face whatever charges they want to lay.
Sorry Anne but you’ve missed the point. No one in their right mind would think that the charges emanated from Langley. But it’s jolly lucky that it’s been dragged out long enough for all this salacious detail to be reported. I mean having your penis (or breasts or vagina or testicles or knobend) talked about in the global press doesn’t do much for your credibility does it? The charges are the pieces of dirt from which a pearl of disinformation is formed. Step back a gaze at it in wonder.
“. I mean having your penis (or breasts or vagina or testicles or knobend) talked about in the global press doesn’t do much for your credibility does it?”
Depends on which which part of the infotainment-industrial complex you work in.
And another thing, this Roman Polanski crap is wearing thin. He was basically convicted on strong evidence but fled when a plea bargain fell through. Assange hasn’t even gone to trial and the charges appear to be a moving target for christ’s sake.
Actually, Assange hasn’t been “charged” with anything. That’s one of the anomalied of this case. He’s still just “wanted for questioning”. Also there are apparently legal reasons why it would be easier to extradite him from Swedn to the USthan elsewhere in Europe.
http://socialistworker.org/2010/12/08/why-is-julian-assange-in-jail
Patrickb, I think you’ll find that it’s not so much that I missed the point, rather that you didn’t bother trying to read the post to see what it was.
The flimsyness of the conspiracy/honeypot case is demonstrated by, apart from everything said innits favour on this thread, the lack of consideration of any other suspects beyond the USA. China, Russia, Iran anyone? These countries have as much to lose as the US from wholesale info dumps, in fact perhaps more since they don’t already have a media somewhat happy to print embarrassing things about them already. But no it must be the CIA because : preexisting narrative requiring no further knowledge or research.
And they’ve also managed to keep their names out if it, which suggests a level of competence the CIA does not possess since if they did it, theyve immediately been caught. But then a honeypot trap which results only in a he said, she said mess can’t be called a great success, so maybe the spooks of other countries are all as incompetent as each other. The great coincidence I’m struck by is not the timing but how closely these allegations resemble descriptions of perceived sexual assault that never get reported, and if they do never get prosecuted and if they do don’t result in conviction because of a lack of forensic proof and inability to strongly decided between two conflicting versions. Quite a coincidence it strongly resembles real life the legal system sees every day, and doesn’t really resemble a coordinated plan by professional deceivers at all. What are the odds.
FDB @24, my point is just because Assange is famous doesn’t mean he hasn’t committed a crime. Doesn’t mean he has either.
@64
Well … yes you’re right, the internet has provided a vibrant forum for the discussion of “breasts or vagina[s] or testicles or knobend[s]“. Truly we live in the age of Sol Invictus.
@68
“If the CIA, or whichever shady power responsible for an alleged smear-attempt on Assange’s character really thought that a charge like this would work, then I don’t think much of their abilities”
You appear to at least entertain the idea that the cloak and dagger brigade cooked the thing up. You point missed is that no one cooks these things up, they assess the state of the field and make the best play they can. You should read HST. Not always right but very instructive.
Oh please, Patrickb. You don’t bother to read my words, then you deliberately misinterpret sarcasm and then top it off with a patronising suggestion to read something.
You took this:
And gave me this nonsense:
And then took this:
And turned it into:
So either you didn’t read the post, you ignored it in favour of telling me to be more widely read, or you’re seriously not very smart. Whatever one it is, I don’t give a shit.
“Whatever one it is, I don’t give a shit”
Lets get one thing straight; you’ve got a problem with separating the rape allegations from the whole WikiLeaks saga, I accept that. But getting angry ain’t helping sister! Expound you connection between Polanski and Assange for me, it’s got to be good.
So we’re going with “not very smart” then. Okey dokey.
@75
Maybe we should all just Oprah out for a few days.
Patrickb, I raised the Polanski angle. The Polanski angle is interesting for Europeans because it reinforces prejudices about the nature of the US justice system.
Anna’s referring to the fact that she basically agrees with you, you dolt, Polanksi has got nothing to do with Assange. Pull out Maverick, err Patrick[b]!!
*nods*
I have nothing to add, I just thought it was worth repeating.
Assange/Polanski: Anna wasn’t asserting a connection between the two, simply that the fact that the US seems to have given up on prosecuting Polanski shouldn’t set a precedent for letting other people who have serious convictions go. We all realise that this a consideration for if and when he does have a conviction – unlike Polanski he’s still entitled to presumption of innocence, of course.
My problem with some of the commentary on Assange is that some people seem inclined to want to presume innocence, not because we have a principle of presuming innocence for any arrested person whether or not we think they are likeable or heroic (which I think is the right way to look at it), but because they see Assange as heroic. This is kind of a dangerous path to tread.
I was thinking just before that if this is a ‘honey pot’ sting, then it’s a very poorly organised one. Why would you do the stuff which people are now saying make the rape claims lack credibility?
If you were really going for it, wouldn’t one of the women report the allegations on the night, perhaps do a bit of self injury for added drama? Why would you do it in such a way that Amanda describes?
@ Amanda, Helen, PC and Fine – also I’d be expecting Wikileaks to publish the docs that prove it is a honeytrap soon too. Wikileaks seems to be able to get hold of everything else.
Blah, blah, blah…whichever way this goes there are going to be a lot of red faces among the idle speculators, particularly among those who seem to think that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is so like, last century.
Or maybe it’s only to be applied to crimes that are not of a sexual nature.
Fine and Mindy and everyone else piling on with your armchair analysis, can you answer my earlier question about why TF it matters to you? Do you spend much time poring over partial third hand accounts of what someone did in alleged sexual assault cases on the other side of the world in order to form an opinion about their guilt? It throws a whole new light on how some of my fellow Australians spend their free time.
It matters Ken because so many people have been so quick to dismiss these women as frauds or to question whether what allegedly happened was really rape or note.g. define it out of existence as Anna has already explained numerous times, or to defend JA on the basis that as he is an “Internet hero” therefore he can’t possibly have done something like rape someone. That says a lot about the society we are all living in and is why it is important to challenge this crap. Happy now?
@ Adrian – no one has said he is guilty, we are just questioning the assumption that JA can’t possibly have raped someone simply because he is Julian Assange which is pretty much what the argument seems to boil down to.
I’m with Anna, particularly the last three sentences:
The rush to judge the character and motives of the complainants has not been one of the left’s finest hours, to put it no more strongly than that.
“we are just questioning the assumption that JA can’t possibly have raped someone simply because he is Julian Assange which is pretty much what the argument seems to boil down to.”
Not quite – you’ve also made it quite clear you expect JA to prove there is a plot against him. This is not usually how presumption of innocence works, and nor would proof of a conspiracy deal with the issue of whether sexual assault occurred. I would imagine it’s quite possible to rape someone who has been sent to entrap you.
Mindy on the other thread:
“I’m not disagreeing with you Katz, I think the whole thing stinks. But it still does not mean that Assange is innocent.”
As pointed out by others, in countries that value the rule of law an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. This is a foundation of our legal system. Therefore Assange is innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law.
And I don’t believe anyone has said that Assange couldn’t possibly be guilty of rape because he is an ‘intenet hero’. If you could show me where anyone has said such a thing I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Mindy @ 84 can you please link to any comments on this site where someone has suggested, even by implication, that ‘JA can’t possibly have raped someone simply because he is Julian Assange’?? It’s the most nonsensical strawman argument I ever read.
Interesting article.
Though the context is different here i.e. regarding facing the justice system, there has been a lot of bandying about of Roman Polanski in various forums. Polanski’s case was quite different as the girl in Q was underage and there had been a history with girls of borderline age. The women here are adults and initially at least the sex was consensual. It is a separate debate i.e. what constitutes rape with two adults who initially consent to sex. And I note that it need not be a gender specific debate.
Separately, unlike Polanski or sports stars this has come up at a particular time. There is naturally a degree of caution that one would apply to the claims of rape at this stage given the drama surrounding wikileaks. It has nothing to do with JA being heroic or otherwise.
They keep questioning if the alleged incident was rape Adrian despite numerous other commenters showing links to Swedish law and making comparisons with Australian law which both would suggest that had such a thing happened it would be rape. Have you not noticed that?
I’m simply questioning the logic that a rape case against Assange must be a plot FDB. Back to my original point – why can’t Assange have done what he is alleged to have done? Why is there necessarily any plot? Just because the US seems to have seized upon this as a lever to get hold of Assange doesn’t mean that it set the whole thing up. If it did, why hasn’t Wikileaks found the info?
Except that the complaints were made long before this whole wikileaks thing became an issue. Just because the media has only just got hold of it doesn’t mean that the incidents only just happened. Your degree of caution is just another way of saying the women are lying. Nice one.
Ken you and I read different things into what we read. I think I’m right, you think you are right, there is no middle ground and I’m not going to bother myself with responding to your claims which I believe to be bullshit.
Mindy@90: JA could have done not just everything alleged, but more besides. But until he’s charged (which hasn’t happened yet), then tried and convicted he’s not actually a criminal. He’s just someone who is alleged to have committed crimes.
Ken and adrian there has a been a whole bunch of commenters questioning the women’s credibility and motivation. The implication is strong that the questioning is occurring because of who Assange is. Something doesn’t need to be made explicit to be there. Basic reading skills, you know. And no, Ken I’m not going to trawl through comments to keep you happy. Do your won work.
If you want to be constructive here, why don’t you actually address the content of Anna’s OP, instead of whinging?
But it must be our poor, silly wimminz brainz that means we keep imagining these things.
@ Moz
All there in comment 90 Moz.
Mindy I am aware of that. But even back in July when media reports came out there were the same issues. Its resurrection now would require a degree of caution I would think.
I am a woman btw and I feel strongly about rape but I don’t think it helps anyone at all to automatically assume that women never lie. Or that anyone who may maintain a nuetral stance on this is assuming that the women are lying.
If it is a honeypot sting, and I stress if several times over, of course its poorly organised. Its the CIA, FFS!
I think that the accusations made by the women pre-dated the media reports. That’s the whole point. The media chose to blow them up at a later date as Wikileaks became more prominent which tends, to my thinking, to argue against this being a beat up by the US and/or the Swedes.
I don’t assume that women never lie.
“Do you spend much time poring over partial third hand accounts of what someone did in alleged sexual assault cases on the other side of the world in order to form an opinion about their guilt?”
Not usually, Ken, no.
But if you’d been following the machinations between the various players in this case the last few months, you might have noted a few things a little out of the ordinary, to say the least.
The politician-lawyer, the current prosecutor, the two alleged victims, and the members of the Swedish press who’ve been on the receiving end of leaks, would all appear to be part of the same rather tight knit politico-academic faction.
Swedish law does not currently have some kind of bizarre by international standards definition of ‘consent’.
To the contrary, this particular politico-academic faction has been actively and radically (and quite controversially in academic circles in Sweden) trying to alter Swedish law definitions of ‘consent’.
There is circumstantial evidence to suggest Assange is being used a scapegoat to set legal precedents.
These various players cannot have been unaware that if they played their cards right (and at the right time), they would receive strong international support to successfully apprehend and convict Assange, and in doing so, further their own political cause.
That’s my take. And yes, it makes me very interested in poring over some of the ‘small details’, and the timing of their release into public awareness.
Mindy the incidents in question are not that old. The media reports pretty much came up then though they might not have been noticed as much – there seems to be better coverage of diplomatic tittle tattle than the Afghan situation it would appear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
Paul B@97: I think it’s much more likely that the initial complaint was utterly unrelated to any kind of politics. But it’s become a very handy lever for people who don’t like wikileaks, and for people in Sweden who’d like to change their laws wrt sexual consent. I don’t like either motivation. If I was close to either complainant I think I’d be advising them to get paid up front and try to make sure the money is secured because the people pushing this barrow do not have good reputations.
One fear I have is that if he’s guilty, any punishment he receives is likely to be disproportionate. But much worse, if he’s innocent he’s likely to be punished anyway. Not least, this could be a holding action while the US makes up some new law and organises an extradition, ideally moving him to a more compliant country first.
In a way the funniest outcome would be the US forcing citizenship on him so they can convict him of treason and execute him. Funny in the “death of satire” sense, not in thre “haha they’re torturing him to death” sense.
‘The implication is strong that the questioning is occurring because of who Assange is.’
Absolute bullshit! It might be in your mind, but from what I have read it is because of the circumstances of the case, which would arouse suspicion in the minds of most people. Imagine that the alleged crime wasn’t sexually related, and I imagine that you’d be pretty suspicious too.
So please provide some evidence of this implication if it is indeed so strong.
You first Adrian. Provide evidence that this is a beat up. Nick has started for you @ 99, but no links so difficult to verify. Evidence that the whole case is a beat up, not that the US and Swedes have jumped on this as a way of getting to Assange. That is quite clear. I’m not asking Assange to do this, I’m asking you to show where the holes in the case are. It’s plausible that it happened the way the women describe it.
I agree with Moz that whatever the outcome Assange is in for a very rough ride and won’t come out of this in any good way regardless of what he has and hasn’t allegedly done. We agree on that.
And why are people questioning the circumstances of the case? Because it’s Julian Assange. You may think it’s bullshit. But I have absolutely no interest in your disingenuousness.
And who are these ‘most people’ you speak? And what do you mean if it wasn’t a sexually related case, I’d think the same? The whole point is that cases which involve allegations of rape are viewed and treated differently than other categories of crime.
Actually Adrian I’m not interested in this becoming a gotcha thread where both sides focus on catching the other. Boring, and entirely not the point.
We have a large number of apparently skeptical, sensible people who have swallowed ideas like “sex without a condom is illegal in Sweden”. If you’re not interested in discussing the actual subject, then take it elsewhere. I said nothing about people who have “healthy skepticism”, so as I said above, if you think that’s you I don’t need to hear about it because I wasn’t talking about you.
@90 and other arguments about timing relative to the media having paid attention – Julian Assange has been of interest to many agencies for a very long time.
The mass publication of the stolen files has aroused plenty of stories in the media but the recent extension of Wikileaks into the broad public arena is irrelevant as to whether or not Assange is being targeted / entrapped.
Good post Anna
Underpinning all of the debates and allegations about Julian Assange (and about Wikileaks, which is much more than just Mr Assange and to a large degree is separate from what sort of character Assange is) is the simple but crucial issue of the rule of law.
The outrageous bullying, incitement to murder and political intimidation of US political and media elites clearly goes outside the rule of law in many cases. The arbitrary (albeit under political pressure) decisions of a number of commercial outlets to refuse service, cancel bank accounts etc may not breach any laws but certainly pervert basic citizens’ rights.
Similarly, the rape and other charges against Julian Assange should proceed according to law.
I may be showing my naivety (yet again) but I am actually fairly confident that somewhere along the way, this case will be assessed on the basis of the evidence, not the politics. It may well be that political or other pressure has caused these charges to be pressed, but somewhere along the way between the various stages of appeal through the UK courts, the Swedish Courts and the European human rights laws, I think the specific issue of the rape allegations (and the extradition requests, including any that might emerge from the USA down the track) will be assessed according to the law(s) and the evidence.
Sadly there are decent grounds for suspecting some conspiracies in all of this, and obviously the so-called ‘honey trap’ is a tried and tested tactic of government and intelligence agencies in almost every country, but that should not mean that these complaints/allegations/charges should be dismissed out of hand.
But if there is a conspiracy, I simply do not believe that every single Court and Judge in UK, Sweden and at European level will be in on it or bow before it. If anything, the more obvious the signs of political interference, the more likely it is that at least some Judges will act to frustrate it.
Wikileaks deserves the same rights and treatments as any other organisation (including media organisations), Julian Assange deserves the same rights as any other person subject to legal charges, and the women who have brought these complaints deserve the same right to have their complaints taken as seriously as any other women.
If people bothered to respond to my actual comments instead of indulging in juvenile smartarsery, they would read that I have no opinion whatsoever about Assange’s alleged sexual assault.
Nobody here has the faintest idea what Assange may or may not have done, or the women involved. Nevertheless the Australian blogosphere’s attention to WikiLeaks is dominated by arguments about whether Assange is guilty of something. Occasionally the comments are qualified by “Yeah well we don’t really know what happened but let’s assume for the sake of the argument …” but of course the qualification soon gets lost in the fog of pseudo-forensic speculation.
Pace the smugly condescending comments about being able to talk about more than one thing at a time, the media usually picks one aspect only of a story to run with, and there can most assuredly only be one headline or one first paragraph or one lead story. Media advisers in Canberra will be reporting to their masters that interest in the WikiLeaks story is dominated by Lindy Chamberlain style arguments about Julian Assange, and that as a result, politicians and public servants are getting a much freer run than they might otherwise have expected following the disclosures in the latest WikiLeaks documents.
Mission accomplished, in other words, as far as the media spin merchants are concerned. Revelations that could possibly undermine the existing power structures may be lost inside a welter of wildly uninformed speculation about a completely unremarkable (in the sense of being nothing out of the ordinary) incident that may or may not have actually occurred.
It’s amazing that people can behave so predictably to accommodate the conservative interests of the establishment. One expects it from Labor diehards because Gillard has behaved shamefully and that must never even be hinted at within Labor circles, but to read so many other voices caught up in such an absurd distraction on a site like this is very depressing.
Still I suppose it could be worse. Over at Crooked Timber, someone was pleading for a Swedish lawyer to come along and explain the intricacies of Swedish law … not that they know what happened, you understand, just for the intellectual thrill of playing hypothetical armchair jury online.
Another perspective:
From The Guardian.
And this latest from Crikey:
Assange accuser may have ceased
co-operating
Make of that (and a commentary by Flinders University sex crime law expert Dr Mary Heath) what you will.
Naomi wolf is hardly covering herself in glory here.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/08/naomi-wolf-assange-captured-by-the-dating-police/
And what I make of Dr. Mary Heath’s commentary is that it shows how rape is minimised and explained away in court. Not that she was agreeing with what occurs in court, just explaining.
And the feminist vs feminist stuff. Yes, we’ve seen it all before. Let’s minimise, discredit and explain rape away. That’s why it’s so hard to smear someone, when no-one thinks it’s a smear.
Ken, how about you focus on the issue I’ve raised in the post which, if you read it properly, does not make any comment whatsoever on the case, the defendant, the accusers or any of those involved.
I actually agree with you that judging guilt or innocence is a bad idea, so can you all just drop that particular strawman?
For everyone on this thread: if you don’t wish to discuss the actual topic then go elsewhere, and if you don’t understand my point then chances are you have nothing substantial to say on the matter, so maybe try just reading the comments of those who do.
Thanks Anna. It’s really depressing when someone comes along says that you shouldn’t be talking about rape because there’s more important stuff to be talking about. It kind of proves your point in the OP, but.
Perhaps Anna you should simply delete all the comments that aren’t responsive to your post, a process that would begin a lot earlier than mine @ 38. I will make no complaint and the thread will be much more coherent. IMHO LP would be a much better site with a more aggressive moderation process that kept threads on-topic.
Failing that, your irritation at non-responsive comments seems a bit late, not to mention selective.
I don’t have anything very sensible to add, but I will add my agreement to the idea that surely the public discourse around rape, consent and law is of intense interest and significance, and moreover the discourse surrounding this case can be examined without making a pre-judgement on the legal facts of the case.
Libby Brooks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-visa-mastercard-operation-payback
Sorry, wrong link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/09/nobody-gains-from-misogynist-defence-of-assange
Good article by Libby Brooks. The comments thread is quite depressing, however.
But honestly, this isn’t a war– the infrastructure that the internet runs on, as in the physical machines, which allow you to do anything you want if you have physical access to them, do not belong to “the people.”
What’s interesting is that this is an attack on democratic capitalism — admittedly as a response to at worst the anti-democratic behavior of the US government (otherwise the perception thereof). The infrastructure as it is at the moment is largely there to let companies like Amazon and Google trade, we “browse” the internet like wandering through a supermarket. Looking at the news, most importantly looking at the advertisements, (or at least, them looking at us.)
It’s total hyperbole to think that these kids have the power to do anything really serious. I think security is a problem, but if something serious happened that would start a development in the direction of locking the internet down. A practical problem, is simply the amount of data being created atm. It’s impossible to filter although there are ways to analyse the data which make looking at every data packet not necessary. Anyway, technicians have traditionally been fairly amenable to working for govt. big corporations.