Don’t Call Me A Rape Apologist
A lot has been written about rape in the last few weeks. Some of it was in response to Republican congressman Todd Aiken, who said pregnancy as a result of rape was rare because in “legitimate rape” the female body “has ways to shut that whole thing down”. Despite the baffling stupidity of that statement, most of the vitriol continued to be aimed at Julian Assange, and anyone who wasn’t outraged by Ecuador’s decision to grant him asylum.
I had grown increasingly frustrated by comments on Twitter from people I liked and respected along the lines of “ugh my timeline is crawling with rape apologists”. How odd that otherwise intelligent people would hurl such an abusive accusation at people, merely for supporting Assange’s right to asylum. Assange, after all, hasn’t yet been charged with anything – let alone rape – yet millions already have him banged to rights. Annoyed, I made this small contribution to the debate.
“As a rape survivor I’d like to point out calling #Assange supporters rape apologists is offensive. This is about US detention w/out trial.”
That little tweet from me was retweeted well over two hundred times. It’s unheard of for so many people to agree with me. You’d be forgiven for thinking I’d hit upon popular opinion, but I’m not sure that I have; support for Assange seems to have gone so quiet lately, and men holding a similar view to my own would probably be openly vilified in the same way George Galloway was when he said Assange was only guilty of “bad sexual etiquette”.
On the surface, I’m an unlikely “rape apologist”. I’ve had personal experiences which I don’t intend to describe here (however, if you want a personal account of rape Eliza James and Laurie Penny have written vividly about their own experiences and I applaud their bravery in doing so). I have more than one close friend I know to be rape survivors. I know how insidious rape is, and how often it’s committed without the perpetrator really knowing or understanding what they’ve done. I think it’s probably right that victims should be believed and the burden of proof should be on the accused, as is the case in Sweden. I have never and will never defend rape. And yet my view on the Assange case is the one people tell you can only exist in the minds of those that either don’t understand rape or don’t think it’s important. Let me tell you: that’s nonsense.
“Not proper rape”
What I’ve heard time and again is that Assange supporters purport the allegations are ‘not proper rape’ and therefore they are rape apologists. This post on The Practical Pinko blog ‘Wikileaks, hero-worship and the left’ is a brilliant example of the hysteria this has provoked. The author writes:
“Right, well then, imagine their messianic leader, their blond bombshell is accused of rape. He is accused of pinning a woman down and having sex with someone who did not want to and was frightened.”
Well imagine it you’ll have to, because that bears no resemblance to the accusations made against Assange. It’s excellent proof of the old saying “mud sticks”; I have no doubt the author is a well-meaning person seeking to make accurate points about the importance of taking so-called “date rape” allegations extremely seriously. And everything she says about rape is true. But something crucial has been forgotten in all of this – the statements made by the women to the police.
When Owen Jones wrote for the Independent about the allegations of Miss A, he included in great detail her attempts to avoid penetration without a condom concluding that “many of his supporters argued that this would not constitute rape according to English law, which is simply untrue” (see full article here). Sadly he missed out a fundamental fact: Assange asks her what’s wrong, she tells him to put a condom on, he does and then they have sex. Does that constitute rape? Where is the sex without her consent? What she actually alleges is that during the course of consensual sex he deliberately broke the condom. That is an entirely different matter. Whatever your views on the seriousness of that allegation it is not rape. Consensual sex does not constitute rape.
On to Miss W. She had a whirlwind romance with Assange and they had sex several times. What we typically hear said about this case is that Assange had sex with her while she was asleep. Miss W never approved or signed her statement to the police. Once she found out police planned to use her statement to charge Assange with a sex crime she refused to cooperate with them. The women approached police to ask that Assange be forced to submit to a HIV test, not to report rape. The statement published does say she woke by feeling him penetrate her. This is the only allegation against Assange that may constitute rape. She “let him continue”. She is alleged to have said in an SMS that she was “half asleep”. There isn’t enough detail here to ascertain whether a crime is alleged to have taken place at the precise point of penetration i.e. was she awake enough to have consented and/or did Assange reasonably believe he had her consent. Even as a hardliner I can see how Assange would have reasonably assumed he had her consent to wake her by initiating sex and took her letting him continue to mean this was the case. Ultimately, it’s Miss W’s body and she withdrew her statement on hearing Police intended to accuse him of rape which would seem to indicate she has not accused him of it.
I can’t stress this enough: people say the accusations against Assange aren’t proper rape because they’ve read the statements, not just a newspaper story. It’s not because you can’t be raped by someone you’ve slept with before. It’s not because heroes can’t be rapists. It’s because consensual sex cannot be rape. I am no rape apologist; it’s the people so willing to condemn Julian Assange that are trivialising rape and the harm that someone’s use of your body without your consent does. It’s them that hide behind the “rights of his accusers” when the women’s’ own statements and subsequent comments don’t even seem to back up the idea either of these two women are accusing Julian Assange of raping them. Assange’s own version of events don’t exactly cover him in glory but consensual sex, with or without a condom, does not compare to rape.
Assange is right to fear extradition
I would love to see this much police time spent hunting people that genuinely are on the run from rape allegations, but ask yourself if we would ever spend so much time and money trying to detain and extradite Assange had he never founded WikiLeaks.
If you’re in any doubt about how much the USA would like to get hold of Julian Assange, refresh your memory by watching the collateral murder video (see here) and think hard about Bradley Manning, the 24-year old Army Intelligence Analyst accused of releasing it. Manning has been detained for over two years in conditions the UN called “cruel and inhuman”, and faces up to 52 years in prison if convicted of ‘knowingly supplying information to the enemy’ via WikiLeaks. Can any of us really blame Assange for fearing a similar fate?
If you would like to support WikiLeaks or donate to the legal defence fund for Julian Assange or Bradley Manning visit
http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate
JC Willis | @ethicalgirl
Thank you for saying this.
It’s distressing that such distinct and serious issues – asylum and rape – have been so carefully conflated that a clear picture of either is completely lost.
Anyone crying “rape apologists!” really does need to listen to the WOMEN and not the media (the media, after all, being largely the same folks who thought Assange’s dirty socks were the most newsworthy revelation to come out of WikiLeaks.) And thanks for pointing that out.
The offence of ‘Rape’ – under any Countries laws – is being undermined. It is a nasty, disgusting and can often be a very vicious crime.
We all know the Assange case is about the Americans! I agree with all you say, so well done for standing up and saying it!!
“…he had her consent to wake her by initiating sex…” Is rape, no matter how many times it is rewritten. Consent can not be obtained by a sleeping person. The laws constitutes sleeping as a state where person has not consented.
“…would have reasonably assumed he had her consent…” How? By her being awake and then allowing her to activity participate. However, he woke her by initiating sex.
There are 4 acts that are considered crimes, only one would be considered rape.
A rape apologist is only a person who would presents arguments in defense of an act that could be legally defined as rape.
Rape is not failure to gain consent.
There is no requirement for either party to gain the consent of the other before sexual contact. The requirement is not to have sexual contact with someone who does not wish it and not to be negligent in your assumptions as to willingness.
If you do not wish to have sexual contact with someone then you have a responsibility to inform them of that when you get naked into bed with them.
If you have never woken someone with a sexual caress you are in a minority. It is part of the delights of a loving relationship; it is not a crime.
“If you have never woken someone with a sexual caress you are in a minority. It is part of the delights of a loving relationship; it is not a crime.”
AMEN!
One night stand =/= a loving relationship. Why do so many Assange supporters come out with this argument? If I have sex with someone I am NOT in a relationship with and fall asleep next to them, that is NOT consent for sexual touching or anything else.
If you support Assange in any way you’ll get called a rape apologist. If you support the Palestinians you’ll get called anti-semitic. Because smear tactics work.
Thanks for putting your head above the parapet. Great post.
And if you criticize any aspect of feminism at all in any context, much less disagree with one outright, you’ll get called misogynist. It’s just petty namecalling, really.
So you’ve decided he’s innocent, based on your reasoning above? Why is that any better than deciding he’s guilty? Maybe there could be some kind of gathering where legal experts assemble to decide upon the evidence? Maybe that gathering should be held in the country where the allegations have been made.
Are you the Bob who raped me in The Democratic Republic of the Congo?
Can he prove he isn’t?
It’s not a matter of deciding someone is innocent before trail it is a main principle of law: Innocent Until Proven Guilty. A principle Assange bashers have completely forgotten.
If Sweden was really eager to try him for any sexual misconduct whatsoever, they could easily promise him non-extradition to the US. It is very possible under Swedish law as I have been informed by people who claim to know the country and language. The fact that they will not proves where they stand on this.
Pingback: Julian Assange seeks political asylum at Ecuador London Embassy - Page 230
Women Against Rape laid out some plain, sober truth about how government use rape cases for political agendas that seems to have gotten egregiously overlooked. I guess people found Laurie Penny’s manipulatively baised hyperventilating over 3 teen boys’ and a MP’s misogyny more tantalizing than reading about how *not* seriously rape victims are universally treated by governments. I strongly suggest everyone go read it, now, before they say another word on this matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange
I will quote a particularly relevant part of that article relating specifically to Assange and the two accusers:
“Justice for an accused rapist does not deny justice for his accusers. But in this case justice is being denied both to accusers and accused.”
Thank you, Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff. Now, with that in mind, let me say a few other things:
1. Assange needs to be questioned and this issue of the allegations needs to be resolved. Duh. I cannot say if he’s guilty or not. I will not get on that worn-out, very crowded soapbox about “justice.” I will not say anything about what has been reported about the allegations because this is a matter that needs to be examined by a court, not by the public. Any public sentiment about Assange’s guilt or innocent means jackshit. All this stupid jockeying over who really knows what rape is needs to stop, on all sides.
2. To everyone huffing and puffing about how Assange needs to face justice–yeah, I’m calling bullshit on you unless you demonstrate that you are so well informed on this issue that you are aware that when the accusations were first brought up, Assange was in Sweden, stayed cooperatively in Sweden to be questioned, even told the international media he was waiting to be questioned and that he didn’t understand why they hadn’t yet, and that the accusations were dropped, allowing Assange to legally leave the country (i.e. he did not “run”). Also, you need to further acknowledge that if these accusations as are serious as you, non-member(s) of the Swedish legal system, insist they are, Sweden made a multiple failures from the start in not questioning Assange then and in dropping the accusations altogether.
3. Anyone who thinks/suggests/implies that a feminist should only care about “getting” Assange to “face justice” doesn’t speak for feminists and doesn’t understand feminism. Feminism is about intersectionality on all levels. That means we care about things like the integrity of our justice systems (which here there should be plenty of doubt), about protection for whstleblowers and freedom of the press (without both, feminism will be without two *vital* tools), and about whether government are using victims of sexual assault for other agendas (if you don’t hear klaxons in your head at this point, you need to check for faulty wiring). A feminist cannot ignore these aspects of this issue. If Assange ends up in indefinite detention in a US facility without being actually charged with anything under US law, it will be in part because feminists forgot what they needed to be fighting for.
4. And also to all you “Assange must face justice” people–what will be your response if, say, Assange goes to Sweden tomorrow, Sweden again drops the accusations without questioning him (hey, they did already once) and hands Assange over to the US? Hm? Are you so naive to think that can’t happen? Demanding that Sweden guarantee no extradition is *also* demanding that they make good on investigating these allegations properly (this time) and if necessary, hold Assange accountable. You don’t get one without the other at this stage. Sorry. Reality sucks like that.
5. Whether or not your like Assange, if he does get extradited to the US, we all lose. This isn’t about Assange’s personality or likability or his attitudes about women, but about things that can impact countless people around the world, including you, in seriously negative ways. It will be a serious blow our global press and their freedoms (the US would now have precedent to seize and detain foreign journalists without charges and via other governments), it will validate all the scary, unhinged rhetoric that villianized Assange–even called for his assassination in some cases–without him being legally found guilty of anything, it will be used to intimidate and silence whistleblowers, and it will be one more example of how governments conspire to use victims for political agendas under the guise of “justice”. I’m not OK with that. And anyone who is, is someone who shouldn’t be listened to at all, in my book.
Assange is the subject of a legal prosecution for allegations of rape. People judging the merits of the accusations based on what they’ve read on the internet are called “rape apologists” because making that judgement call means accepting the idea that public opinion, not a court, should determine the facts of the matter. That minimizes rape as a crime, as if it doesn’t need a court proceeding to assess.
Taking rape seriously means supporting the idea that every rape accusation should be heard in a court of law, not just have its details pored over by the public, as if it’s something anyone could judge from home by reading blogs and witness statements, without actually talking to the alleged victims or having forensic training. It means respecting that these allegations about Assange are being examined by a court and due process should go forward the same as for any such accusation, regardless of who is accused or what their defense team claims is the truth.
Assange may well be innocent. If you’re correct that the woman who’s allegedly his victim denies she was raped, he could call her to the stand and have her say so. What better way to prove the prosecution was biased and politically motivated? If he’d done that immediately, this whole matter would be nothing more than a tiny footnote by now, not the major issue causing speculation that the entire WikiLeaks organization will fail because its head refuses to step down to take care of his personal legal trouble.
As for asking for an advance guarantee against extradition to the USA for any and all possible future charges, Swedish law professors don’t agree it’s possible. Sweden’s government could veto any extradition to America after its courts have weighed in about it, but the government can’t say in advance that no matter what the courts decide, it is going to ignore them and make a predetermined decision, based on the identity of the accused. The central point of the rule of law (rather than rule by whim of a dictator) is that each case is judged on its merits, not on who the accused is.
Assange should take comfort that even if he’s charged with assisting Bradley Manning in hacking Army computers, Sweden would likely consider that a “political offense,” which its treaty explicitly exempts from extradition.
Pingback: The Left’s Huge Failure Over Julian Assange | MoronWatch
Pingback: Assange Apologists Don’t Like The Debate « Soupy One
Rev,
You seem to have missed the point. Assange has not been charged with rape yet the mainstream media (and people like yourself) keep repeating that this is what he’s accused of. It’s a big assumption to say that he will be charged with rape, for the reasons I outlined in the post, and he cannot call anyone to the stand to defend him without formal charges. I intentionally haven’t made any judgement about whether or not Assange is guilty of any crime under Swedish law. IF he was able to get access to a fair investigation and trial that would be a matter for police investigation – I have never disputed that.
I am saying it’s wrong to repeatly say someone has been accused of rape when (given the absence of formal charges & the content of the statements) you can’t conclude that’s an accurate description of any allegation. I am saying it’s wrong to sully someone’s name under the guise of “justice for the accusers” when we don’t even know what those two women want since they did not approach the police to report a rape.
Rev, no – wrong. I have personally attended all the UK court hearings. What you have to understand about this case is that the Swedish prosecutor has lied to and misled the UK courts.
First, there’s the matter of her telling both the Swedish and international press that under Swedish law it was illegal for her to question Assange in the UK. This has now been debunked but the UK District Court (February 2011 hearing) bought it.
Second, the evidence available from the Swedish National Forensic Lab report on the ‘deliberately torn’ condom shows there was no chromosonal DNA – male or female – on that condom, only a tiny speck of mitochondrial DNA (can ONLY come from hair or nails). The Swedish prosecutor had this lab report three weeks before issuing an extradition warrant classing this incident as “sexual molestation”. As the warrant itself, rather than the underlying evidence, is all the UK court is allowed to decide on, this constitutes a clear case of the Swedish prosecutor lying to the UK court about the severity of the allegations. She also bumped up “half asleep” to “fully asleep” on that extradition warrant to reach the minimum potential sentence for which extradition is allowed.
Third – as you say – the Swedish prosecution claimed that the only reason charges had not been formally brought was that that happened at a much later stage in Sweden and she was seeking extradition because she was definitely intending to prosecute, she merely needed Assange’s presence on Swedish soil for the second questioning at which formal charges are laid. She had to say that (in February 2011) because she’d realised EAWs are not allowed for questioning to further an investigation. This – and the UK District court – ignored the testimony of Sven-Erik Ahlem, Swedish ex-Director of Public Prosecutions, who testified that under Swedish law it is forbidden for a prosecutor TO DECIDE whether to prosecute until all questioning and the preliminary investigation is over. It also ignores that Assange has not been questioned a first time over Sophie Wilen’s experience because those allegations were formally dropped at the time of his interrogation in Sweden (30 August 2010).
Look what she is saying now about which stage the process is at. This is from a Swedish Foreign Office blog a few days ago:
“Some people are wondering why Mr Assange cannot be questioned at Ecuador’s Embassy in London. It is the Swedish Prosecution Authority that processes matters concerning surrender to Sweden under a European Arrest Warrant. In this case, the Prosecutor has made the assessment that Mr Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation, hence the arrest warrant. A more detailed account of this can be found on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s website. In brief, the Swedish Prosecution Authority writes that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation, and to be able to carry out supplementary interviews with him and other persons involved as the investigation continues.”
Do you see what she has done there? The process is now back to preliminary investigation, well ahead of any formal charges being laid – to bring it back in line with Swedish law. But an extradition has been achieved which is illegal by anyone’s standards. The EU Framework Directive is quite clear: extradition is NOT for the purposes of furthering an investigation. The Irish Supreme Court ruled unanimously against extradition without charge a few months ago, but the UK High Court has allowed it. The UK’s parliament when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 specified that a ‘judicial authority’ meant a court or judge – precisely to avoid this kind of scenario where an INVESTIGATING prosecutor orders an extradition – but the UK Supreme Court overruled parliamentary intent (blatantly!). Please do not rely on the UK court rulings in this case as having been fair, proper and impartial – they are all judgments driven by the underlying politically desired outcome.
… how interesting, thank you for taking the time to explain.
The UK court judgments are very clear that Assange is at an equivalent stage to that of being charged. He’s not wanted just for questioning, but for prosecution. The Swedish system calls for a final interrogation session before formally indicting people, which must happen in Sweden. Assange’s lawyer made an appointment for him to attend this final pre-indictment session on September 28, 2010, but he left the day before and has been avoiding it ever since.
This Swedish system is confusing for people used to the UK or US systems, but it’s recognized by the EU as being equally as fair. Claiming he “hasn’t been charged” is exploiting the confusion between the two systems, misleading people as to how far along the case is.
As for what the women want, if they didn’t want the case to proceed they could have accepted the original prosecutor’s decision to close the case. Instead, they appealed that decision, using a Swedish right that victims in many other countries don’t have, to ask a more senior prosecutor to review the case and reopen it. They won, and the new prosecutor informed Assange, through his lawyer, that he needed to attend the final questioning session.
Many people are under the impression Assange had “permission to leave Sweden.” He did, as long as he was back in time to attend his final questioning on the 28th. He accepted at the time that he needed to be there, in Sweden, for this final interview, but now he won’t go. That’s not fighting persecution, just avoiding the normal Swedish system anyone else would have to abide by.
Rev, my understanding of the ‘facts’ are different to yours (and I am so glad the writer of this article refuted http://972mag.com/julian-assange-and-the-womens-issue/54925/, which is what led me here). In that horrendous article, the writer finally left me completely dumbfounded by how she expects to represent feminists or rape victims by fabricating the truth. What do you say to someone who states as a fact that even the defendants lawyer says he raped the two women? This sort of vitriol and maliciousness has the potential to be so damaging to everything that I have seen as good in the women’s movement. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to suggest she look at a programme by a long-standing, highly respected current affairs programme in Australia: ‘Sex, Lies and Julian Assange’. She could have heard from the lawyer himself that the ‘sex was consensual’ and that is the basis upon which he is acting for Assange, not on the basis that ‘he raped two women’. There are so many stakeholders in this and all the issues are serious. You may want to ask yourself why, if the Swedish judiciary was so earnest about feminist issues, why it doesn’t issue a ‘red’ code for every person accused of sexual misconduct. Why? Because it is a code issued for terrorists, like Bin Laden. And, like it or not there are so many grey areas in these allegations, unlike violent assault. Why aren’t ‘red’ codes issued for these people? Yes, I agree there are questions about why the women went to find out about having gone to find out if Assange could be ‘made to have a test for Aids’, and the anomalies and peculiar events that surround the eventual charges. It may perhaps be a kindness to all concerned to accept the possibility that both the accused and the accusers are/were confused by the events that transpired. In any event, an open mind is essential and I recommend you view ‘Sex, Lies and Julian Assange’. You may want to view their other programme on ‘Bradley Manning,’ ‘The Forgotten Man’ who has been imprisoned certainly against his will in conditions described as amounting to torture or perhaps you think he ‘deserves it’. No slight intended.
one reason the Swedes have refused to question Assange or bring charges may very well be that, if he was in fact charged with rape, it would apparently be in direct contradiction to the express wishes of the two women, who may conceivably in that case take the stand as witnesses for the defence. according to their stories, they went to the police to find out if they could force him to take an HIV test – they did NOT accuse him of rape. in fact, as soon as rape was mentioned by the police they refused to cooperate further.
you are quite right: conflating these two issues undermines the victims of rape, reducing them to pawns to be used further by those with more power than they. it is an affront, and this whole affair is despicable.
I found this article by Naomi Wolf very interesting (I am not sure if she has done an update)http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/something-rotten-in-the-state-of-sweden-8-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-by-naomi-wolf/
I do think there is something ‘despicable’ about all of this too.
If you are a suspect in the interrogation state of an investigation – you should be considered “innocent till proven guilty”. The fact that Sweden says they know already that they want to prosecute, that they have sufficient evidence and at the same time that this interview is in the interests of Assange, that it is a chance for him to exonerate himself……
This fact makes the whole interview an empty shell and the whole legal process that is about to follow biased. To me it is obvious that it is b*llocks that Assange needs to be questioned or even to be present (thats what lawyers are for, they can represent you in court) for the court case to continue. In all countries that I know of, where justice is done, there are systems in place to do so without cooperation from the suspect. Sweden could and should have substantiated their accusations long time ago & even tell us what penalty they carry – but instead of that they have created this expensive and drawn out theatre-performance. Participating in as much publicity as they could generate (esp. the first days after Assange was accused) even as this was clearly against the law and not in the interests of the women.
As for the women filing a second complaint: in the interview with Assange that was done by the police, there was only one complainant. Miss A. And the choice of lawyer suits her – he belongs to the same political party. Does anybody remember the fate of Monica Lewinsky – the immense threats she received if she would not cooperate with the court case against Clinton?? Where is my guarantee that Miss W. is currently free from such pressure? Who is giving her money to do her court case, advise her how to protect her interests??
Finally – if this whole farce was about rape – then why is the London police terror squad involved. Why do they carry orders that they are allowed to kill Assange (arrest under all circumstances – if he comes out in car (risk to life!!) See:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193217/Arrest-Assange-circumstances-Police-gaffe-secret-document-reveals-WikiLeaks-founder-dealt-tries-leave-embassy.html
It no longer matters very much what happened in Sweden. Assange is now a fugitive in the UK. He ==might== conceivably find his way to Ecuador….. as Trotsky found his way to Mexico; and as Eichman found his way to Argentina. Didn’t do them very much good. After you get half the world that you have their brother’s blood on your hands – and lots of Americans currently do – you are a marked man.
Great to read so many intelligent questioning posts. I do hope the feminist movement and Assange both come out with their reputation’s intact.
I’m female and like the author, have had nasty experiences with non-consensual sex, but I too do not believe in the least that what the women said happened with Assange in any way constitutes rape. Well done for this article and wish there were more folk who were able to think and speak logically about the Assange case. It is clear to anyone with half a brain cell that this case is about the US wanting to get Assange in whatever way they can for what he exposed thru Wikileaks. It is the US’s war crimes that should be pursued with energy, not these half-baked claims about rape.
Pingback: Don’t Call Me A Rape Apologist « Ethical Times
I have several issues with this and can point out the place where you are straying into rape apology.
Firstly, the issue of rape really has to be settled in a court of law. From what I understand, the complaint was that he refused to stop and replace the broken condom actually.
Regardless of what you or I think we know. By hair splitting over whether it isn’t or is rape, you are straying into rape apologist territory.
Whether or not Assange is a rapist, these are serious charges and they have to be answered in a court of law, not bandied around in public and argued over whether or not they constitute rape. Playing well this is rape and this isn’t, even if you aren’t as crass as Galloway or Akin is still a form of rape apology.
Even people we support for pushing for transparency can do bad things. It is no great stretch to admire Assange for creating wikileaks and to consider that it is possible he did commit rape.
Secondly?
Answer these questions if you can:
1. If Assange is so terrified that the US will whisk him off, why wasn’t he scared of it while he was applying for citizenship there? Seems awfully convenient that suddenly it’s “oh noes Sweden will extradite me” when he’s facing possible charges.
2. If the US want him so badly, why didn’t they simply apply to the UK for extradition? It’s quicker and easier to extradite him from one country than to ask another country to extradite him, wait for the charges to go through, wait for him to spend time in jail if convicted, then ask the country to extradite him to them.
For this to be a US plot to extradite Assange would make it a very stupid and convoluted one, because it would need to go through two lots of courts instead of the usual one, which doubles the risk that a court would say “no” to the extradition.
Also much of the arguments against extraditing him to Sweden tend to take the form of “he didn’t commit rape”. But whether or not there is a risk of him ending up in US hands and jailed indefinitely doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not he raped two women. If we suppose there is a weird and quite silly plan to extradite him to the US via Sweden, it still doesn’t mean that the charges are fake or that Assange can’t possibly be a rapist.
Want to not be accused of being a rape apologist? Find a better argument for “it’s a conspiracy” then “This isn’t rape”. It is perfectly possible to believe and argue that the US has nefarious plans to get Assange without rape apology arguments.
Pingback: [link] Assange Apologists Don’t Like The Debate « slendermeans
Yes, I’ve seen a couple of sites repudiating/vilifying Naomi Wolf. Whatever ‘flaws’ are in her argument her premise is still substantive in my view, which is why at least one human rights organisation that I know of is watching this standoff very closely, having said so on their website, in the interest of all parties. I am interested to hear Naomi Wolf’s response. One site vilifying her did not give the right of reply to the author’s replies to CIF commenters. I have pointed this out in the interest of freedom of speech and not ‘corralling’ posters and ‘name-calling’ at them, amongst other things. It is disappointing when healthy debate about such important issues is demeaned. (Sometimes in my head I think of an appropriate antonym to ‘Assanganistas’ and other taunts, but I do stop myself and remind myself to be sensible. It is important to recognise that being concerned about Assange is not impugning AA and SF by default. or impugning feminist issues, I believe).
Your facts relating to this case are plain wrong. Julian Assange is facing four serious allegations. One of rape, two of sexual molestation and one of coercion relating to two Swedish women.
The allegations of sexual molestation and coercion relate to Miss A. The entire sexual experience she described to police appears altogether unpleasant and she details what exactly went wrong in her police statement. She does NOT claim she was raped.
The case involving Miss W is the one that constitutes rape. Judge Riddle in the UK said after reviewing the evidence that this would also be classified as rape in the UK.
Miss W is consistently misrepresented in what has become entirely inappropriate trial by twitter. Her police statement is consistent with a victim statement and she makes no indication in interview that she wants to retract her claim. This is entirely myth.
Miss W told police: “She cycled home, showered, and washed the bed sheets. Because she had not gone to work on time, she called in sick and stayed home all day. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the bed sheets; she thought it was disgusting. She also went to the chemist’s and bought a morning-after pill.
When she talked with her friends afterwards, she understood that she was the victim of a crime. She went to Danderyd Hospital, and from there to Söder Hospital where she was examined and where samples with a so-called rape kit were also taken.”
That does not sound like a women who has been tricked into reporting rape to the police.
Police reports states:
“They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long. She has never had unprotected sex before.”
Police report includes this comment from the interviewer:
“In the course of the interview, Sofia and I were informed that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. After that, Sofia had difficulty concentrating, as a result of which I made the judgement that it was best to terminate the interview. But Sofia did mention that Assange was angry at her. There was not enough time to obtain any further information about why he was angry at her or how this was expressed. Nor did we have time to discuss what had happened afterwards. The interview was neither read back to Sofia nor read by her for approval; but Sofia was informed that she could do so at a later date.”
That to me reads that Miss W was in fact frightened of Julian Assange and that he had already indicated to her he was angry with her. Hearing that he had been arrested would have made her even more fearful as now he would probably be furious. There is no indication that Miss W wanted to withdraw her claim or was concerned for Assange’s well being.
What is clear is she is frightened of him.
Where does it say anywhere that Miss W wanted to withdraw her statement, refused to sign her statement or felt sorry that Assange was being misrepresented?
I have read enough about this case to see there is a legitimate serious of allegations that Julian Assange must answer and that he appears to be at best a reckless sex creep or at worse a rapist. It remains up to a formal trial to determine his guilt or innocence but to claim Julian Assange has nothing to answer is to indeed, in my books, to be seen as a rape apologist.
There is no real evidence that the US plans to extradite Assange from Sweden and in fact there is a wealth of evidence supporting the notion it would be impossible for them to do so. These incidents occurred a month after Bradley Manning was arrested and when Assange had applied for residency in Sweden. No mention of possible US extradition or rendition back then.
Facts are adding up that Julian Assange is doing everything he can to avoid having to go back to Sweden, as he earlier promised. Should all the legal barriers to him returning be exhausted and he is forced back I suspect he will renew his character assassination of these two women.
How any women, or man for that matter can support active avoidance of a proper Swedish trial here is beyond me.
Twitter @sandraeckersley
… yes, it’s beyond you
… a ‘rape apologist’ I am not. I am not up with the latest feminist currency in terms of vocab, but I certainly hear ‘apologist’ being used for all sorts of things, including rape. There are certainly people who have been far more eloquent and knowledgeable about the facts of this case than I. And, I have not been commenting on this subject for some time nor continuing my own research. However, I believe there were newspaper reports that articulated that W had not wanted to make this report. I have not read anything suggesting exactly what you have cited; perhaps my ‘original’ docs were dif to yours. My son, who is rather more qualified, having qualifications in forensic law, does say he will have to answer the charge relating to W being ‘asleep’. Personally, I don’t know if Assange is a ‘creep’ unlike yourself, who seems to know him intimately. One could equally make derogatory character aspersions about W, but unlike you I think that is inappropriate. Unlike you, I was not there when these events occurred. Initially, there was all this character assassination about Assange making up that the US were targeting him … months after the event, after Freedom of Information allowed it, the newspaper articles reporting this were able to cite it as fact. I guess in your eyes I am a ‘rape apologist’ because I can understand the intent and naivety of the Respect MP who didn’t understand that in a number of circumstances it is rape when you have sex with a sleeping person. I can understand the confusion in that a married person finds this happens in a sleepy state as part of normalcy. The good thing to come out of this is that people can now be so rigid about spontaneous sex that spontaneity can be done away with altogether, where there has been consensual sex previously. Perhaps young women should also do psychological testing so that they learn to understand their own personal sexual preferences and limitations better. It is sad that someone could look at semen on a bed and find it disgusting. I read somewhere else about feeling a ‘penis’ in the back … what time was that? Do you know? Was it a typical healthy morning male erection? Was it a spontaneous erection later in the night? Oh, sorry, not allowed spontaneity … must have been ‘designed to …. ‘ … forget what words were used … I don’t know the answers to these questions …. I don’t know exactly what happened or the personal frailties/weaknesses of the parties …do you? It seems Assange was pursued and for whatever reason, there were later regrets … how regretful or for what reasons? Sometimes the trauma is making something into something it isn’t … the seriousness of these allegations can not be compared for instance to the brutal pack rape, over months, of a young woman in Paris I read about recently. Should men/women take the sexual standards of another seriously? Yes. Can I compare what has happened with W and Assange to the savagery of what happened to a young woman in Paris? No. I recall reading about the young woman, who as a teenager, was drugged and raped by a famous movie director (forgotten his name). She said as an adult, the trauma for me is that I have let it go but others won’t. Every time they call to bring him to the US to face the charges, it brutalises me all over again. Tell me where the balance is in this case with Assange …. it should have been dealt with in Sweden when the allegations were first made, immediately, where Assange tried to have them dealt with!!!
Really over this sexist notion that the two Swedish women were distraught that Julian Assange did not contact them for an ongoing relationship & therefore sought to punish him. It is 2012 people and women enjoy short term sexual flings as much as men. It was quite clear that neither women were keen to continue any sort of sexual relationship with Assange after their less than happy experiences. They told their friends as much. Reading the police transcripts it makes Assange look like he is out to deliberately impregnate women – what is that? Why is he so deliberately reckless? He may get away with such behaviour in countries where people are more prudish about discussing sex but not so Sweden. This time he needs to answer for his behaviour.
If a gay man awoke to find his one night stand having unprotected sex with him after having made it clear that he only consented to protected sex, the crime would not be so hard to comprehend. Why treat women with less respect? Nothing ‘healthy’ about not respecting one’s sexual partners with respect.
I don’t want to go into detail about how ‘distraught’ the two Swedish women were or weren’t after the event, how S ‘realised’ she had been ‘raped’ after discussing it with someone else (AW?) and found they had ‘similar’ experiences ‘after’ the event. They don’t even seem to be able to find the correct name for it, so it is ‘minor rape’ … ‘minor rape’? Is that like ‘minor dead’ ? ‘minor pregnant’ ? ‘minor’ ???? So, let’s hunt Assange down to the ends of the earth because this ‘minor’ event (where ‘It was quite clear that neither women were keen to continue any sort of sexual relationship with Assange after their less than happy experiences’) is so much more significant than the rapes I have been reading about that I can’t bear to bring into my conscious thought because it is the stuff of my worst nightmares and clearly aren’t really quite important after all… recently, read about babies being raped in Africa and infected with AIDS because these ‘men’ believe it will cure them of AIDS, the terrible damage to infant girls, what it has done to the mothers …. We are not talking about two gay guys here, we are talking about people who need to take more responsibility for casual sexual experiences on both sides. Was SW really a bit inexperienced and unassertive? Was Assange ‘sleepy’ when he allegedly initiated sex without a condom? What would be the case if Assange make allegations that SW initated sex while he was half asleep but in a normal state of arousal for a healthy male in the early morning? What would Assange have done if the situation had been reversed is an interesting question in itself. I don’t think he would have done anything. In fact, I don’t know anyone who has made a complaint for non-use of a condom, except in cases where someone was actively infecting others for pernicious reasons that I have read about in newspapers, who have had some kind of psychopathy. It may be in the best interests of the Swedish govt to issue guidelines for sex in Sweden for tourists and residents alike. Tourists are regularly warned, for instance, not to take drugs in Bali where you face the death penalty for even small amounts of marijuana use. No, one shouldn’t ignore requests to wear a condom when you engage in casual sex; in fact I think the use of condoms should be made a law in Sweden unless you are married. In addition, all condoms should be kept for a period of two years, much like tax returns. It would prevent a lot of confusion in the future. It would certainly have assisted AW to have been seen to have integrity to her allegations if she had provided evidence rather than a condom that for all intents and purposes may just as well have been newly out of the packet. We could thrust, cut and parry indefinitely … heavens, perhaps even salute … but I don’t think we’re going to be doing very much agreeing … but, it is up to you … If I do not reply, I trust you will understand as I currently have other family priorities. Bonne nuit …
Where did you get this “minor rape’ rubbish from? All that was thrown out in court in England. Fact is Assange has been accused of rape. The charge or rape would apply equally in the UK as determined by Judge Riddle.
Fact is SW insisted on sex with a condom – that was a condition of sex. Pretty simple really yet Assange is accused of breaking that condition and taking advantage of the women while she was asleep/half asleep.
Facts like she had NEVER had unprotected sex before, was fifteen years younger than Assange and Assange is a powerful famous man, all factor into why she did not jump up and throw him out at the time.
Like the Swedish authorities I have read enough to see this needs to go to trial. Courts are accustomed to the intricacies of sexual permissions and are therefore better equipped to determine guilt of innocence than a bunch of random people on twitter.
What exactly this has to do with babies being raped in Africa escapes me in much the same way as what this domestic sexual assault case has to do with Wikileaks or the United States.
Pingback: Sandra K Eckersley Deals With Rape Apologism « Soupy One
Take the celebrity of Assange out of this case and put in any other guy and there would be no confusion about the need for this guy to face court. Conflating Wikileaks with Assange the man is wrong as everyone must answer to their behaviour. Equal rights for all.
Really over this sexist notion that the two Swedish women were distraught that Julian Assange did not contact them for an ongoing relationship & therefore sought to punish him. It is 2012 people and women enjoy short term sexual flings as much as men. It was quite clear that neither women were keen to continue any sort of sexual relationship with Assange after their less than happy experiences. They told their friends as much. Reading the police transcripts it makes Assange look like he is out to deliberately impregnate women – what is that? Why is he so deliberately reckless? He may get away with such behaviour in countries where people are more prudish about discussing sex but not so Sweden. This time he needs to answer for his behaviour.
Support you to define your midterm additionally short term desired goals.
This is a necessary test to get by if you want study abroad in English speaking country.
Another proven successful online marketing is contact marketing.
when her lover, slides open this unique birthday gift you are that provides them, they end
up being surprised.
PS Hope we get a healthy, fair and proactive outcome.
PPS Whilst my earlier ‘contribution’ is still awaiting moderation, I would like to say that I have no idea whether there really are any AIC (read AIC backwards) connections with one of the women involved in this case, but the point to me still is what on earth happened between going to the Police station with one supposed purpose (woman A supporting woman B regarding enforcing a test for AIDS) and it spiralling into not just one sexual assault charge, but two? What happened? Naomi Wolf has written something recently regarding Sweden:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2012/Sep-04/186637-assange-aside-swedens-rape-suspects-are-often-left-untouched.ashx#axzz25SK1L2NS
Indeed, and Wolf’s comments have been seriously criticised by other feminists.
You might want to read their views too.
Link us, Soupy!
Try:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=naomi+wolf+wrong+assange&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Also, any scan of Twitter will indicate the serious level of criticised of Wolf & her ill thought-out remarks.