Tag Archives: Assange

Assange is busy exposing you all

I don’t know anything about Swedish law. I don’t know any more about the Assange case than what’s been circulated in the press. But I do know sexism when I see it.

The irony of the Assange case is that, not unlike the purpose of Wikileaks, these rape allegations are exposing  the latent misogyny of many commenting on the case. The Assange case is busy exposing us all, and we’re completely unaware.

Some commentators on the issue outright dismiss the allegations simply because Assange created Wikileaks, citing internet rumours ‘one of the women may have CIA links‘ or that ‘one of the women threw a party for him the day after she claimed she had been ‘raped’- a real victim of rape would not do such a thing’.  Others scrunch up their faces in disdain before informing twitter/the blogosphere that there is only one real, credible, kind of rape- the kind that involves strangers, attacks, and weapons. All other claims of rape must be false rape, then. Those women must be overreacting.

Who are these people, and on what grounds do they have permission to redefine rape?

I couldn’t agree more with this article from The Independent’s Johann Hari. In it, Hari makes his stance clear, stating ’we will never unlearn or unknow the great truths that Julian Assange has brought to the world’, as well confirming  ’I do not believe in reflexively dismissing rape claims by any woman, in any circumstances.’ See, it’s not that hard to separate the website from the rape allegations. After his article was published, Hari had an exchange with one of his twitter followers, in which he must have felt he was banging his head against a brick wall:

Wikileaks can exist without Assange. I’ve always considered Wikileaks an invaluable source of information. I doubt that will change. But this case needs to stand alone.

Glenn Beck, the American right wing tea party patriot known for his reasonable and level headed comments on American politics, has stuck his oar in, with his own take on the Assange case. Just in case those of us who are reluctant to judge until the courts do don’t quite understand just how innocent Assange is, Beck has kindly broken the situation down into a chalkboard re-enactment.  It’s quite amusing to watch this video circulated amongst men who define as left wing- amusing, as well as incredibly depressing.  Not unlike the Daily Mail, Beck must have undergone a fair amount of mental turmoil when he made the decision on who to attack.

Some say that the rape allegations is being used as an excuse to imprison Assange as quickly  as possible. It’s likely this is true. Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein tweeted yesterday- ‘Rape is being used in the #Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!’ What does this prove? That Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization that have issued a red notice on Assange, don’t really give two hoots about rape victims.  Have a root around Interpol’s website if you like- they appear to investigate criminal organisations, pharmaceutical crimes, genocide, war crimes, financial and high tech crime, corruption, terrorism, human trafficking, drugs, and  even stolen works of art- but there’s very little about rape or sexual assault. Klein is probably right- and if she is, what an insult this red notice is, to rape victims around the world. Like it or not, these rape allegations are a feminist issue.

Where do you stand when it comes to the rape allegations? To completely dismiss them trivialises rape as a crime.

Do I regret dipping my opinionated toe into the Assange case? Of course not. The amount of opposition I received for daring to suggest that we separate Wikileaks from the rape allegations has been incredible- from the reasonably tame ‘[keep] fighting your corner – hats off to you – but you should give freedom of speech to those that have already made up their mind’, to mindless racist abuse from a random celebrity watcher on twitter. But the most farcical I received was two little words - ‘typical woman’.


Thank goodness that I’ve seen evidence to the contrary in the form of countless blog posts from men who also abhor the smearing of the accusers in the Assange case. Because, if it is true that only ‘typical women’ care about rape, and that only ‘typical women’ are prepared to attempt to counteract the overwhelming tide of misogyny that’s currently enveloping opinions around the case, then by jove, we’ve got some work to do.

Please stop trivialising rape!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was refused bail today.

The amount of people who are willing to jump to Assange’s defence and dismiss the rape allegations as ‘smears’ is worrying. What’s even more worrying is the amount of people who are eagerly willing to redefine what actually constitutes as rape. Suddenly, everyone’s an expert. Forget intent or context, apparently it’s only REAL rape if a stranger ambushes a woman with a knife and pins her down to the ground.  Some have even said the women who have accused Assange of rape are just making a big deal about nothing, that what happened to his accusers was just ‘surprise sex’.

The fact the Assange plays a crucial part in ‘opening governments’ really shouldn’t have any effect on the fact that he has been accused of rape. Those who dismiss the claims as smears effectively paint Assange’s accusers as liars before the court case has even begun.

There’s nothing strange about non consensual sex being regarded as rape, no matter how much the nay-sayers attempt to disregard Swedish law as incomprehensible.

Whilst I agree with many Assange defenders that it’s suspicious that the case was dropped in August, and then picked up again around the time that the famous cables were released, the same defenders seem too quick to jump to the conclusion that Assange created Wikileaks, therefore is a good man, therefore he has never done anything wrong in his life. I also agree with the sentiment that the Swedish authorities are using these rape allegations to imprison a man that governments across the world really want imprisoned for what they consider terrorist-like acts.  But, if anything this just proves that not many people are prepared to make a fuss about rape as a crime until someone famous is involved.

The Daily Mail has attempted to tackle the subject. Torn between vilifying liberals or feminists, The Mail opted for the feminist route. Here’s a brief dissection of a couple of stand-out points from Richard Pendlebury’s extensive, misogynistic article.

‘[Assange] is certainly a man of strong sexual appetites who is not averse to exploiting his fame.’

Translation:

‘Assange needs sex like oxygen. He can have any woman he wants. These women fell for his charms.’

And the next, discussing one of the women who has accused Assange:

‘An attractive blonde, Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes. While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegé of a militant feminist ­academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.’

Loosely translated into language not dripping with sexism, this reads:

‘Sarah was a radical feminist who obviously hated men because she campaigned for equality. These facts alone suggest she’s more likely to lie about being raped. She’s attractive , which means that she probably lured him to bed- women only make themselves look sexy to flaunt their wares to men.’

I’ve come to expect this sort of attitude from the Mail, but its this same attitude from men who consider themselves ’left’ or feminist that really upsets me.

An article published on lefty website Liberal Conspiracy defined Sarah’s reaction as ‘cross’ when she allegedly discovered Assange wasn’t wearing a condom. The Daily Mail described Sarah’s reaction as ‘upset’. Both authors - who by some predictable coincidence are male- use words that trivialise the rape allegations currently being held against Assange. Both authors seemingly deliberately choose words that do not even begin to cover the sense of violation, hurt, and confusion that rape victims are likely to feel. Dismiss this argument as semantics if you will- but the choice of these words matter.

I am ‘cross’ when my day doesn’t go to plan. I am ‘upset’ when my laptop breaks down. If I gave a potential lover permission to have sex with me on the basis that he wore a condom, only for him to defy my wishes, I would be a lot more than ‘cross’ or ‘upset’.

Assange’s rape trial hasn’t even begun. We do not know if he did it or not. Just as it would be wrong to brand Assange a rapist, it’s equally as wrong to paint his accusers as liars.