Whatever the Julian Assange arrest is about, it's not about how much women suck

At Salon, Kate Harding explains what Julian Assange is actually being charged with, why the claims that his accusers have CIA ties are pretty damn flimsy, and wraps it all up with a nice reminder that we can support what Wikileaks does and question the timing and handling of these rape accusations, all while simultaneously NOT diving off a cliff into victim-blaming, slut-shaming, or any other shameful treatment of two women who—for all we know—really were sexually assaulted.

This is one hell of a post, effectively going right to the heart of what's been bugging me about the reaction to Assange's arrest. And Harding positively nails the landing.

The fact is, we just don't know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not.

Public evidence, as The Times noted, is scarce. So, it's heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women.

I also highly recommend Feministe's look at what "sex by surprise" really means, and the larger implications of rolling your eyes at it.

I'm not particularly interested in debating What Assange Did or Whether Assange Is A Rapist, and I'd appreciate it if we could steer clear of that in the comments section. Rather, I'm interested in pushing back on the primary media narrative about this case, which is that women lie and exaggerate about rape, and will call even the littlest thing -- a broken condom! -- rape if they're permitted to under a too-liberal feminist legal system. In fact, there are lots of good reasons to support consent-based sexual assault laws, and to recognize that consent goes far beyond "yes you can put that in here now." It's a shame that the shoddy, sensationalist reporting on this case have muddied those waters.

Maggie Koerth-Baker is the science editor at BoingBoing.net. She writes a monthly column for The New York Times Magazine and is the author of Before the Lights Go Out, a book about electricity, infrastructure, and the future of energy. You can find Maggie on Twitter and Facebook.

Maggie goes places and talks to people. Find out where she'll be speaking next.

MORE: Action

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

minimallycouscous

So did everyone ignore the fact that the alleged victims bragged about their conquests on twitter and via SMS, and had parties for Assange after the incidents? Or that the rape allegations were sent out during the first release, retracted when the it was realized there wasn’t anything of major value, and are back out in full force now?
- imag
  
  Yeah – that’s all irrelevant. And you’re a sexist pig.
Nelson.C

The CIA speculations are probably hot air, but they do serve the useful purpose of distracting from the probability that the off-again, on-again nature of the prosecution is quite likely down to the US State Department leaning on, or otherwise influencing, the Swedish government after the prosecution had initially stalled.

Knowing that the Swedish government, or elements of it, co-operated with the US’ extraordinary rendition flights, it seems unreasonable to assume that the US isn’t using those connections in order to influence them.
Anonymous

Actually it seems that his bail was denied because there’s no record of him entering Britain, suggesting that he may have used a false passport:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8187575/Julian-Assange-WikiLeaks-chief-held-in-British-prison-on-rape-charge.html
kjh

This is all fine but so far the Swedes have provided Assange and his lawyers no details of the charges. He was willing to be interviewed in Sweden. The charges were made then dropped. He was willing to go to the Swedish Embassy to answer questions. One of the women involved has removed twitter and blog entries she made at the time. Sweden still hasn’t made the charges clear or released any of the evidence to the defence. A rape charge is one thing but this appears to be without reasonable process. His name for instance was splashed about the news media without asking him while the women’s names were withheld. Is this fair process in Sweden?

You would have to ask: Why such a big deal over this when Roman Polansky had an interpol order for rape of a minor. Dick Cheney has one against him. Is that likely to be honored?

It seems clear that someone wants to get him back to Sweden.
brianary

Just to be clear: *everyone* sucks.

I guess I feel misanthropic today. Probably a bad article to start the morning with.
tomslee

Also good on this, along similar lines to the Salon piece, Cath Elliott at Liberal Conspiracy: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/04/why-its-wrong-to-casually-dismiss-the-allegations-against-julian-assange/
Zergonapal

Guilty or not Julian Assange is not Wikileaks. People hoping Wikileaks will go away with a successful prosecution will be as disappointed as those pundits who think Wikileaks can be killed with a magic button.
Anonymous

It’s obvious a lot of people haven’t even bothered to read the articles that are linked (or possibly the blog post itself), since they are still claiming this is about a broken condom. *sigh* This comment thread is very disheartening.
imag

Levelheaded editorial on the Guardian, BTW: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/08/editorial-wikileaks-julian-assange
Kimmo

IMO the Assange case is about how easily the justice system is manipulated by vested interests.

Sure, there’s a chance this accusation is genuine… but it kinda pales in comparison to the likelihood that it’s a handy bit of character assassination and an excuse to lock the guy up.

Respect for women just doesn’t come into it, from my perspective… actors like governments can produce folks who’ll say whatever they like; male, female, whatever.

Hey, maybe an altruistic guy like Assange somehow lacks enough integrity to rape someone (well he does look kinda creepy, huh?)… or maybe it’s just another case of same sort of trumped-up crap that conveniently got guys like Anwar Ibrahim out of the way, and – crucially – discourages others to follow suit.
Kimmo

I submit that in cases like this, the correct response is extreme suspicion for any such alleged happenstance so convenient for the powers that be.
kjh

Oh and here’s a quote from this article
>You need a law degree to know whether you have been raped or not in Sweden.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

Of course, their celebrity lawyer Claes BorgstrÃ¶m was questioned as to how the women themselves could be essentially contradicting the legal characterisation of Swedish prosecutors; a crime of non-consent by consent. BorgstrÃ¶mâ€™s answer is emblematic of how divorced from reality this matter is. â€œThey (the women) are not juristsâ€. You need a law degree to know whether you have been raped or not in Sweden. In the context of such double think, the question of how the Swedish authorities propose to deal with victims who neither saw themselves as such nor acted as such is easily answered: Youâ€™re not a Swedish lawyer so you wouldnâ€™t understand anyway. The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.
adralien

Regardless of his guilt he has to respond to the charges beyond crying conspiracy via the media.

I am, however, surprised an Interpol “most wanted” warrant was issued over this matter.

This may paint Canada with a bad brush, but here we can barely get warrants for arrest over provincial lines.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/01/16/bc-warrants.html

Basically, there’s an “warrant radius”, so even if you’re accused of physical assault, if the warrant is issued with a radius, you just go outside that radius.

I guess I’m surprised that Sweden can do this instead of just waiting for him to cross their border again.
ibbers

this could be a conspiracy, and assange could be guilty of assault, both at the same time. both are not as relevant as the clear effort by the western establishment to twist and subvert the rule of law to suit their interests though.

as an australian i’m disgusted at the readiness of my government to throw assange to the wolves (how high? how far?), and abandon ancient concepts such as the presumption of innocence and the right to trial (Gillard declared Assange ‘guilty of illegality’ wtf?).

he’s unfortunately screwed imho if he ever returns to oz (where the government has directe federal police to search high and low for *any* law Assange may have broken!), and will be unable to obtain a fair trial in neither the US nor Australia.
Manooshi

“PS none of this excuses the very real growth in misogynistic attitudes towards women on the subject of sexual assault.”

“No one ever loses the right to withdraw consent at any point and sex without consent, even if it was consensual an instant before, is full on rape.”

Thanks, Maggie, for having the courage to address the increasing sexist backlash towards rape victims. I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful post and the progressive comments (quoted above) here on Boing Boing. I also sincerely wish I did NOT relate to having been totally demonized as “a crazy bitch” when I briefly needed some rape therapy in the past over my ex’s date-rape of me. Too much info. Sorry. This post makes me sad on many levels. However, indeed, as one commentator noted: “People are complicated.”

I still whole-heartedly support WikiLeaks and their important mission to fight censorship of the press in general, and to bravely provide more accurate and detailed coverage of the U.S.’s fuKKKed up war(s) in the Middle East.

Best wishes,
a former rape victim a.k.a.: “the crazy psycho/bitch/cunt/whore/slut/retard/etc.”
Anonymous

What we do know:

Assange was originally released after questioning and allowed to leave Sweden under condition that he kept in contact with the Swedish legal system and would return to Sweden on notice. He broke those conditions. That is why there was an international arrest order. In Sweden we don’t have a bail system and we don’t put people behind bars in wait of a trial (unless it has been proven to be necessary). Usually suspects are even allowed to leave the country (unless they have proven that they are not to be trusted). What Sweden has is very good diplomatic connections and a reputation of being trustworthy and fair. (Partly because Sweden have harbored more refugees then any other country since the 1950′s (there are government members in all young nations, that have their only happy childhood memories from Sweden) and has spent 5-10% of its GPD annually since the 1960′s to help other parts of the world in need. It pays of being the “good guys” in the long run, the US government should try it.) When Sweden put out an international request for someone, the request is usually honoured, whatever part of the world the person is hiding in, even in countries that don’t normally cooperate Interpol.

The women/girls accusing Assange are Christian Social Democrats. Social Democrats is one of the largest and most influential political groups within EU. The British Labour Party is perhaps most well known Social Democratic party for people living in USA. They believe in reformist (that is, working within the democratic system) Socialism and is positioned in the centre of the political scale within EU (but would probably be considered as very left in USA).

The girls is striving to make a carrier out of their political and religious beliefs. They have just started climbing the party ladder. They have (or had) their future power-base within “broderskapsrÃ¶relsen” [the Christian brotherhood movement], a sub-group within the Swedish Social Democratic Party. They have nothing to gain by accusing Assange, on the contrary, they could lose their good reputation and base of support.

It is very unlikely that they are helping CIA. There is actually some old ties between the Social Democrats in Sweden and CIA, but it is probably hard to find any mature political group within Europe that have not have any ties with CIA during some part of its history (CIA is like a political STD in Europe). The main political opponents in Sweden to the Social Democrats during the McCarthyism period was political groups slightly to the left of the Social Democrats, small, but highly positioned, sub-groups within the Social Democrats helped CIA to spy on those “Communists threats”. The Social Democratic Prime Minsiter Olof Palme also helped CIA to arrest US deserters seeking refugee in Sweden during the Vietnam war (Swedish secret police, on his command, reported to CIA when any of those deserters leaved Sweden and could be arrested (any arrests on Swedish ground would have been a political disaster for Olof Palme)).
Niklas

This is the sane perspective. Thank you for posting.
imag

- Blaming the alleged victim: bad.
- Calling the alleged victim names: bad.
- Discussing whether or not the crime took place, based upon available evidence, when its outcome governs the outlook of hundreds of millions of people in one of the largest international incidences in history: potentially worthwhile.

My point is that is a legitimate distinction between the first two things and the last. Debating the existence of the crime in a respectful way is not taking a stance against rape victims.

Oh, and there are plenty of male rape victims too; to imply that only women are raped, or that only women are discriminated against in rape cases, is sexist as well. No matter what, it’s difficult territory. Have compassion for people who are trying to be considerate.
Anonimous

This is not about Julian’s sex life. This is about character assassination.

These charges are extremely polarizing, bringing the media and the populace up against its morals. Which pits us against each other on moral grounds and muddles the issue. And all of a sudden we are not talking about what is really going on (something complicated and disturbing that is hard to wrap your mind around) and we start talking about something that the media and the populace are all too familiar with; sex scandals.

It is too bad that humans are all flawed and that we all have our problems because someone will always be able to pull something like this on us.

I know that this is a big moral issue, but this is not what we should be talking about! We should be talking about the damn leaks!
- spirit
  
  totally concur
- Cowicide
  
  I know that this is a big moral issue, but this is not what we should be talking about! We should be talking about the damn leaks!
  
  I think we should try and be capable of doing both.
jere7my

The fact is, we just don’t know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not.

Hear hear. Setting aside the pro-feminist content (which I agree with), I am honestly delighted to see someone in the blogosphere saying “We don’t know enough yet; let’s hold off on forming an opinion until more facts emerge.” That’s so much rarer than forming a gut response based on incomplete information and drawing lines in the sand around it. A lot of bloggers could take some lessons in reportage from Kate Harding.
Rob Beschizza

” I just think it’s rather damning for the media to go from “broken rubber” to “rape” especially in a case as sensitive as this one.”

Because he’s been accused of doing a lot more than sex without an agreed upon condom. RTA time!
InsertFingerHere

My view is you charge someone with ANY kind of sex crime… Innocent or not, that sticks to them forever.. they can never get out from under that.

As such, it’s a really good charge against someone if you have a secret agenda. Those laws are not nearly as complex as treason via Internet, and keeps him locked up long enough that he becomes yesterday’s news.
ptolemy

Right on.

I think we might do well to expand this to Amazon, PayPal, etc., who, for all we know (I think), either gave up WL gladly, or were bullied into doing it. Also, I’m sure there is a lot of variance between all the companies that have let WL down, and especially among their employees.
- imag
  
  It is highly likely they *were* bullied. Lieberman even gloated about it. However, the fact that they were bullied makes the boycotts that much more worthwhile.
  
  The boycotts, if they are large enough, give companies a reason to resist the bullying. It also gives them an excuse for not wanting to engage in censorship. They can tell nutters like Lieberman that complying with his threats will cost them money. That’s actually worth something. You want shareholders to be *less* likely to endorse censorship.
Anonymous

well done for the excellent and balanced response to this issue. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the use of the phrase ‘slut-shaming’is that really necessary?
Rob Beschizza

(My comment was a reply to a comment, now deleted, from someone who was mindlessly repeating the exact stupid thing this post and those linking to are criticizing.)
Anonymous

LOL, This is a great article. Salon publishes some of the best perspectives on the net. I say this as unabashed Wikileaks/Assange supporter. I hope that this crap is trumped up, but I fully endorse the pursuit of justice…
Rachel Haywire

It’s about time someone said it.

The last thing we need is feminists ignoring Wikileaks because of misinformation and trolls infiltrating this movement with misogyny.
Rhonan

Keep in mind, this is also a place where one can, in a sense, have one’s cake and eat it too. Assange could have engaged in non-consensual sex, and the charges and prosecution could be politically motivated. By the same token were he convicted, I’d have no problem simultaneously calling for him to be strung up by his thumbs for the assault, while earnestly defending his actions with WikiLeaks.
inkfumes

I don’t understand why my comment was deleted, I thought I was basically agreeing with the statements made in this post, perhaps not communicated correctly.
JonS

The Swedes are so very concerned about bringing Assange to justice for the crimes he comitted in Sweden that they’re currently involved in talks with a view to him being transferred to US custody.

Wait, what?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/4433975/Protest-against-WikiLeaks-arrest
foobar

Is Interpol customarily brought to bear on this sort of charge? I think that’s the salient question here.
Kieran O’Neill

Thanks Maggie – very thoughtful articles both.

I hope this goes to a fair, thorough, and non-politicised trial. Maybe a tall order, but one can hope.
Anonymous

@JonS

#cablegate has revealed that Sweden is a covert member of NATO, so perhaps Sweden doesn’t like Assange so much.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mediadiary/index.php
Blue

More credible than the allegations of ties to the CIA of Accuser A (though I think they still may hold some weight) are the allegations of her verging-on-misandrist views and (I would say) questionable judgement regarding sexual politics:

[Accuser A] apparently indulges in her favorite sport of male-bashing. A Swedish forum reports that she is an expert on sexual harassment and the male â€œmaster suppression techniquesâ€. Once, as she was lecturing, a male student in the audience looked at his notes instead of staring at her. [Accuser A] reported him for sexual harassment because he discriminated against her for being a woman and because she claimed he made use of the male â€œmaster suppression techniqueâ€ in trying to make her feel invisible. As soon as the student learned about her complaint, he contacted her to apologize and explain himself. [Accuser Aâ€™s] response was to once again report him for sexual harassment, again because he was using the â€œmaster suppression techniqueâ€, this time to belittle her feelings.

source: http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?301387-Anna-Ardin-and-Sofia-Wilen

(Yes I know the link gives the name I redacted.)
travtastic

Framing (Social sciences)

I’ve generally heard of it as “innocent until proven guilty”. I’m not all that familiar with “dunno until proven guilty”.

I think my comments at BoingBoing have made it fairly unambiguous where I stand on women’s rights and victim bashing. That being said: as far as I’m concerned, this is major FUD until proven otherwise.

If after a lifetime of learning how those in power attempt to manipulate events and opinions in their favor, some of you still think this is a ‘maybe’…well, then that’s your business.

I’d be curious to know how this conversation would be going if it was the 1960′s, and the accusation was Martin Luther King’s infidelities. I mean, MLK might be a horrible person, or he might not, right? Only time will tell. Let the evidence speak. Until then, let’s just call it 50/50.
js7a

Does anyone think it is even vaguely possible to have sex while one of the parties is asleep?
- Michael Smith
  
  Does anyone think it is even vaguely possible to have sex while one of the parties is asleep?
  
  Depends on what you mean by sleep. I once woke up during the night having sex with my then girlfriend. She was on top, by the way. In the morning we realised what had happened and made a trip to the doctor to try the (then) new morning after pill. I honestly don’t know who started it, on that occasion.
- jere7my
  
  Does anyone think it is even vaguely possible to have sex while one of the parties is asleep?
  
  It’s quite possible, particularly if the sleeper has been partaking of alcohol or some other drug, or if your definition of “sex” doesn’t necessarily involve PIV penetration. But sober women have been raped while asleep, frequently by their husbands.
  - George William Herbert
    
    Does anyone think it is even vaguely possible to have sex while one of the parties is asleep?
    
    It’s quite possible, particularly if the sleeper has been partaking of alcohol or some other drug, or if your definition of “sex” doesn’t necessarily involve PIV penetration. But sober women have been raped while asleep, frequently by their husbands.
    
    It’s also possible for someone to pre-consent to such activity. “Go ahead, wake me up by…,” or some variation on that.
    
    Even without alcohol or drugs, some people just get tired enough that they sleep through it.
    - js7a
      
      I can’t even imagine how anyone could sleep through sex. For those who know about this sort of thing, how often would someone who potentially could sleep through sex actually sleep through it? 20%? 5%? 1% of the time?
      - George William Herbert
        
        I can’t even imagine how anyone could sleep through sex. For those who know about this sort of thing, how often would someone who potentially could sleep through sex actually sleep through it? 20%? 5%? 1% of the time?
        
        It’s easier for women, but men’s sex organs respond semi-autonomously to stimulation even if they’re asleep.
        
        It’s not my kink, but I know of several people in my circle of friends and aquaintences who were one or the other party in one of these (all consentually or without objection, as far as I know).
        
        Nobody I know described it as often or usual, but it clearly happens. It’s far from the weirdest or least common kink out there.
      - js7a
        
        Thanks, George. Sleep sex is totally outside my experience and circle of friends. I’m not looking to expand those particular horizons.
        
        It looks like Sweden has the same most sharply increasing cause of preventable death as we do here in the U.S., and it’s not STDs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17391474 + http://3.ly/CDClied
        
        I hope we all shine a light on how to solve these problems. Repealing the VAT and getting the U.S. Senate on board with the OECD’s multilateral tax haven treaty is the only remaining way to address obesity, per http://equalitytrust.org
Frank W

Isn’t it a lucky coincidence that just when the powers that be desperately need a pretext for locking up mr Assange, there is one?
desiredusername

I had always assumed that the implication of false claims of rape was describing a scenario of two women placed under pressure to press charges when they wouldn’t have. This picture is of two women that may even already know the politics of victim blaming and may have been already strong-willed enough to press charges if they actually did suspect any foul play, but in this instance were motivated by pressure rather than experience(because of the incredible diplomatic pressure already in play over punishing Assange).

That is a type of conclusion that arrived from the vector of “someone is going to shoot Assange for this”. But it does crash into the intersection of spectrums of rape leading to grey, and for that it is important to remember that this is an area of particularly harmful victim blaming.

Now lets consider the other type of victim blaming suggested by the conspiratorial reading of these events. For a primer you could watch a very recent Frontline episode entitled The Confessions. In brief it is an amazing story about how one US Navy Sailor was taken in and convinced to confess to a murder/rape he didn’t commit. When his DNA didn’t match he was coerced to finger someone else in order to make the case consistent with the evidence. The new guy was similarly coerced to confess a crime he hadn’t committed. Because the DNA wasn’t matching this new guy was in turn pressured to finger someone else. In the end 4 men confessed and spent about a decade in prison and based upon the DNA match of a 5th man who claimed to act alone, and was linked by the DA by an implausible explanation, none of them seemed likely to be actually guilty. This happened because the jury couldn’t believe that someone could be coerced to confess to a heinous crime of this nature, it was not in the realm of the possible from the jury’s perspective.

The point of this anecdote is to remind the reader that if the women were coerced to press charges that too would identify them as victims, not just victims of the coercer/s but also of the skepticism of the public. However for those favoring conspiracy theories, I would wager it to be equally likely that Assange does fancy himself overly highly and that this was an unfortunate coincidence for him to have crossed these lines of sexual propriety just at a time when the world’s most influential power wants desperately to make an example of him. That would mean that most likely he will face intense pressure for a guilty conviction and get the maximum punishment in so far as this can be arranged above and beyond what he would have normally faced.
arikol

No matter whether he is innocent or guilty, it is rare to see international arrest orders with extradition between countries being processed within days.

Most people (women) who are brutally sexually assaulted are not able to get their assailant arrested this way without a lengthy legal process. This handling is unusual, no matter what the reason.

The Swedish police and legal system are extremely good in protecting and assisting rape and sexual assault victims. That usually does not extend to quickly issued international arrest orders.
agraham999

I’ve had a lot of difficulty with this story…and it has taken a while to put my finger on all that bothers me…but here goes…

First of all we have this self righteous American blood lust over an organization that leaked documents that were given to them by someone who actually violated the law, Bradley Manning. While that person broke the law, I think what he felt he was doing was a service to his country because this country has a history of some very dirty laundry…as we’re learning all the time. I’m sure he saw himself as a whistleblower.

Then…

You have one crowd of crazed psychopathic Americans demanding the actual leaker be killed as a traitor. You have another American crowd wanting the assassination of Julian Assange, who actually broke no law in releasing the documents, but the hyperbole in Washington is hitting new heights not seen since Bush was in office (he’s a terrorist). Senators are lining up to not only preach their almighty anger to kill these people, but they are trying to intimidate the Interwebs and shut parts of it down…going after the NY Times…etc.

The supposed crime that we’re hearing about regarding Mr. Assange is something that is punishable by a $750 fine. I’m not trying to take away from how serious a crime it may be, but since when does Interpol go on an International hunt for something like this? I mean they couldn’t get Roman Polanski all those years, but they got this guy right away.

Assange is Public Enemy #1 and persona non grata when it comes to every nation he’s embarrassed…when in reality it was their own cables and their own words that were to blame. There are crimes committed by nations in some of these cables…and it is my belief that a certain extent of going after Mr. Assange is to take attention away from the embarrassing documents and on Mr. Assange himself. We’re no longer talking about the documents…we’re talking about Assange the Rapist.

I don’t know if he’s guilty or not of any crime…but I find the timing of this and the great lengths to detain and arrest him very suspicious.

Where oh where is the outrage regarding what’s IN the documents…why aren’t we having hearings on Capital Hill? Look over here folks…nothing behind the curtain.
thebelgianpanda

first, this should be decided by a trial and court, not the intertubes.

second, this ain’t a conspiracy by the CIA (if it is, *wow*)

last, and i really feel like i’m going out on a limb here (really, i do), but i wish the conversation would stay on the leaks and the consequences of leaking/controlling information.

Maggie, I appreciate you calling attention to the marginalization and shaming of women in this kind of circumstance. The part I’m wrestling with internally is the *possible* misogynistic actions of a person versus the *possible* altruistic actions of the same person.

I still don’t know what I think, but I appreciate the thinking about it.
Cowicide

I can’t speak for anyone else (especially the misogynistic assholes that are about), but I think this is more complex than any “normal” rape case. Every time I’ve ever been told about past rapes by women I’ve known, I’ve never expressed doubt to them, blamed the women or anything else like that. I don’t care what any woman wears, says or does… rape is wrong in every case.

But, I have to admit the timing of these charges make them suspect to me. I don’t care if it was murder charges or rape charges; it just seems perfect to bring up alleged crimes to detain him while in the meantime the U.S. is desperately and hastily trying to change U.S. law after the fact so they can get him on a quick-edit espionage rap. And, this kind of heinous stuff is nowhere near beneath the U.S. government… we all know that.

That said, I do regret jumping the gun when someone said one of the alleged victims had ties to the CIA and I apologize for saying “what a bitch” in that thread after hearing that. It was a play on the “christ, what an asshole” boingboing meme, but I should have been more sensitive to those women who have been victims of rape and took that to mean I think blaming the victim of any rape is my first instinct, because it most certainly is not and never will be.

And, I do think that lying about using birth control is a form of rape whether the woman lies about taking the pill or the man tries to have intercourse without a condom unknown to the woman or through coercion, etc. I’ve had this happen to me several times in my life and it was a horrific experience.

So anyway, whether it turns out this woman has anything to do with the CIA and this isn’t a perfectly timed setup or not, what I said was wrong and I apologize for my unthinking comment.
- Maggie Koerth-Baker
  
  You don’t know how much I appreciate you apologizing for that. A lot of the comments on this topic have really demoralized the hell out of me. Thank you for coming back, taking a look at the context, and apologizing.
  - Cowicide
    
    It was probably one of the dumbest, unthinking comments I’ve ever made at Boing Boing and that’s hard to match, much less beat considering all the dumb comments I’ve made over the years. I’m at least relieved that you accepted my apology and I’ll stop and think about this incident before each and every post I make here in the future.
agraham999

I mean seriously:

“A Democratic Fox News analyst called for the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Speaking on the Fox Business show “Follow The Money” on Monday, Bob Beckel excoriated Assange for leaking the State Department cables that have roiled the world in the past week, and said that American special forces should kill him.

“A dead man can’t leak stuff,” Beckel said. “This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I’m not for the death penalty, so…there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”"

Hyperbole much? I thought perhaps when the Bush Crime Syndicate was out of Washington we’d have a little less of this type of ridiculous chatter…but no…we’re doubling down. Assassination…is illegal…and he’s not broken every law in America…I doubt he’s broken a single law. I don’t see how Wikileaks is any different that any other news or media outlet that publishes this stuff. Bradley Manning broke the law…Assange did exactly what the Times or Post or whoever would have done.

If he actually committed a sexual crime…then he should have to face the music. But the timing on all of this is very suspicious…and I’m curious to see what the next document dump will be…the rumors are slightly scary in that our chickens are coming home to roost.
- spirit
  
  it’s totally suspicious.
Mr Bose

This maybe relevant to the subject of discussion.
Quite a good interview that covers the Swedish prosecution case.
From Nine to Noon on Radio New Zealand National this morning.
“The WikiLeaks founder has been remanded in custody by a British court over allegations of sex crimes in Sweden. Supporters of Assange believe the charges are politically motivated. With James Catlin – Melbourne-based barrister who has previously acted for Julian Assange and William Banks – US law professor and director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University.”
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2010/12/08/wikileaks_founder_julian_assange_in_uk_custody
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20101208-0910-WikiLeaks_founder_Julian_Assange_in_UK_custody-048.mp3
james

“The fact is, we just don’t know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not.”

Wrong. There is one thing that we know, which is that we’re meant to consider the guy innocent until proven guilty.

In this context, sitting on the fence IS taking a side, and it only brings us closer to a world of trial by gossip, even if the people who do it think they are being cautious and reasonable.

I really dislike this secular kind of “maybe and maybe not” rhetoric. The presumption of innocence is the right, cautious and reasonable approach, and for damn good reason. Right now, neutrality is anything but neutral.

PS none of this excuses the very real growth in misogynistic attitudes towards women on the subject of sexual assault
- George William Herbert
  
  Wrong. There is one thing that we know, which is that we’re meant to consider the guy innocent until proven guilty.
  
  In this context, sitting on the fence IS taking a side, and it only brings us closer to a world of trial by gossip, even if the people who do it think they are being cautious and reasonable.
  
  I really dislike this secular kind of “maybe and maybe not” rhetoric. The presumption of innocence is the right, cautious and reasonable approach, and for damn good reason. Right now, neutrality is anything but neutral.
  
  That did not make sense. An acusation has been made; saying “he’s innocent of this” is not the same as “innocent until proven guilty”. It is in the inherent nature of criminal complaints that the accused – even if innocent – will be somewhat dragged through the mud. Claiming that talking about it and refusing to get off the fence is “trial by gossip” seems to be asking for secret private trials and/or media blackouts.
  
  Neither of which seems a particularly BoingBoing approach to matters.
  
  Gossip is not civil behavior’s friend; but secrecy in criminal proceedings isn’t either.
  - james
    
    Hi George,
    
    What we have here is people coming out and proclaiming neutrality, and being put on a pedestal for it. The fact of the matter is that neutrality is not neutral in this case. Do you disagree?
    
    Do you disagree that in a world where the so-called reasonable, objective people come out and say “maybe guilty and maybe not”, that abuses become easier and more acceptable to the wider public, over time? People should be outraged whenever anyone is convicted on anything less than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that outrage in turn should defend against further abuses. Do you think the positions like those taken by these bloggers really have no corrosive effect, over the long run, on people’s rejection of poor justice? He might just be guilty after all, you know. Better safe than sorry.
    
    If we are really trying to be as objective as we can, then surely we should go one better than this and simply take the position that he is innocent until facts prove otherwise? What is wrong with stating this openly and simply? There is far too little of this in today’s society and it is all too easily forgotten.
    
    Let’s call a spade a spade here. What we have are a couple of bloggers who are using Assange for an agenda. While the agenda is perfectly reasonable and fair, it is not fair to speculate (and that IS what they are doing – don’t be naive) about the man’s guilt or innocence for political reasons, and especially not while cloaking themselves in the veneer of objectivity.
    
    As for closed trials, I cannot see how you have reached that conclusion. Trials take place and facts emerge. We presume innocence until facts prove otherwise. People discuss the merits of each argument responsibly and reach a conclusion that reasonable doubt does or does not exist. That is NOT what these bloggers are doing. Besides, what part of this process makes it inherent that someone’s name be dragged through the mud? Are we seriously just supposed to accept that that is the way of things?
    - George William Herbert
      
      The fact of the matter is that neutrality is not neutral in this case. Do you disagree?
      
      I disagree.
      
      The vast majority of criminal cases brought (in the US, at least, and my understanding in Sweden) are brought against the person who committed the crime, get a conviction or a guilty plea, etc. Police abuses and mistakes are real problems, but their success rate at finding the right party and not charging wrong parties is pretty good.
      
      If I were on a criminal jury, I’d take the instructions and duty to presume innocence seriously – the prosecutor and police have to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt, or I’ll vote to acquit.
      
      As a normal citizen, commenting in a public forum, I’m not on a jury. I don’t have to presume innocence as strongly as a jury member does, because I’m not in a position to convict him and send him to jail. I’m also not presuming guilt. Anyone else adopting the same stance I am is just fine by me.
      
      As a personally painful lesson from not too distant history – I knew Hans Reiser in college.
      
      Knowing a murderer (and we know that now, he pointed the police to the body after his conviction, to get a more lenient sentence) doesn’t mean anything to Assange’s case. But it does help me justify to myself not taking the absolutist position you want me to take. Sorry.
- MrJM
  
  There is one thing that we know, which is that we’re meant to consider the guy innocent until proven guilty.
  
  False. That is the obligation of a judge and/or jury. Individuals as individuals are under no such obligation.
  - thebelgianpanda
    
    You are under no obligation to believe Innocent until proven guilty, but it certainly makes the world a better place if you do.
- Avram / Moderator
  
  James: Wrong. There is one thing that we know, which is that we’re meant to consider the guy innocent until proven guilty.
  
  Wrong right back atcha. First, “Assange may be a rapist, or he may not” is a statement about reality, not about legal guilt. Whether a person actually committed a crime is not the same as whether a court has convicted or acquitted that person.
  
  Second, the requirement to consider a person innocent until proven guilty is a constraint placed upon the judge and jury in a courtroom. People outside the court are allowed to hold whatever opinions they wish, although the wise course is to refrain from forming an opinion until one has fully acquainted oneself with the facts.
  - james
    
    I’m not saying it’s anyone’s obligation to adhere to the presumption of innocence. That’s obviously not the case.
    
    All I’m saying is that, as long as we are going to the effort of patting these bloggers on the back for being such fine, upstanding citizens, maybe we should reflect a bit on what good citizenship would really mean, in this case.
  - bwcbwc
    
    Not to mention the fact that “innocent until proven guilty” is a feature of American law (and English common law?), not Swedish law.
    - Pelle
      
      I just wanted to mention that it is a bit of a myth that “innocent until proven guilty” is only found in the legal systems of English-speaking countries. Just one modern example is that the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Council of Europe member states have to adhere, states this principle. I am not a Swede (I live in a neighboring country), but I assume that Sweden has signed this as well.
vendorx

I don’t think the assessment of this being a rights issue is really valid. The notion that its all about damning two “sluts” because they’re women is not something I’ve seen a great deal of.
By and large is the overreaction. Do I think there shouldn’t be laws for “consent based sexual assault?” No, I agree such laws have a place. But in any case like this, we have to consider how many people a nation would try and extradite, without charge, over a broken condom, an event that is far more “accident” than assault.
I donâ€™t know all the details in this case. Iâ€™m not inclined to pass judgment on any of the alleged victims or potential criminals here. What I will say is that many of the responses to the situation seem to be far reaching attempts to use a popular media event as a springboard for other agendas.
desiredusername

For your discerning pleasure, here is some Swedish “rape accusation” context. Apparently Sweden has the highest number of reported rapes in Europe, though, per the article, this is suspected to be due to female empowerment in Sweden not to increased violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/europe/08sweden.html?_r=1&hp
Delaney

Thank you for this post. I am an unabashed Assange fanboy, but yeah, we don’t know anything and we shouldn’t speculate and if rape was committed that’s horrific. No one ever loses the right to withdraw consent at any point and sex without consent, even if it was consensual an instant before, is full on rape.

However, none of it is really my business and none of it has to do with the operation of WikiLeaks. It does not in the least lower my enthusiasm for what WikiLeaks does; it does not in the least lower my moral obligation to donate all I can.

We all have to live with the dichotomy of good and evil tendencies within us. People can do great good and great evil. Thomas Jefferson to this day remains one of the greatest thinkers on the liberty of the human and yet he himself until the day of his death was a slave-owner. People are complicated.
aj

OK, so let’s maintain a healthy skepticism. It’s not disrespect for women to do so. It’s respect for justice.

That said: (1) Assange seems like a first-rate asshole; (2) this doesn’t convict him of anything; (3) he still has the right to publish those leaks.
Anonymous

I think we are in the 1930s again, and the 1940s are coming.
awjtawjt

all right, all right. I rolled my eyes yesterday at “sex by surprise” in another thread. It just sounds absurd.

Getting arrested after the fact for consensual sex that later on, one party decides that since there was no condom, none of it was ok? That’s what doesn’t wash, for me. If it’s consensual, it’s consensual. I can’t now say that someone I had sex with ten years ago, holy shit, no condom, rape!!! I can’t say that. But if it’s non-consensual, that’s the real issue. Not the condoms. Not the silly name, “sex con surprise.” The real issue is consent. Was there or was there not full consent? If not, then it’s a crime. If so, then no crime.
js7a

P.S. More proof from the secondary literature: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16436097
js7a

At this point, it looks to me like this case is about how much the Swedish justice system sucks: http://justiceforjulian.blogspot.com/2010/12/broken-court-10-reasons-case-against.html
timbearcub

So why wasn’t Julian Assange wasn’t allowed bail, even with John Pilger standing surety?

Of course he’s an international criminal of some standing, and will be attacking many women without a condom, and of course Roman Polansky et al are currently in jail.

/not.

Read the Feministe thread, like the extra perspective, but do think the vaguely passive aggressive ‘don’t talk about other stuff in this thread’ approach is a bit blind. The whole thing DOESN’T add up, that doesn’t take away from the dodgy consent stuff, but really..from the blog posts and tweet to the fact one of them was thrown out of Cuba, it’s all a bit odd.

And I suspect they (US, Sweden) want the divide and conquer tactic to work, as liberal bloggers scratch their chins and debate the finer points of consent while Julian Assange is shipped out on the next plane…
- Simon Bradshaw
  
  @timbearcub
  
  There’s a good legal analysis of the bail situation here.
  
  The problem about surety is that, in the eyes of the court, none of those people had a close connection with Assange. Yes, he’d look a bit bad if he skipped bail, but under the circumstances a lot of people wouldn’t blame him, and I could even imagine a campaign to repay those who stood surety.
  
  Surety counts a lot more when it comes from someone to whom the accused owes a personal obligation or has a close connection with. It’s a tribute to the strength of support for Assange that Pilger, Khan and the others offered this – and apparently the judge commended them – but I can see why their offer wasn’t taken up. The point of surety isn’t so that people with rich supporters can buy themselves out of prison. It’s so that people on bail have a real personal incentive not to abscond.
timbearcub

oh and insert usual comment about the fact both sides of a rape case should be anonymous.

Removing that right (in the UK anyway) was a real mistake, I think…
- Matt J
  
  There was never any right to anonymity for the accused in rape cases in the UK. The government was going to implement it, but decided against it.
  - Simon Bradshaw
    
    @Matt J: Between 1976 and 1988, defendants had anonymity too. The recent proposals were to re-introduce it.
imag

A lot of the article sounds like she’s telling us: “Stop! Do not look for patterns. Patterns may not be truthful!”

That’s true. But it’s also true that looking for patterns is what humans do. We’re really good at it. Some of them are true; some of them are not. We shouldn’t stop looking.

I totally agree on the CIA meme being a red herring. Someone paid by the CIA to pretend he raped her wouldn’t send out happy tweets after the fact. That pretty much shuts that whole conspiracy down in my mind. Those tweets also happen to be the second-most damning thing against the rape story, which is no doubt why she deleted the tweets: http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml

But ignoring the “7 steps to revenge” manifesto is a little bit daft. We are not in a court. But in the speculation game, where no one knows what happened but the parties involved, that’s a pretty big deal.

We never know the truth. But the internets will speculate. Sometimes the speculation is worthwhile; sometimes it’s not. I agree that it’s nice when the speculation is not slander.
- Brillobreaks
  
  It’s only damning if you think rape only ever involves screaming women dragged into dark alleys by knife-wielding strangers. In reality, this is fairly typical of what a lot of rapes/sexual assaults look like. And yes, that includes continued contact with the rapist(s). And yes, it includes trying to make things still be ‘normal’, rather than running off screaming into the night, or whatever behavior you think would be more appropriate.
  - imag
    
    To answer your question: I never beat my wife. Thanks for asking.
    - Brillobreaks
      
      How about you avoid calling perfectly normal behavior ‘damning’ proof that there was no rape?
      - imag
        
        Brillo. I think you’re painting a false dichotomy and trying to put me in it. I also think it’s impossible to talk about it in this thread.
        
        I probably shouldn’t have brought it up here, so I’ll take the hit on that one. If you really want, we can pick it up on a more appropriate thread.
arikol

It’s hard enough to prove rape where force is used, proving rape based purely on consent is impossible without witnesses or recordings. Multiple victims might count as strengthened circumstantial evidence if there has not been prior communication between the victims. That works for all other crimes, if the victims OR witnesses can discuss and compare their stories then memories are contaminated even when the accusations are completely true. Human memory really is that lousy, and multiple studies and experiments back that up. View basic social psychology for further info.

Of course it should be consent based, and of course deception should not be okay, but EVERYONE is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, which is where this approach falls apart.

They better have some REALLY strong proof to justify this extreme reaction with international arrest warrants and extradition requests. Because all the other women who got raped that same week are NOT getting their assailants hunted in this manner. Even those that have hard evidence of physically and mentally violent rape.
Miguel

This Reuters piece sheds some light into the events that led to the charges: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B669H20101207
mdh

One thing I’m certain of, his sexual deviancy is not the point.
DEStrath

My understanding is that there are no charges yet, that Mr. Assange has not been charged with a crime but is being extradited to answer questions. And JonS… “The Swedes are so very concerned about bringing Assange to justice for the crimes he comitted in Sweden”, Do you have personal knowledge that he has comitted (sic) any crime? If not please watch your language.
- JonS
  
  DEStrath(sic),
  meh, my sbelink on forums is often abysmal. I try, but fial. If there were an edit function here I would happily and frequently use it. But there isn’t, so I can’t.
  
  As to your wider concern, did you RTFA? Do you have anything to say about that, or would you rather pick nits where there are none to be picked. Maybe [/snark] tags would have helped your comprehension.
  
  Best regards
  Jon
weatherman

The feministe piece is really well written and very thoughtful. It’s definitely worth reading as an exploration of what the charges are, what it means to have consensual sex and how consensual can turn non-consensual.

The one thing I take issue with is the underlying suggestion that women don’t lie about rape. As someone who spent many years investigating rapes, I know that some women do lie about rape. It’s not many, but when they do it not only puts their accused through an incredible ordeal and stigma, but it also undermines every woman who has ever legitimately accused someone of rape.

I also think that a completely binary classification of sexual crimes undermines legitimate claims of rape as well. The media would prefer to break things down to either “Rape!” or “consensual sex” but there are many shades of sexual assault. A more nuanced discussion of sexual assaults would benefit everyone’s understanding of the issue.
BB

From the article:
â€œliberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victimâ€

So it is only considered â€œhealthyâ€ skepticism when one considers the allegations as fact, and Assange as perpetrator? It isnâ€™t â€œhealthyâ€ skepticism to believe that the women might not be telling the truth? Or to advance that further, it isnâ€™t â€œhealthyâ€ skepticism to question that the Swedish government might have something to gain by bringing charges forth? I donâ€™t know whether Assange is guilty of the crimes in Sweden, but Harding wrote an article about the alleged victims and Assange, as did many others.

So in that way, whether the charges are true or not, Harding and other writers have moved away from discussing the serious matters released in the Wikileaks documents. And even if it is â€œunhealthyâ€ skepticism, one might see that as having been created by design. Based on what has been released in the documents, I have less trust of governments, not more. And unfortunately, right now, my skepticism towards those governments extends to the citizens of that country, whether they are making accusations of rape, theft or any other crime, when politically, it would be a most advantageous time to trash the accused and remove the discussion away from the documents and multiple governmentsâ€™ misdeeds. I have not read any articles that were particularly misogynist, so perhaps I missed some truly despicable writing.

They MAY have been raped, or they MAY have political motivations as encouraged by their government. Woman, as men, can be equally dedicated to an agenda. In light of the wiki releases, and the governmentsâ€™ angry response, you cannot effectively separate those two issues, without doing some digging on the background of the accusers. If you keep your head in the sand, you canâ€™t find out what the true motivation is. What if Assange is being railroaded? Would he make less of a sympathetic â€œvictimâ€? There have been cases where women lie about being raped. That is fact, and those woman do a great deal of damage to actual rape victims. I canâ€™t say whether these women are lying or not. But with the exceptional circumstances in which this all playing out, it SHOULD generate some questioning.

As a woman, I donâ€™t see how that is â€œslut shamingâ€, I really donâ€™t. Again, Iâ€™ve likely not read the same articles that you have. But simply because the NYT hasnâ€™t found evidence of any influence over these woman by government, that doesnâ€™t prove that none exists. Looking into potential political motivation by the Swedish government, these womenâ€™s ties, or subsequent behavior, has more to do with a distrust of governments and less about â€œhow much women suckâ€, or an attempt at â€œvictim blamingâ€.

Right now, we donâ€™t know who the actual victim is. Do we?
- spirit
  
  agree
jere7my

Hey, Janus. I think there’s a technical issue with your BB account. You have an extraneous letter at the beginning of your name.
Antinous / Moderator

You almost make me regret getting rid of the mean little boy. But he was a sock puppet.