By Leehee Rothschild
Rare are the cases in which an article and the advertisement accompanying it fit together. But in the case of a recent op-ed in The New York Times by Oliver Stone and Michael Moore, “Wikileaks and Free Speech,” the two make a perfect match.
Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has been wanted by the Swedish authorities since 2010 over allegations in two rape cases. He has been under house arrest in London since December 2010, while an extradition order against him was deliberated in British courts, and ultimately approved by the Supreme Court last May. At the moment, he is taking refugee in the Ecuadorian embassy, where he has been granted political asylum.
In a disappointing but quite typical rape apology column, Stone and Moore come to Assange’s defense. They list all of his achievements, speak about the massive threat to the freedom of speech posed by his potential extradition, detail all his generous offers to be interrogated for his sexual crimes in various locations, and narrate conspiracy theories as fact. They also go as far as explaining that he was not “charged with anything,” but only wanted for interrogation for sexual assault.
What’s missing from the entire column, which was shared extensively by my friends and acquaintances, males from the left, are women and their experiences. Assange’s rape survivors were not mentioned once. Their experiences minimized into “nothing but” sexual assault, through a carefully phrased sentence. Furthermore, Moore and Stone do not even spend a moment considering the implications of overlooking Assange’s sexual violence, on the women of the world in general, and women in the left specifically. Women who see they can expect neither solidarity nor support from their comrades on the left when they call out a man from among their ranks, but instead have to deal with contempt, mistrust, and victim blaming. This is nothing but another layer in the well-worn social mechanisms that silence victims of sexual violence, this time employed by the so-called radical left.
Fortunately enough, though, women were not completely excluded from the article. They are present in a small ad on the side bar, inviting the readers to check out “The Women’s Issue,” of the newspaper.
Newspapers and magazines don’t have a “Men’s Issue” because the newspaper itself is considered a man’s issue – politics and finance, news and sports. In other words – everything that happens in the public sphere. The Women’s Issues is the place reserved for everything that belongs to the domestic sphere – cooking and clothing, kids and relationships, all those things too far beneath men to be bothered with. Women’s Issues are the magazine’s way of defining the roles of women and, as a result, of men in the world – women get the kitchen and the nearby mall, and men all the rest.
In their article, Stone and Moore reproduce the very same Victorian era dichotomy. When they say that Assange was not charged with anything, they in fact mean that he was not charged with anything that has to do with his anti-imperialist politics. His sexual violence is not, to them, a matter of global interest, but merely a Women’s Issue, better suited to the side bar of their righteous struggle for freedom of speech.
But this dichotomy is false. Assange is both – an anti-imperialist activist who made important contributions to the global left, and as admitted by his lawyer, a man who penetrated two women without their consent – and a suspected rapist. Political persecution certainly plays a great part in the involvement of the United States, but acknowledging this persecution should by no means entail negating the crimes for which Assange is rightfully wanted.
Leehee Rothschild has been active in the Palestinian struggle for over a decade. She currently works with Anarchists Against the Wall and Boycott From Within. She writes about activism and political struggle on her blog, Radically Blonde and other publications.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Mark Horner
“Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has been wanted by the Swedish authorities since 2010 over allegations in two rape cases.”
When you are so inaccurate about basic facts you lose a good deal of authority.This rape survivor is somewhat better informed.
http://theloudmouths.org/2012/08/29/dont-call-me-a-rape-apologist/
Per S
Excellent post, thanks for the perspective.
Soup One
Sadly, this article contains too much hero worship of Assange as some form of “anti-imperialist”.
The truth seems boring by comparison, its almost a business enterprise for him.
He made non-transparent deals concerning Wikileaks and, according to insiders, ran it as almost his own fiefdom.
But if you think he’s wonderful look up his record concerning Belarus.
Malphius
This article is so inaccurate the author should consider a career change.
aristeides
Everyone has their own dead horse to beat. Obviously, Rothchild’s is rape. She sees all politics through rape-colored glasses.
It’s people like this who deliver ammunition to the Akins of the world, who talk about “legitimate” rape and that other stuff that isn’t really rape. The more a term is exended to refer to what it isn’t, the weaker it becomes, not stronger. What Assange is accused of – not charged with – wouldn’t be considered rape in any other nation, including the UK.
Klil
Rape is a dead horse now? How delightful! There I was thinking that women (and men) were being sexually assaulted every day, usually by family or acquaintances; but I guess I was wrong – the UN’s 2011 Anti Rape Chip initiative must have been more successful than I had thought.
aristeides
Yes, they are. And trivializing rape with articles like this one is an insult added to the injury of the actual assault.
Eyal
Come on, Leehee, don’t you see you’re just playing along with the spectacle that’s being put up against WikiLeaks? The whole sexual harassment thing is something that’s come up as WikiLeaks released more and more information. You would not be complaining about Assange had it not been in the immediate interest of some of the world’s states that you be occupied with his supposed sexual crimes.
I don’t know any of the details about these charges; I’ve also heard the rumors about how he had run WikiLeaks in a condescending and bossy manner. But frankly, I don’t care, and neither should you. Sweden is not asking for the extradition of any one of a thousand people who can be convicted of crimes serious and minor. But they do want Assange – for good reason. Suppose Rachel Corrie had been accused, even convicted, of aiding and abetting Hamas, a “terrorist organization” – with you being rebuked for supporting her family’s lawsuit. “But we mustn’t condone attacks on civilians, such people must be ostracized and cooperation with them is a serious offense” – is it, do you thin? Sorry for the comparison, I know it’s not fair, but just think about what your position means.
(Not to mention the fact that states and courts are themselves the greatest upholders of patriarchy.)
Bluegrass Picker of Afula
So Eyal, are you asking us to believe that if Julian Assange had been a (say for example) Shomron Settlement Activist….. that you would STILL be trumpeting his right to NOT face the music on a due process of law in Sweden?
Soup One
There is plenty of factual information concerning Assange’s actions and how he has brought Wikileaks into disrepute by not going to Sweden and clearing up these matters.
There has already been a great deal of discussion & debate on this topic, readers might do well to follow David Allen Green at the New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
The Guardian has covered Assange’s action, which his lawyer acknowledged:
“…tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and try to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom…”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-strategy-fight-extradition
Soup One
“What Assange is accused of – not charged with – wouldn’t be considered rape in any other nation, including the UK.”
That is factually incorrect.
The Court judgements made it plain that Assange’s action, **would** be considered rape in Britain.
Soup One
Just in case any other men want to deny it was rape, one extract:
“On this approach, then intentional penetration achieved by coercion or where consent is lacking to the knowledge of the defendant would be considered to be rape. In our view on this basis, what was described in the EAW was rape. Coercion evidences knowledge of a lack of consent and lack of a reasonable belief in consent. A requirement of proof of coercion, if that is what Swedish law requires, is a more onerous test for the prosecution to satisfy than the test for consent in the 2003 Act; it necessarily means however that the allegation that the defendant knew of the absence of consent or had no reasonable belief in consent, is made out in the description of the offence.”
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
I have links to other Court documentations on my blog
Danielle Internacionalista Ratcliff
“His sexual violence is not, to them, a matter of …” This undermines some of the good points you make about the misogyny of some of his defenders. Leehee just raped the presumption of innocence. And in fact simply presumes guilt.
Joe Catron
Would-be commentators, read this first. It may prevent you from saying something silly.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
Anna B.
If you read that, then you should definitely read these as well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition
Malphius
Except that the women went to police to see if they could bring Assange in for an HIV test, not for rape.
Woman A. had consensual sex. The condom “broke”. She alleges that it was damaged intentionally. Lab tests have rendered “odd” results.
Woman B. the woman “raped” during her sleep refused to sign charges of rape.
http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html
I would suggest to you that you also check your sources, lest you say something silly as well.
Bluegrass Picker of Afula
what we ==do== know for sure is: Assange is now afugitive from Scotland Yard. We also know that a large number of American military/intelligence folks believe that
Assange’s hands are covered with their co-workers blood. We also know that Trotsky was convinced that running away to Latin America would safeguard his life. We also know that Eichman thought that running away to Latin America would safeguard his life.
Soup One
The factual errors by Assange’s apologists does not help his or their case.
Assange held a women’s arms as she reached for a condom.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-strategy-fight-extradition
If Assange supporters were genuinely concerned with women’s rights then they would inform themselves on Assange’s poor conduct and not lie about his actions.
Danielle Internacionalista Ratcliff
“Assange held a women’s arms as she reached for a condom” and people should “not lie about his actions.” — BREAKING! Eyewitness testimony from Assange menage-a-trois participant “Soup One” testifies to Assange’s guilt!
Soup One
The women’s accounts have not been questioned by Assange’s lawyers, thus should be given benefit of doubt.
Non-consensual sex is an issue that many men, in particular Assange supporters, don’t understand or want to appreciate.
The account is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-strategy-fight-extradition
Carl
Glad someone’s talking sense. Should he answer the charges in Switzerland? Yes. Is he a hard person to respect? Yes. Does that mean Wikileaks is bad? No reason to think so, though it’s respect for ‘openness’ seems to trump the safety of people mentioned in their releases at times.
.
Particularly depressing is hearing people decide he isn’t guilty because they support Wikileaks, like some weird reverse ad hominem. Even worse is hearing people trot out the same excuse that this isn’t ‘proper’ rape. And yes, as mentioned above, sex with someone who is unconscious is a crime in the UK: it’s called rape.
Piotr Berman
Using the suggested link to Guardian, it is hard to have unequivocal conclusion that Assange is guilty of rape of AA. Number one, “initially, AA welcomed his advances” which is basically consent. Number two, “AA did not articulate that she does not agree for penetration without a condom, instead she tried to reach for the condom…” so AA believed that she “terminated the consent” but perhaps Assange could REASONABLY fail to conclude it — as it was “not articulated”.
What I recall from another source, Assange was not sent packing by his victim for several days, and while his behavior seems caddish and boorish, he did not intimidate his victim. From what I know, a determined female can articulate the message “Get out of here! Now!” and if unheeded, follow it up by throwing the belongings of the guy out of the apartment.
To me this suggests that when AA “tried” Assange in her mind in the immediate aftermath of the event, she found him inadequate as a romantic partner but not a someone so revolting (like a rapist) that he cannot be tolerated for few days. And the first prosecutor who handled the case also did not see prosecutable offense.
Once the case is politically charged or merely “famous”, all assumptions of impartiality of courts (like the British court) are silly.
Piotr Berman
After checking, I was mistaken. Throughout the unfortunate week, Assange was living with the first victim (I leave it open if she was a victim in criminal sense, but definitely unhappy), and the incident of non-verbal withdrawal of consent of the second victim happen during that time.
The first victim (“unconscious”) tolerated Assange for at least 3 more nights to sleep in the same bed. The second victim saved him breakfast after buying ingredients although she did not like “being ordered” to do so. The police narrative suggests that the victims did not conclude that they are criminal victims without discussions with friends, and with each other.
Very astonishing, the narrative compiled by the policewoman through interrogation of the alleged victims is available, names and all, on the web which already hints that this is not the normal case. My perception is that the “defenders of the law” decided to try their best to discredit Assange, regardless of eventual trial sentence, as it was in the case of Bill Clinton.
SoupOne
Legally and morally when you try to screw someone, without their full consent and using force, then that is considered rape, in both UK and Sweden.
It’s fairly obvious that Assange supporters won’t see it that way, as their hero can do no wrong, but those who have some feeling for women’s rights & are anti-rape will understand why this is very problematic:
“…tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and try to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom.”
Piotr Berman
SoupOne: this is selective quotation. The woman did not say anything, and in the narrative, after the intercourse Assange asked why she made those strange movements. Sounds a bit stupid, because he could ask earlier, but the fact that she did not say it earlier without asking also sounds a bit stupid.
The fact is that mental acuity of people in such situation is not at its highest AND that fully consensual sex may involve more force than described in the police narrative (e.g. slapping) makes it much more ambiguous that you make it sound.
Danielle
Soup: “The women’s accounts have not been questioned by Assange’s lawyers…”. Oh, dear, I believe you may actually be laboring under the assumption of this urban myth. And Leehee is even more woefully misinformed: “and as admitted by his lawyer, a man who penetrated two women without their consent…” (Two women?! “Woman A” never even made such a claim!). What you are actually referring to, and Leehee, I think, is making a very confused and exaggerated reference to, are ESTO arguments by the attorneys. Esto– a technical term used in written pleadings to introduce a secondary line of defense which accepts only for the sake of argument facts which are still disputed in the primary defense. A legal term used in written pleading to state that even if the pleading of the other side is accepted the conclusion they seek does not follow.
I know that the misinterpretation you seem to have accepted as legitimate has shown up in various places in the blogosphere (and repeated, telephone game like, on this blog). And it sure does help to square the circle, doesn’t it? But it is clearly false. No informed legal source, not the very anti-Assange David Allen Green, would assert, that what is essentially a legal point of procedure is an “admission” of anything (and check your sources on anyone who has claimed as much). Please check this one out. Hope I’ve helped. And I hope the author retracts and corrects their several erroneous assertions about that. Then we can
SoupOne
How many Assange supporters or men (and it is mostly men bringing up these quibbles) think it is acceptable to:
1) Hold a woman’s arms, against her wishes, force open her legs whilst in bed?
2) Have sex with someone that’s sleeping or half asleep, unable to give their consent?
Danielle Internacionalista Ratcliff
Soup One is grandstanding again. Who needs facts?
Danielle Internacionalista Ratcliff
And yes, there certainly has been misogyny from Assange “supporters”. But in the proximate matter of this piece that we’re commenting on, the factual errors in it should be addressed, before moving forward.
r johnston
i note with interest that you describe the complainants as rape survivors and talk of assange’s sexual violence. my understanding is that no trial has taken place.does the presumption of innocence have no place in your worldview?
John Goss
Now the truth is coming out about there being no DNA on the condom allegedly used by Julian Assange this short video appears to be not too far from the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nIrLS3gI8A&feature=g-upl
yeah
if you search rixstep you will find transcripts of assange and the two women.
it is a myth that their voice has not be heard at all-their own lawyers have been allowed to take over,have been allowed to change the story (unusual for british courts) and have already said in sweden a lawyer determines whether rape occurs even if it hasn’t!-so much for two sides of a case. so much for swedish courts, law is handled by the equivalent of shire workers/members.
the two women are active sdp members. their lawyer is an active member of sdp, an mp and a practising lawyer,so er, no conflict of interests then!
a very ‘get julian a for usa’ plan by the swedes.nice and cosy usa & sweden.
i refuse to accept to be lumped in and called a ‘r-pe apologist’ when a) it’s clear from facts that rape did not occur b) sex without a condom is not rape c) condoms have now been mentioned, a new condom, from 2nd victim, now has appeared in 2012 after all these years,hence making the ‘no-condom=rape’ argument null and void
d) i dont believe the accused rape case here is anything but fake rape to attempt to discredit, dismantle another successful australian journalist and publisher, who exposes in particular america’s very central role in an expensive and ludicrous war that they try and downplay .
ie: our govts ARE making life harder and poorer for most of us.