To Bury Julian, Not to Praise Him.
Oh to be a fly on the wall as the competing shibboleths fought to the death in the wreckage of Wikileaks last week.
Our modern main stream media have adored the Wikileaks. They have long given themselves over to regurgitating press releases rather than vouching a (potentially libellous) opinion on current affairs. What passes for news these days is in fact a signed and dated piece of paper from ‘someone’ – invariably the publicity agent of some celebrity – that can be referred to in the event of Carter Ruck rearing their head yet again. Even the scandal of MPs expenses owed its emergence into the world of main stream news to a stolen CD with signed and dated copies of expenses rather than journalistic integrity.
The latest Wikileaks were nothing more than 250,000 signed and dated pieces of paper – signed by Ambassadors mostly – that allowed the media to gorge itself on mentions of such wildly disparate and yet topical items as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the equally mysterious reappearance in the world at large of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi without so much as ruffling a hair on the legal department’s immaculate heads.
The left wing press, in particular, was cock-a-hoop at being handed an undefended goal in the form of American embarrassment, and sated themselves daily on Yank bashing.
None more so than the Guardian; Nick Davies, Cock of the Walk as the chosen mouthpiece of Julian, DemiGod of the underground army of hackers, anarchists, and agitators. With every publication, a rousing cheer went up from the dispossessed and the pyjama-hideen. The Internet army moved swiftly to extract retribution from those who dared to oppose their all conquering hero.
There might not have been such cheer had Wikileaks embarrassed the North Korean government, or poked at Putin, but he didn’t; his aim was steadfastly on that icon of capitalism – the United States of America. What could go wrong?
Protected within the bubble of on-line anarchists, and computer geeks, precious little. Julian’s idea of foreplay – a tad violent, less than gentlemanly – was not condemned by those who populate the late night Twitter waves, the muscular world of on-line anarchism. It is the sexual behaviour of teenage male imagination. Women who throw themselves at you, panting, mouth parted and glossed just so, that you can use and abuse at will. Julian’s idea of responsible sexual relationships was positively admired within the world of those confined to a computer screen decorated with ‘hot chicks’ and ‘Asian babes’.
Out in the real world, in the Guardian editorial offices, another shibboleth was rearing its head. Women’s rights. A shibboleth invoked by certainly more than 50% of its readership, and they were not amused.
Women’s Rights, or Anti-Americanism – which way to go? A terrible predicament for a left wing newspaper. I would love to have heard the ideological arguments. More fascinating than any discussion of competing Human Right’s theses.
Unnoticed by many, the great ship Guardian shuddered to a halt on Friday, the Captain ordered full astern, and Nick Davies, no less, was lashed to the helm and ordered to steer the vessel in the direction of Equality for women.
Accompanied by the sound of mass choking on principles, he dutifully reported the leaked – oh the irony – details of the so called ‘trumped up’ charges against Julian.
We heard of a woman, no doubt slightly heady from the position bestowed upon her as chief organiser of a conference at which her idol was to speak, offering him accommodation during his stay in the Swedish capital.
She claims that on returning to the flat they went for a companionable meal together. She must have felt honoured to be in such august company, flattered even. The initial leg stroking taken in good humour, the price of appeasing male ego. How many women read that account, as it turned from leg stroking to clothing ripped off, to arms and legs pinned to the bed, to realising that ‘it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far’ – and remembered their own past encounters? Perhaps a boss who had taken them home after the New Year’s Eve party, perhaps the ‘famous celebrity’ they had met as part of their work?
Assange’s lawyer, Mark Stephens makes much of the fact that Assange stayed on in that flat for another week after this encounter. In male eyes this amounts to ‘condoning’ anything and everything, notwithstanding that she had sought advice from several work colleagues as to how best to persuade her nemesis to move on to other accommodation. Perhaps it does in legal terms, but a shiver would have passed down the spine of the Guardian’s many female readers, as they were reminded of their own ideological arguments – not best conducted as someone scrabbles at your nipples and breaths hot beery breath in your face – do I kick him in the balls now and lose my job or keep quiet? Having kept quiet, do I go on keeping quiet – even when someone else comes to me a few days later with a similar tale and fears of having contracted a disease from this transient male?
I have little doubt that the army of testosterone enriched admirers that little Julian has clutched to his bosom will go on supporting him, believing his lawyer’s insinuation that this is a ‘honey-trap’ sprung by the CIA; Jemima Khan will go on believing that ‘this is about free speech’; but in the real world, there is an army of women who will find the tale of egotistical male believing that women are there to be used by the successful warrior more than distasteful and entirely believable.
It is a total mystery to me that Julian should fight so hard not to be extradited from a country with a despicable record of handing people over to the American authorities – the UK – in order to answer a ‘trumped-up’ charge in a famously neutral country – Sweden. What could he be worried about? Perhaps only that Sweden’s juries will not turn out to be comprised of Internet Geeks and late night Twitterers…Julian prefers the court of bellowing on-line opinion, something his army of admirers are only too good at.
It is to the Guardian’s credit that they have belatedly realised this – but lashing Nick Davies to the helm as they went full-astern and buried Julian – that was cruel!
December 20, 2010 at 20:05
-
UPDATE:
“Lawyers for Julian Assange are “angry” and “concerned” that someone leaked
confidential Swedish police files detailing the rape allegations against the
WikiLeaks founder, according to a report citing conversations with his legal
team, and the team intends to launch a formal complaint with the Swedish
authorities.
It’s unclear whether they see the irony.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/20/assange_lawyers_angry_over_leaked_police_files/
- December 20, 2010 at
20:34
-
December 20, 2010 at 01:41
-
Worst. Entry. Ever.
(And I mean by the Raccoon, not Assange).
Saves me one click a day never coming back here.
- December 19, 2010 at 19:33
-
Hate to disagree with you Anna… but you offer as supporting evidence an
article from the Daily Mail, for Christ’s sake, quoting an unnamed source, a
colleague, saying things like “he felt that” and “he felt certain that…”. Also
“A lot of women were extremely attracted to Julian, and after a few minutes,
they offered themselves to him.” Wow — how likely is THAT to be true?
Others in the cast of characters included “a well known American reporter”
and “his girl friend” and “a senior journalist”, all of whom were never given
names by their parents.
A promiscuous man is going to have a trail of women behind him, especially
if he is as irresistable as alleged. And as far as I know, none of the
hundreds of others have come forward with accusations of bad treatment at his
hands. But maybe the Mail will have some tomorrow.
Anyway… I think this subject is done to death now. None of us know nuffink.
We weren’t there.
- December 19, 2010 at
19:47
-
December 19, 2010 at 20:51
-
My comment above is in the wrong place — should be AFTER Anna’s comment
down below, at 15.11 pm. Sorry.
- December 19, 2010 at
21:13
- December 19, 2010 at 13:44
-
Anna,
It is rare for me to disagree with you but I fear you are being extremely
naive on this one.
On the issue of the rape, he has not even being charged, never mind
convicted but you appear certain of his guilt. Unless you have information the
rest of us don’t I feel you are jumping the gun somewhat. Since this case is
being handled in an extraordinary way it would seem logical to be, how can I
put it, a little suspicious about what is going on.
Regardless of the merits or lack there of for leaking information there can
be little doubt that those whose lies have been exposed will not be best
pleased with young Julian. Given that the people offended in many cases have
very long arms indeed does not any doubt occur to you that this could be
politically motivated? There is a long tradition of surprise heart attacks,
poisonings, car and plane crashes of people who offend the wrong
organisations. Equally, sexual smears are another popular choice to discredit
an opponent when bumping them off would be a bit too obvious.
Lastly, Wikileaks has not just exposed sensitive US information, you might
want to cast your mind back to who distributed the leaked CRUgate stuff. That
did more to discredit the global warming scam than any other individual act
and might save us from going back to the dark ages.
- December 19, 2010 at
13:53
-
jiks – I am not certain of his guilt by any means – I am certain that
this girl’s allegations are entitled to be tested in court and not dismissed
out of hand as ‘trumped up’ merely becasue this man has achieved notoriety
in another field.
Even the swedish prosecutor has affirmed that he is
sure there will be those who will seek to make mileage out of the
allegations, and I agree, they are extremely handy to Julian’s opponents.
That is a long way from making them entirely untrue.
He didn’t have to be
extradited. He was asked to attend another conference in Sweden, he chose
not to. These extradition proceedings have given him front page publicity
for many days – entirely of his choosing. Does it not occur to you that
that could be politically motivated – Julian’s politics
this time rather than the US?
Sweden has a better record than the UK has
for not allowing extradition to the US – yet he would rather sit it out in
Wandswroth than go to Sweden? Hmmmm.
- December 19, 2010 at 14:13
-
Anna, my understanding is that his defence team had been trying for
months to meet with the prosecutor or even find out what the allegations
were. However, that could indeed be spin much as you suggest.
Of course, both sides could be lying, it is even possible that Julian’s
team had someone post false charges for increased publicity. As usual in
cases like this it is impossible for an outsider to know the truth. To
muddy the waters further he has stated the reason he left the States was
because “sources within the White House” advised him charges or direct
action was pending. Like you I find the UK a very odd choice for a haven
given we pretty much do whatever Uncle Sam tells us to.
Given we don’t know the truth at this stage I believe we should be
asking ourselves who would benefit from the founder of Wikileaks being
discredited rather than discussing his guilt or innocence but that is just
my opinion and no more valid than yours.
-
December 19, 2010 at 14:17
-
“Sweden has a better record than the UK has for not allowing
extradition to the US – yet he would rather sit it out in Wandswroth than
go to Sweden? Hmmmm.”
Anna, I don’t think that he expected to be arrested and bunged in the
Wandsworth slammer. And I believe he was supicious of the Swedes’ motives
for revivifying these allegations. Which are STILL NOT charges. He says
(and I at least believe him) that he suspects they are a legal device to
get him to Sweden, where he can be extradited to the US without causing
the UK government too much embarrassment.
It is pretty obvious that once in Sweden, Assange is NOT going to be
found guilty, as there will be no physical or eye-witness EVIDENCE. Only
personal allegations and denials, plus some after-the-fact hearsay stuff.
How are the girls statements going to “tested” in court? Is it all going
to come down to how well each of them speaks (in Swedish perhaps?).
-
December 19, 2010 at 13:05
-
The Guardian is beyond repair – full of the terminally self-righteous and
self-appointed evangelists (Toynbee, Monbiot, that’s you two for starters),
who believe they have the Guardian-given right to lecture us and chastise us.
So they have a campaign against corporate tax avoidance, whilst avoiding £300
million tax themselves, and more to the point, not understanding that that
makes them the acme of hypocrisy.
I was brought up on the Manchester Guardian, and did much reading of the
back pages whilst my father read it at the breakfast table. It was once a fine
rag, full of fine journalists. Now it is full of arsewipes, and fit only for
wiping your arse with. RIP
- December
19, 2010 at 12:17
-
Sorry Anna, you – disappointingly along with so many other Libertarians who
should know better – are completely and utterly wrong on this issue.
Detailed rebuttal to follow later today…..
- December 19, 2010 at
12:40
-
Well I fully realise that defending the idea that she has the right of
entry to her property (body) under her rules (protection) is going to be
seen as anti-Libertarian by those who approve of the ‘total free speech is
more important than anything else in the whole wide world’, but I do hope
your rebuttal contains some evidence as to the rules you will apply should
you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of someone wishing to
enter your body without your full informed consent…..
If you give
permission to a surgeon to remove your appendix will you be amused to
discover that he has helped himself to both your kidneys and the world says
nothing should happen becasue he is also a celebrity releaser of diplomatic
cables?
Daivd C above has it exactly right – there are two different
issues here, and only in a celebrity confused world could they be conflated.
- December 19, 2010 at 12:49
-
Actually it was on your points regarding the media and wikileaks
itself, but jump down my throat beforehand by all means.
- December 19, 2010 at
13:01
- December 19, 2010 at 12:16
-
Whoops – Wikileaks of course, not Wikipedia
- December 19, 2010 at 12:16
-
There are two different issues at play here. The first is whether Wikileaks
is a good or a bad thing. The second is whether Assange behaved
illegally/unacceptably in Sweden. They are completely different, and it is
only in an intellectually bankrupt court of celebrity that they are confused.
We shouldn’t judge Wagner’s music on the basis of his anti-semitism, nor
should we judge Wikipedia on Assange’s behaviour towards his groupies.
- December 19, 2010 at 12:11
-
You have me laugh my head off on sunday morning Anna. Thank you.
Do you write for the Daily Mail or is it The Sun in your spare time?
I have never seen such drivel. I think anything you write will just make
the man more popular! Keep up the good work.
- December 19, 2010 at 12:05
-
There might not have been such cheer had Wikileaks embarrassed the North
Korean government, or poked at Putin, but he didn’t; his aim was steadfastly
on that icon of capitalism – the United States of America. What could go
wrong?
Poetic narrative, but assuming he didn’t have a N. Korea file or a Putin
folder on hand, and still held data presumably leaked to him by Pfc Manning,
held in solitary confinement for the last several months in a US military
brig, it’s quite likely the US was well aware that Wikileaks still had
unreleased cables.
Given that the US isn’t entirely averse to snatching or assassinating
perceived enemies if necessary, wouldn’t it be prudent to release the
remaining Manning material first, before outing Putin?
I’m not convinced that Wikileaks was anti-American as much as it was
feeling the heat of a rather hot potato. Considering that material leaked
prior to the Iraq and Afghanistan war data had nothing to do with the United
States, you may be overplaying the wild anarchist angle.
Vivid writing though.
-
December 19, 2010 at 11:39
-
“In male eyes this amounts to ‘condoning’ anything and everything… but a
shiver would have passed down the spine of the Guardian’s many female
readers”
This is pretty shoddy generalisation – not every man thinks like this, and
certainly not every woman would have been sympathetic. The issue cannot be
divided along gender lines, and no serious commentator should attempt to do
so.
The referenced article from the Guardian does a good job of putting both
sides, and neither side comes off well from the account. Much of this
information has been available elsewhere for some time – was the Daily Mail
the first one to publish details of the initial police report?
Unfortunately this article is full of hyperbole and fantasy and does not
live up to the site’s tag line; this website is usually much better balanced
than this.
- December 19, 2010 at 11:37
-
Ironic that the (US) state wants to know all about its citizens’ (&
most of those in the rest of the world) electronic life via ‘back-door’ access
into Windows & OSX, yet throws a hissy fit when its ‘private’
communications are publicised.
Maybe it should prosecute under a Data Protection Act; and, be prosecuted
under a Data Protection Act because it didn’t.
- December
19, 2010 at 11:37
-
“I have little doubt that the army of testosterone enriched admirers
that little Julian has clutched to his bosom will go on supporting him,
believing his lawyer’s insinuation that this is a ‘honey-trap’ sprung by the
CIA; Jemima Khan will go on believing that ‘this is about free speech’; but
in the real world, there is an army of women who will find the tale of
egotistical male believing that women are there to be used by the successful
warrior more than distasteful and entirely believable.”
I’m afraid I’m going to be a conscientious objector for this one…
It’s entirely possible for a man to be a sleazy scumbag yet NOT a
rapist.
- December 19, 2010 at
12:28
-
JuliaM
If you mean the British definition of rape, I am entirely with
you.
However, the Swedish definition of rape, a three tiered affair, also
includes refusing to use protection during sex – so in Swedens case, it does
become rape.
I think that is clouding the issue here. I suspect that in
the UK the charge would have been something like ‘procurement by deception’
or along those lines, and would not have permitted the knee jerk reactions
of ‘that’s not rape’.
- December 19, 2010 at 13:05
-
“…refusing to use protection during sex…”
Well, no condom, no sex, buddy! – can anyone translate that into
Swedish?
I suspect that in England, Assange would soon be a story tagged with my
‘lying about rape’ tag, as I’m afraid on what I’ve seen so far, the
plaintiffs are as lacking in credibility as the defendant!
- December 19, 2010 at
13:23
-
The allegation, according to the leaked statements seen by the
Guardian allege that she did finally persuade him to use a condom – but
that he ‘did something to it’, unbeknown to her, to render it
ineffective.
-
December 19, 2010 at 13:31
-
perhaps he stuck it in his lug, so they couldn,t have aural
sex!
- December 19, 2010 at 13:37
- December 19, 2010 at 14:00
-
Condoms sometimes split — it’s a sad fact of life that most of us
have experienced.
Assange stands accused of having NORMAL sex (no kinky stuff here) —
by CONSENT — no violent struggles either — by women who sought him out
— it’s not like he stalked them — and by women who had nothing to say
until they found out about each other. Once the ALLEGATIONS were made
— not charges — Assange hung around and co-operated with the Swedish
authorities until the prosecutor dropped all charges for LACK OF
EVIDENCE. Then he went — as planned — to the UK.
He was never on the run. He was not given any documentation in a
language he understood. In the UK, he went voluntarily to a police
station, where he was arrested. He has (apparently) co-operated with
English police.
The allegations were made for a second time by another Swedish
prosecutor, after (it is ALLEGED) interference made by a political
figure. This is widely believed to be Senator Joe Lieberman, of the
United States.
Much or possibly all of the above may turn out to be incorrect. But
the whole thing has a smell to it that offends our delicate noses.
Sorry about the CAPS but I don’t know how to do italics.
- December 19, 2010 at 14:26
-
“He was not given any documentation in a language he
understood.”
His lack of Swedish does not appear to have handicapped him in
any other encounter in Sweden.
Presumably he gave the lecture in English then? Perhaps one of
the people who attended the lecture and thus patently speak both
languages could have assisted him in understanding what the
allegations were?
Just saying like.
- December 19, 2010 at 14:54
-
Both lecturers AND some of our best politicians and comedians
have all gone on stage in Sweden and spoken in English. I don’t
think Assange speaks Swedish, but I could be wrong. (I remember
being wrong several times before, back in the 70′s.)
As to his “encounters”… A) I believe both women had spent time
living in the US. And it is HINTED that one had been employed by
the CIA. and B) You don’t need to be able to speak each other’s
language to end up in bed together. It’s usually done with smiles,
touches, and perhaps a lift of the eyebrows and nod of the head.
Used to work for me, anyway. Again, back in the 70′s.
- December 19, 2010 at 15:11
-
I was being slightly sarcastic Lenko, I didn’t think he
needed to speak Swedish in order to get the girls into
bed…..however to maintain that he ‘doesn’t know what the
allegations are because they are in Swedish is pushing it a
bit……he had plenty of people round him who could translate for
him.
I’ve just been sent a link to the interview with his
colleague in Sweden who must also be in the pay of the CIA then,
because he is decidedly off message…..
WikiLeaks’s Swedish co-ordinator, who worked closely with
Mr Assange for months, said in an exclusive interview that he
repeatedly begged his boss to have the test, both to head off
the possible police investigation and for Mr Assange’s own
peace of mind, given his promiscuous sex life.
‘The two women told me, that if he goes to the clinic for
an HIV test, then we won’t go to the police,’ said Mr
Assange’s colleague, who wishes to remain anonymous because he
is a witness in the case brought by Swedish prosecutors, which
led to Mr Assange spending nine days in Wandsworth Prison
pending extradition.
He does have extraordinary bad luck in his choice of
colleagues and lovers – his ex-partner left which I have
detailed elsewhere, then the Swedish politician that he first
went to Sweden to work with, then the two girls he beds turn out
to be ‘honey traps’, then the journalist whose reputation was
staked on revealing his ‘wikileaks’ turns tail and say ‘all is
not as it should be’, now the man organising the conference says
he should have had an aids test and avoided all this……
It’s beginning to look as though he was surrounded by CIA
stooges all plotting to bring him down – or it could be that he
is just paranoid and sees conspiracies everywhere and has ended
up turning a molehill into a mountain.
- December 20, 2010 at 06:45
-
For me, it’s the behaviour of the women in this case that
ring all the alarm bells. Even the ‘Mail’ is forced to
conclude that it stinks like pickled fish:
“When police interviewed Assange, he said he did not
tear the condom and was not aware it had been torn. After that
night, he continued to sleep in her bed for a week and she had
never even mentioned it, he said.
Certainly, that is one of the most puzzling aspects of
the case against Assange. For not only did Miss A indeed let
him stay, she threw a party in his honour the night after he
allegedly assaulted her.
Two days later, he slept with Miss W. She was a
twentysomething who had attended his seminar and hung around
hoping to meet him. After lunch and the cinema, she invited
him to her apartment in Enkoping, near Stockholm, and he
stayed.
They used a condom the first time they had sex, but the
next morning he allegedly had sex with her when she was still
asleep, without protection. He maintains she was ‘half asleep’
and they joked about it afterwards.
Either way, it was not long before the two women had
learnt of each other, and were swapping notes.”
-
December 19, 2010 at 11:31
-
The two issues should be separated. Wikileaks provides what is arguably a
public service, particularly in the current age of media manipulation. But I
think they bit off more than they could chew with the Manning cables. There
are some items of legitimate public interest in there, but dumping the entire
collection diplomatic dirty laundry of the US on the internet is unwise and
destabilising. For the most part, the State Department has done no more or no
less than other governments undertake in pursuance of the dark arts of
diplomacy.
Assange has unwisely stepped forward as a celebrity and part of this is
reaping what he has sown in more ways than one. He appears to possess what may
be termed dubious morals in the bedroom, which is often the tittle-tattle that
surrounds some of those in the public eyes with characters which could be
described variously as ‘charismatic’, ‘roguish’ or whatever euphemisms the
tabloids pick up. We can all think of celebrities like this. Dubious character
aside, he is in fact accused of serious offences that the Swedes have to take
even more seriously for three reasons: he is effectively a celebrity, Sweden
has a tradition of stubborn liberal neutrality which may leave Stockholm open
to accusasions of downplaying these charges because of Assange’s activities,
and the issue of sex crime has rightly leapt up of the agenda in recent
decades, perhaps epitomised in the ‘Dragon Tattoo’ novels and films.
He should have voluntarily returned to Sweden to face the charges with
minimum fuss. The issue in this case is perhaps about whether his conduct is
ungentlemanly or criminal, but hinges upon an investigative and judicial
process that looks dispassionately at the allegations and the evidence. So,
from that perspective, I don’t think it has been particularly newsworthy other
than Assange’s efforts to avoid facing charges, as these sorts of allegations
are depressingly familiar from domestic newspapers and point to a wider
societal issue with the perception of women, power and sexual relations.
- December 19, 2010 at 12:13
-
Bit off more than he could chew, perhaps. You might recall he was wanted
by INTERPOL and was on the run before any cables were made public. He didn’t
have the luxury of time to be selective. The data was mirrored for safety
and then passed on to 5 newspapers before he turned himself in. He may have
considered it an all or nothing choice. If that’s the case, I think handing
it to big media was the right move.
- December 19, 2010 at 13:33
-
I still have a neutral position on wikileaks. I don’t buy anti
Americanism as a default position.
Anyway, from what I have read I understand Mr Assange was in Sweden for
up to a month after the alleged rapes took place. The prosecutors in
Stockholm where the alleged incidents took place decided they couldn’t bring
a charge. It is another prosecutor elsewhere in Sweden which has resurrected
the allegations.
All be it that we are members of the EU, and common arrest warrants are a
fact of treaty, what would your position be in relation to our citizens
drinking – as many do – in middle eastern countries? Were the Saudis to
demand we return suspected persons to their jurisdiction would you approve
of arrest, solitary confinement and £240000 bail conditions? What of the
pleas for clemency and efforts our government goes to when some “British”
girl in a Malay or Thai prison squeals her innocence of the drug trafficking
charge they intend to execute her for?
There are double standards everywhere in this case. Indeed perhaps it
would have been best for Mr Assange to go to Switzerland where even famous
paedophiles are safe from extradition.
-
December 19, 2010 at 11:21
-
Distract from the real issue.
So you’re all good with torture,
renditions and a bit of the old back end abuse? You’re up for setting the
standards of our civilisation so low that all soldiers in all wars will be
tortured routinely?
I suppose it’s a little deflating to think that British
society could have sunk so low to have the colonials calling the shots
controlling your civil service and courts and you all being effectively slaves
to the US war machine sacrificing your sons and daughters in the name of
corporate profits.
Get a grip and get your snout out of the trough and try and wake up in the
21st century.
Focus on the real issue yourself instead of wasting your
words commenting on the commenters, The press has shown where it stands,
regurgitated press releases and snout in the trough or truth, whether we like
it or not. And by the way I don’t.
Wasted words.
- December 19, 2010 at 11:18
-
I’m baffled by your stance aswell Anna. Sweden hasn’t provided ANY evidence
so far. Tons of heresay but NO evidence despite repeated requests.
The
leaks have covered many countries and leaders.
The extradition to Sweden is
a prelude to extradition to the US for a show trial.
£240,000 surety and
bail money for a ‘rape’ allegation ? Does it not arouse any suspicion ? Like
it’s got nothing to do with the made up allegations and everything to do with
persecution. Why isn’t the New York Times being closed down ? They’re also
printing the leaks.
- December 19, 2010 at 11:17
-
Notice Wikileaks never go for the Russians Chinese etc.
Wonder why
?
Bang bang, concrete shoes perhaps.
-
December 19, 2010 at 11:47
-
Perhaps because Wikileaks does not receive leaks from countries where
leakers will be ‘disappeared’ by the authorities.
It is bad enough that
the soldier who allegedly leaked the current round of correspondence is in
prison in solitary confinement in the US, prior to being charged, let alone
sentenced.
-
December 19, 2010 at 12:48
-
Bad how?
-
December 19, 2010 at 13:41
-
Bad how??? Oh, let’s see…. would that be because it is only “ALLEGED”
that he was the leaker? Would it be because he is supposed to be
innocent until PROVED guilty in a proper court of law? Would it be that
such a prolonged period of solitary confinement is — by the Americans’
own definition — cruel and unusual punishment? Or would it just be that
the Americans rule the whole bloody planet, and we should just let them
have their way?
Gee, that’s a tough one….
- December 19, 2010 at
21:12
-
What Lenko said.
The man is innocent until proven guilty, so why
the shoddy treatment.
I am deeply disturbed by behaviour of the USA
in this matter (and I am certainly not anti-American in my
politics).
- December 19, 2010 at 11:16
-
Anna, ‘To bury or Praise”, perhaps that should be ‘To burn at the stake or
to beatify’.
Either way you’ve expressed this in identical terms to both
the MSM, and Assange himself: the choice of good v evil.
Assange strikes me
as a classic iconoclast, martyrdom being his chosen role (a Galileo
complex?!). He has set himself as the ‘new’ and thereby confronts the largest
and most powerful icon of contemporary order: the USA. It takes two sides to
make this dialectic work, each as stubbornly set and (self)righteous as the
other. In this case Obama v Assange. Anti US or Pro….etc.
The sad thing is that such stand-offs get us nowhere – certainly no nearer
to freedom.
I have known a man, who it transpired, was guilty of sex crimes worse than
those leveled at Assange. He was an artist and historian of incredible talent
who nurtured many students who owe him a great debt. I, like many others, was
faced with the murky and all too human choice: Should I ‘bury’ him as
evil?
In my opinion that’s just too easy. I’m not about to throw the entire man
to the winds. If I do, then I’m more prone to his own monstrous failures. So,
as best I can, I try to rehabilitate those aspects of his life which made
positive contributions.
Assange is no different.
Despite the obvious
failures of his character and choices, if we simply ‘bury’ him then we fail
ourselves.
Assange is here, like it or not. He knows technology and he
knows the ways in which technology has become inextricably folded into our
lives. Be it global warming, diplomacy, copyright, or whatever else, digital
artifacts have acquired a status and life which as yet, it seems to me, we
don’t fully understand.
If it weren’t Assange acting as a portal for this
life, it would be someone else. The reality of digital communication seems to
demand it. The once cosy, hermetic circles of science, politics and
humanities, are, by our own choosing (ie the choice of digital proliferation)
blown wide open.
Of course Assange should face the same moral/legal requirements as us all.
But then, whatever the outcome, he should be listened to.
- December 19, 2010 at 11:13
-
So, lets see if I’ve got this right now.
If a woman sleeps with a man, and regrets it slightly a week later, he is a
rapist and she is a victim?
If a man deliberately becomes a celeb of some kind, any woman who imagines
that that makes him more desirable than the rest, is a victim, not a fool?
I think I see where this is going. All sexually active men are guilty of
using deception or force?
- December 19, 2010 at
12:23
-
Zaphod – perhaps you haven’t read the Guardian report.
She didn’t
‘regret it slightly a week later’ – nor did she claim that he was a rapist.
She reported that she would not have given consent to sex without a condom –
which is what she alleges she ended up with. Under Swedish law that counts
as the most minor form of rape.
Turn it round the other way – if you
sleep with a woman who assures you she is a virgin and you later discover
you have aids or some STD – do you just shrug your shoulders and say ‘c’est
la vie’ – or do you shreik ‘Bitch, I woulnd’t have slept with her if I’d
known that’.
What she is saying is that she would not have agreed to
unprotected sex with him – the Swedish law turns that into a rape charge,
not her. To her it is a consent issue, and consent works both ways.
No
this isn’t going towards ‘All sexually active men are guilty of using
deception or force?’. I am no feminist. I do, however, believe that both men
and women have a right to make informed consent to sex.
What would you be
saying if Julian was now dying of Aids because some Swedish woman had sworn
blind she was ‘clean’ and infected him without giving him the chance to
protect himself? The fact that he does not have Aids, nor is she pregnant is
actually besides the point. The point is that individuals should have the
right to make an informed decision – and that is what he allegedly took away
from her.
Believe me, if she had taken away from him the right to make an
informed decision, I should have been defending his right to see her face
charges……
As for ‘we have not so far seen any evidence’ (another
commentator) – since when did the public have to see the evidence before it
was tested in court?
The ‘evidence’ is available in Sweden – that is the
gist of the Guardian report – get back to Sweden and contest it in court
Julian, I say.
- December 19, 2010 at 13:07
-
I haven’t read the Grauniad, hardly anything in fact. I was responding
to your reaction, cos I care what you think. I doubt whether anything
factual is available. How could it be?
Maybe it’s just me? But both sexes usually discover that their sex
partners aren’t as exciting as they initially appeared. But it’s only
women who complain that they were conned.
You can’t ever give “informed” consent to casual sex. Casual sex would
rarely happen unless both parties lied about how attractive they are and
how good it was going to be. Afterwards, women grumble, and men don’t.
No-one will ever know if consent was given, informed or not. This will
not be resolved by a court appearance.
- December 19, 2010 at 19:23
-
“You can’t ever give “informed” consent to casual sex. Casual sex
would rarely happen unless both parties lied about how attractive they
are and how good it was going to be.”
This is utter nonsense. Whilst it’s possible that one or both parties
may regret things afterwards or be disappointed that doesn’t make it
uninformed.
As long as both parties are honest about their intentions and
expectations any possibly relevant health or other issues (possibly just
I’ve got to get the train at 7) and what’s going to happen (condom use
often being an important issue) the it’s quite possible to have informed
casual sex.
To use a crass metaphor it’s a bit like trying a new dish you make an
informed choice by knowing what the ingredients are, but even then it
may turn out not to be to your taste – but that doesn’t make your choice
uninformed. If they left out an ingredient or decided to add rat
droppings or what have you to the dish without mentioning it then
they’ve removed your ability to make an informed choice.
- December 19, 2010 at
19:24
-
December 19, 2010 at 20:30
-
“As long as both parties are honest about their intentions and
expectations”.
“Can I stay at your place tonight?”
“What are your intentions
and expectations?”
“I will try to have sex with you. I expect you
to yield because I’m a celebrity. What are yours?”
” I intend to
refuse initially, unless you are persistent. If you succeed, I expect
you to make me feel very special, and not tell my friends about
it.”
“But will you tell your friends?”
“Yes. I need to find out
if you’ve had sex with them too. If you have, I shall go to the
police.”
I could go on.
Casual Sex. Honest about Intentions and expectations.
Get
real!
- December 19, 2010 at 11:10
-
Hi Anna… testosterone enriched male here.
So you’ve come down on this issue completely objectively, have you? Women’s
story as told to police report… versus… man’s story as told to TV camera’s of
the world. It’s just all he-said-she-said stuff. Neither you nor I were there.
Neither of us can know. Best not to choose sides.
Sweden can no longer be thought of as “famously neutral”. That was a long
time ago. Sweden has never before tried to extradite/persecute anyone on such
nebulous allegations — not charges — nobody has been charged. They have never
before issued an Interpol warrant on flimsy allegations like this. They surely
must be considered suspect by any reasonable person.
Wikileaks has so far released only a tiny tiny fraction of the rumoured
250,000 cables. A lot of those cables probably say “Can you pick up my
laundry?” The ones that HAVE been released may very well say things that we
already knew (suspected), but they now CONFIRM those things, which were
previously denied by the Americans. Thereby adding to the sum total of our
knowledge.
{ 51 comments }