Michael Jackson was afforded the same ‘cleansing’ treatment. He ‘wasn’t a paedophile’; he might have slept with the odd little boy, perhaps he did show ‘adult’ books to 12 year old boys, but he wasn’t a ‘proper’ paedophile, just misunderstood; besides he had given so many people so much pleasure and now they were picking on him.

I was stunned to hear on that bastion of left wing right-on correctness, the BBC, an earnest announcer explaining that Assange might currently be sitting in solitary confinement in the grimmest prison in the UK, charged with rape, but he wasn’t, you know, a proper rapist, he was just an itsy bitsy technical rapist….not like one of those evil students who didn’t get consent from the naked drunken student lying beneath them, or a married man who thinks that because he has always shagged his wife senseless in a drunken rage that he can continue to do so even when she says no, not like them at all. Besides, this was an explicit Swedish law, not proper law like wot we have in the UK, you know, the sort of law that says a Saudi prince can’t beat his man servant in a public lift even though he can at home.

Then we had those earnest luvvies, Ken Loach and Jemima Khan, offering to put up hundreds of thousands of pounds as surety for the court appearance of the world’s most famous nomad, because it was all a conspiracy to stop free speech. The CIA had quite obviously, months before Assange released his documents, arranged for a couple of Swedish girls to share his bed on successive nights, completely against his will, and claim that they hadn’t agreed to unprotected sex so that the Swedish authorities could be leant on and forced to hand him over to the CIA if he did release anything interesting – obviously a conspiracy.

What is it about celebrity that makes us cheerfully abandon the rules we expect the man in the street to abide by? How many of the male bloggers who have gleefully written the phrase ‘trumped up charges’ to describe the reason for Assange’s current permanent address would be so understanding of a 32 year old rock star who had had unprotected sex with their star struck daughter who was now howling that she might have got Aids? Straight out the door after him with a shot gun I’ll wager.

Assange is using the work of the Wikileaks organisation as cover for his freewheeling, nomadic and some what misogynistic sex life. They are two different things, as were Jackson’s sex life and his music.

Those who cry ‘CIA conspiracy’ conveniently forget that it wasn’t the CIA’s choice that Assange should bed a series of star stuck left wing groupies – it was his. If he proves to have done so in a way that doesn’t comply with the law in a country that he was well acquainted with, that is his responsibility, not a conspiracy.

Overnight, a series of Internet dating sites that Assange used in the past to advertise for sexual partners has come to light. The world’s most famous whistleblower describes himself as ‘a man who never tells’ – with the same deadpan irony with which the man who demands total transparency from governments refuses to give his private address to the Judge hearing his extradition case. He can, he says, adapt to anything ‘except the loss of female company’. He wishes for women to come forward and present themselves to him – not for his ego the timid and hesitant pursuit of a compliant female that is the lot of the average young man.

There are also the leaked – the irony once more! – message logs between Assange and his fellow whistle blower Domscheit-Berg detailing the disquiet felt within the organisation regarding Assange’s sexual exploits; together they tell of a man who was about to tweak the nose of the all powerful American government and who thought he could walk on water. Domscheit-Berg says about Assange: “It is not for nothing that many who have quit refer to him as a ‘dictator.’ He thinks of himself as the autocratic ruler of the project and believes himself accountable to no-one.”

If there really is nothing of substance in these allegations, why would he be prepared to sit it out in the foetid Wandsworth jail in a country renown for handing over citizens to the US government without a murmur, rather than go to Sweden and contest the allegations in a court?

I am not a fan of the laws constraining sexual behaviour, but they exist, and I am less of a fan of those who believe that laws only apply to the little people, not them.

If being a whistle blower in the name of ‘free speech’ is to be a ‘get out of jail card’ for all other offences, what crimes shall we forgive Bradley Manning or Heather Brooks? Are they free to go through life raping, pillaging and torturing unhindered because they brought us the truth?

Anna December 20, 2010 at 18:44

— “Assange is using the work of the Wikileaks organisation as cover for his
freewheeling, nomadic and some what misogynistic sex life. ”

Your post fails to have any shred of credibility with this sentence,
specifically the last part. All you have to go on are the claims of two women,
what makes them right and him wrong? You don’t know anything, nobody knows
anything, except those involved so stop coming to conclusions.

You’re as bad as those you criticise.

Anna
Raccoon December 20, 2010 at
19:32

“so stop coming to conclusions”

You’re not a believer in Free Speech then?

Anna December 20, 2010 at 21:47

Classic face-palm moment if there ever was one.

An individual can be against baseless accusations and hypocrisy while
being for free speech. And it helps if you don’t quote statements out of
context.

Jabba the Cat December 15, 2010 at 14:36

For those wondering what makes Ass-ange tick should check out his blog

http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/

Truly cringe worthy stuff.

lenko
December 16, 2010 at 10:46

I have to say, I didn’t see Assange’s journal as “truly cringe worthy
stuff”. He is seriously serious, but maybe that’s what you get after living
a nomadic lifestyle as a kid. Right, wrong or indifferent, at least he is a
thinker, an analyser, an acute observer.

This is not the journal of an evil person, but someone who seeks a way to
put evil people out of business.

Hector December 16, 2010 at 11:07

lenko,
I tend to agree. I would far rather read such a distinct and
idiosyncratic journal than wade through the bland and vacuous platitudes
of ‘The Audacity of Hope’.

Hector December 15, 2010 at 10:40

I don’t entirely buy this Jackson line. Did Amazon, Visa, Mastercard et al
ever try to censor him out of existence (and lose all that lovely
merchandising)? Would any US president (least of all Obama) really want to see
the continued denegration of a black(ish) US icon?
Of course there is an
Assange bandwagon, but in this case the weight of ‘conspiracy’ lies plainly on
the other foot.
Personally I’m not looking to invite Assange into my home
for Xmas, but his website might still interest me. He may well be the type of
egotistical predator you imply. But what does that go to say? If we’re
compiling a list here of such people I can think of many more than Assange.
Should I start with US presidents…..University Lecturers…Business leaders!!?
It’s not as if they all go on to rape – if that’s the kind of profile we’re
meant to be building?
Naturally Assange must face the same weight of law as
the rest of us (notwithstanding US presidents who are above it all). But I
remain to be convinced that the weight falling upon Assange is really what you
or I would experience. There’s a strange opacity of timing and ‘vigour’ in
what Assange is facing.

Hysteria December 15, 2010 at 02:19

if you don’t like these charges – no worries – we have plenty of
others….

Joe Public December 14, 2010 at 19:39

Of great concern should be the fact that accused (but not yet convicted)
leaker Bradley Manning is held in virtually Solitary Confinement.

Even greater concern should be the fact that (presumably) one individual
was able to access AND copy AND distribute, such a wide range of ‘Top Secret’
communications. Where was the data protection?

Jiks December 14, 2010 at 19:12

To me the whole thing stinks. The on again, off again nature of the
charges, the timing of those changes not least.

Some of the stuff Assange released, informant details, etc should never
have been public domain IMO so I’m no fan of the guy believe me. However, as
others have stated allegations of sex crimes to discredit an opponent is
pretty much straight out of the play book, it has been done many times
recently by a variety of regimes…

Furthermore these rape accusations appear to be the classic one persons
word against another so essentially unprovable one way or another and in any
case God knows there have been enough cases of false rape claims of late here
in the UK.

My personal opinion, for which I of course have no proof, is that he pissed
off the wrong people once too often and so had to be silenced.

joe December 14, 2010 at 16:56

” The Russians call it Kompromat – the use by the state of sexual
accusations to destroy a public figure. When I was attacked in this way by the
government I worked for, Uzbek dissidents smiled at me, shook their heads and
said “Kompromat”. They were used to it from the Soviet and Uzbek governments.
They found it rather amusing to find that Western governments did it too.
”

Craig Murray’s thoughts on the case..

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Zaphod December 14, 2010 at 15:41

Whatever the allegation, there would be suspicion that it was bogus.
But
being a sexual allegation, it becomes emotive. Convenient, but surprisingly it
didn’t make much difference to our scepticism. Most of us.
Comparing it to
an allegation of paedophilia though, is inflammatory. Perhaps that will do the
trick, and demonise the accused.

I like what Assange did with Wikileaks. Anna doesn’t? We’re both biased on
the subject of the alleged rape. That’s humans for you.

Tom December 14, 2010 at 15:34

Now that the MSM has started to cherry pick in earnest and dissemble about
the actual contents of the stuff that Wikileaks /chooses/ to release – who
actually gives a stuff about Jules’ love life?

What’s truly perverted is that it’s now…. back to business as usual. The
gatekeepers of the public conciousness have caught up – sort of…..

lenko December 14, 2010 at 15:29

Well I believew that I was one of the bloggers who used the phrase
“trumped-up charges”. Although, latest info seems to suggest that there aren’t
any charges, merely allegations as you say. But allegations are not answered
in a court.

Many of us believe — I certainly do — that the US, always a vengeful
nation, want Assange in their clutches, so he can be “persuaded” to reveal the
encryption key to the un-released cables. Anybody who has spent the last
twenty years studying US duplicity will have no trouble giving at least some
credence to this.

And Britain will not want to be seen as the nation giving him up to the US.
Better to find some reason to hand him over to the Swedes, who will do the job
for us. The August rape allegations, though dropped by Swedish prosecutors for
lack of evidence, just came in handy. Find another prosecutor, add water and
hey presto!

But the disclosed “facts” seem to take on new dimensions every day, so you
may very well be right. Though I think a year from now, there is a high degree
of possibility that Assange will be languishing in the US.

Or dead.

Matt December 14, 2010 at 12:02

PPS Gladiolys.

Fairly good summary of events here:

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2010/12/07/the-great-wikileaks-clusterfuck/.

gladiolys December 14, 2010 at 12:27

Thanks for the link, Matt.

Matt December 14, 2010 at 12:01

PS One more point – the better conversation is, as ever, in the relevant
specialist niche – law, rather than in the political tar pit.

Matt December 14, 2010 at 11:59

Imo these are totally separate issues.

Any declarations about “definite CIA plots, bwahahaha!” are imaginary until
someone produces some evidence, though I’m sure they’d use it as a compromise
technique on occasion. Surely that comes under standard operating procedure in
a country where plea bargains are part of the mindset.

Though I can see that the CIA/USA would use allegations against Assange as
a convenient stick, given that no one has come up with anything he’s done re
the leaks that’s actually, you know, illegal.

The US also has form for trying to apply political pressure to Swedish
judicial processes – Pirate Bay, 2006.

At this stage, the Wikileaks are in the “journalism” category – bloke
publishes internal information which bloke with knowledge has given to him
illegally. Rather like MP Expenses, from a process point of view.

When I last checked, he was an alleged rapist with allegations which have
been fairly badly messed about by the prosecutors, and I make no judgement on
that; a matter for fair trial.

He seems to be undergoing a fair extradition process, whatever some of us
think of the EAW.

There is a good conversation of the extradition, including a half hour
audio interview with Assange’s lawyer, here:

http://www.headoflegal.com/

SadButMadLad
December 14, 2010 at 22:45

See some of the comments on The Register for some other thoughts about
the US’ view about international law, especially this one.

Disenfranchised of
Buckingham December 14, 2010 at 11:58

It could be a CIA conspiracy. This is not the first batch of Wikileaks
after all. Assange has been a known pain in the US butt for some time.

I’m happy to believe the Russians took advantage of Hancock’s peccadilloes
so why shouldn’t I believe it of the Yanks?

That’s not to say I believe Assange is innocent, or guilty, but Gladiolys
mentions some of the odd points in this case which are of concern.

Dioclese December
14, 2010 at 11:54

I wholeheartedly agree with what you say about the law and conspiriacy
theories. However let me put a counter synopsis to you :

A lot of what has been levelled agaist Assange is based on electronic
communications and female witnesses coming forward. As a retired IT man, I
know how easy it would be for an organisation like the CIA to hack computer
systems and insert a great deal of ‘evidence’ into those systems.

Let us also assume that it is not impossibe for them to ‘find’ appropriate
witnesses to speak against the man. Money, intimidation or both could easily
used to make these people come forward. The CIA has no shortage of both.

The questions we have to ask is did he actually do these things and, if so,
would it be possible for him to recieve a fair trial?

The events that are unravelling do seem to be rather convenient for the
Americans, but that doesn’t mean they are not true. I wonder if we will ever
really know…

gladiolys December 14, 2010 at 11:38

There seem to be so many “urban myths” around this that need to be answered
before anyone can draw a conclusion. E.g. Is it true that Swedish prosecutors
dropped all charges only for them to be re-introduced by a prosecutor from a
jurisdiction unconnected with the alleged offences? Is it true that this
re-introduction was at the prompting of a politician? These rumours suggest
political motivation for the charges rather than an attempt to administer
justice.

SadButMadLad
December 14, 2010 at 22:33

See Jack Of Kent’s interview with Assange’s lawyer for some of
the answers.

Old Slaughter
December 14, 2010 at 11:27

I was wondering how you would lean on this one Anna. Shouldn’t have for a
second.

Top work.

Or are you a CIA stooge?

JuliaM December
14, 2010 at 11:17

Assange sounds like a pretty unpleasant man, and his supporters seem very
much like the luvvies that whined when Michael Jackson and Polanski were being
‘persecuted’.

But there’s a crucial difference between those two cases, and his. The
women in Assange’s case are, supposedly, grown adults. Not children.