Helen Lewis

News and views about writing, eating, gaming and watching

Syndicate contentRSS

Naomi Wolf: Anonymity for rape accusers gives impunity to prosecutors

The Vagina author's odd comments on Newsnight.

Naomi Wolf on Newsnight.
Naomi Wolf on Newsnight.

Last night's Newsnight tackled the topic of rape, and featured Naomi Wolf, whose new book Vagina: A New Biography went on sale yesterday.

It was odd discussion, to say the least.

First, we heard that Wolf had previously argued that Julian Assange's accusers should be denied anonymity. In the very next sentence, however, Jeremy Paxman's voiceover segued into asking "Are there times when No doesn't really mean No?" (I can't see the link myself.)

At 2.30 minutes in, Paxman interviewed Wolf. She said:

I'm not saying that those women should be - quote unquote - unmasked. I'm saying that it serves rapists to have rape cases prosecuted under the cover of anonymity altogether, because it gives impunity to prosecutors.

Paxman points out that the law was changed here to give anonymity.

Wolf says:

It had wonderful motivations, but the upshot here is that in Britain, only 6 per cent of reported rapes, which is a small fraction of all rapes, get convicted. . . I do think, like many feminists, that rape shouldn't be stigmatised unlike any other kind of assault. . . It stigmatises women, and it allows impunity.

... The reason I know there's something very corrupt about the prosecution of the Assange case - I'm not talking about the women right now, we just don't know enough - is that it is so profoundly different from... the way rape is prosecuted for any other victim in Sweden.  

This is all very odd. Wolf has consistently expressed the opinion that because other rape complainants are poorly treated, these ones should be too. 

She went on to explain that what is alleged in the Assange case was generally dismissed by Swedish police and prosecutors, because the women "weren't innocent enough".

Hmm. Could this be the same woman who wrote this Huffington Post piece?

In that piece, Wolf does EXACTLY what she suggests the Swedish prosecutors have done to others - she dismisses the allegations because there was a previous relationship between Assange and his accusers.

(There's a rare example of an incorrect correction at the bottom of that piece, too:) 

Update and correction: The Guardian has, since I wrote this original post based on the Daily Mail, reported that the two women's complaints to Swedish police centered on the alleged misuse of or failure to use condoms, which can be illegal in Sweden.

I'll leave you to enjoy the rest of the interview, in which Wolf talks about the "brain-vagina connection", by yourselves.

16 comments

Hope Last's picture

I tried to post a comment earlier today but got an automated message saying my submission had triggered the profanity filter, but there was no indication what that might be.

The comment I tried to post referred to the issues raised in the article.

It seems crazy that you cant reply to an article using the same terms as the article because the NS filter them decides they are profanity.

So much for promoting discussion!

JFK Follower's picture

actually, this is not a rape case! There was consent to sex. These women are not saying they were forced to sexual intercourse.

It is called a case of sexual molestation. Because - after getting started with protected sex, the person they are complaining about did not wear a condom or broke it, according to them. They never gave consent to unprotected sex. They only wanted protected sex. They went to the police because he refused to take an HIV test, to find out if they could force him to take an HIV test.

Helen Lewis's picture

Incorrect! Both the Magistrates Court and the High Court held that the allegations amounted to rape. Please see point 2 here: 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

JFK Follower's picture

The courts are incorrect.

JFK Follower's picture

it is not possible to post links to the testimony of the victim on this web site. You can find them if you google her name. If the testimony available online is what she actually told the police, it is NOT rape.

Ciaran Goggins's picture

Not odd at all, the current dichotomy in Britain will be challenged at the ECHR, one cannot have anonymity for accusers (remember 10/12% allegations are false, malicious, FOI, 2011) yet men (Assange, Evans) are named with impunity. Either all are anonymous or none are. This will blow sky high soon.

Omniogignes's picture

It is how they talk. The case against Julian Assange is one of the most high profile "date rape" case. This is something that is ignored. However, there are many other high profile cases of sexual assault against celebrities and other famous people.

Helen Lewis's picture

P.S. Wolf's Newsnight remark that "I'm not saying that those women should be - quote unquote - unmasked" is contradicted by her Guardian article where she says that anonymity for them is "bad law and bad policy".

Link here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/julian-assange-sex-c...

Ben 2012's picture

'respected acedemic'(sic)?

She is a pseudo-journalist and political hack who studied English Literature at Yale!!

Her wittering about the brain-vagina conneciton was pseudo-science at its worst.

No wonder the rest of the civilised world outside the freethought/New Statesman/CiF blogosphere puddle chooses to ignore this stuff and get on with the real business of living our lives...

nickfrankfurt's picture

Lets be clear about this: until Helen Lewis provides evidence for:

"Wolf has consistently expressed the opinion that because other rape complainants are poorly treated, these ones should be too."

Then this is verging on slander of a respected acedemic who has 23 years of experience of supporting rape victims. I trust New Stateman will either provide evidence for this assertion or correct this piece.

Helen Lewis's picture

@ NickFrankfurt

In this piece, Naomi Wolf repeatedly references what she believes are ways in which this case is being treated differently from "normal" rape cases, eg:

"I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case."

Also, in the Newsnight interview quoted above, she refers to Sweden's high incidence of reported rape (although those statistics are contentious) as another reason why there is something suspicious about this case being pursued.

All the way along, the implication is that because most rape complainants get poor treatment at the hands of the police/judicial system, there is something wrong with what is happening here. She refers repeatedly to her work with rape victims as a way of saying that this case should not be prosecuted.

PS. You might be interested in this rebuttal to the piece I linked to above, which suggests that the pursual of this case is not, after all, suspicious or unusual. 

 

nickfrankfurt's picture

Thanks Helen for taking the time to reply to the post as many columnists dont.

But your point "she refers to Sweden's high incidence of reported rape (although those statistics are contentious) as another reason why there is something suspicious about this case being pursued." no way implies that somehow Assange should be let off because Sweden treats rape victims so poorly. Rather it points out (quite correctly in my opinion) the glaring contrast between the way rape is "normally" treated in Sweden and the Asange case. Such a point is surely worth making whatever ones views on Assange or the Assange case.

Given Ms Wolf's copius writings and 23 years of expereince of supporting Rape victims her implication is obvious: that she would rather rape be treated with the seriousness it deserves in Sweden rather than only in the case where the accussed seems to have caused problems in other areas. Given Ms Wolf's stance on this issue I imagine the hypocrisy or in her words "the pimping of feminism for political ends" really sticks in her throat.

Instead this valid point has (whether one agrees or not) been smothered by people criticising Ms Wolf as somehow trying "to get Assange off" whatever his actions.

Such an argument, while media friendly in the UK at present, is a complete misreading not only of what Ms Wolf has written but also expresses utter disregard to her writings and work over two decades.

dookie's picture

Helen, regardless of your above reasoning, your statement that ('Wolf has consistently expressed the opinion that because other rape complainants are poorly treated, these ones should be too') is an outright lie. I believe you should make an apology for it.

Jim Franko's picture

I gain more respect for this women every time I see her, she can't be put in a stereotypical feminist box despite the label attached to her which confuses a lot of people. She simultaneously speaks on behalf of the women neglected by the system whilst not depicting the situation in the black and white terms your generic feminist would.

She also highlights the blatant hypocrisy of going to such lengths to prosecute Assange when the average Swedish citizen would not be treated in the same way which totally belittles the plight of more serious sexual assault victims.

The government will turn on their warped idea of justice when it suits their political agenda but not for the lowly plebs.

MontanaWildhack's picture

Ah, like all the Assanginistas, you seem to know exactly how Swedish authorities would be handling this case if this were an "average Swedish citizen", despite that being an utterly ridiculous and evidence-free assertion.

The situation would never have arisen, had the alleged rapist been an "average Swedish citizen". Could an "average Swedish citizen" hole up in the Ecuadoran embassy claiming to be afraid of political persecution at the hands of the US if they were extradited back to Sweden?

Support for Assange is a fascinating, risible bit of tin-foil millinery based on a potent mixture of misogyny and knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

dookie's picture

Couldn’t agree more with your comments Jim. Helen Lewis states Wolf has consistently expressed the opinion that because other rape complainants are poorly treated, these ones should be too. Wolf has never said anything of the sort. What she has said however is that the idea that those involved in attempting to take Assange to Sweden are on a quest of justice for his alleged victims is clearly laughable.

Latest tweets