Protect Assange, don’t abuse him

“Guardians of women’s rights” in the British liberal press have rushed to condemn the WikiLeaks foun

By John Pilger Published 15 December 2010

Forty years ago, a book entitled The Greening of America caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual." I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to guru status of the author, a young Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that political action had failed and only "culture" and introspection could change the world. This merged with an insidious corporate public relations campaign aimed at reclaiming western capitalism from the sense of freedom inspired by the civil rights and anti-war movements. The new propaganda's euphemisms were postmodernism, consumerism and "me-ism".

The self was now the zeitgeist. Driven by the forces of profit and the media, the search for individual consciousness all but overwhelmed the spirit of social justice and internationalism. A new deity was proclaimed; the personal was the political.

In 1995, Reich published Opposing the System, in which he recanted almost everything in The Greening of America. "There will be no relief from either economic insecurity or human breakdown," he now wrote, "until we recognise that uncontrolled economic forces create conflict, not well-being . . ." There were no queues in the bookstores this time. In the age of economic neoliberalism, Reich was out of step with the rampant individualism of the west's new political and cultural elite.

False tribunes

The revival of militarism in the west and the search for a new "threat" following the end of the cold war depended on the political disorientation of those who, 20 years earlier, would have formed a vehement opposition. On 11 September 2001, they were silenced finally, and many were co-opted into the "war on terror". The invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was supported by leading feminists, especially in the US, where Hillary Clinton and other false tribunes of feminism made the Taliban's treatment of Afghan women the rationale for attacking a stricken country and causing the deaths of at least 20,000 people while giving the Taliban new life. That the warlords backed by America were as medievalist as the Taliban was not allowed to interrupt such a right-on cause. The zeitgeist, the years of "personal" depoliticising and distracting true radicalism, had worked. Nine years later, the disaster that is Afghanistan is the consequence.

It seems the lesson must be learned all over again as a group of media feminists joins the assault on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, or the "Wikiblokesphere", as Libby Brooks abuses it in the Guardian. From the Times to the New Statesman, apparent feminist credence is given to the chaotic, incompetent and contradictory accusations against Assange in Sweden.

On 9 December, the Guardian published a long, supine interview by Amelia Gentleman with Claes Borgström, the "highly respected Swedish lawyer". In fact, Borgström is foremost a politician, a powerful member of the Social Democratic Party. He intervened in the Assange case only when the senior prosecutor in Stockholm dismissed the "rape" allegation as based on "no evidence". In Gentleman's Guardian article, an anonymous source whispers to us that Assange's "behaviour towards women . . . was going to get him into trouble". This smear was taken up by Brooks in the paper that same day. Ken Loach and I and others on "the left" are "shoulder to shoulder" with the misogynists and "conspiracy theorists". To hell with journalistic inquiry. Ignorance and prejudice rule.

The Australian barrister James Catlin, who acted for Assange in October, says that both women in the case told prosecutors that they consented to have sex with Assange. Following the "crime", one of the women threw a party in honour of Assange. When Borgström was asked why he was representing the women, as both denied rape, he said: "Yes, but they are not lawyers." Catlin describes the Swedish justice system as "a laughing stock". For three months, Assange and his lawyers have pleaded with the Swedish authorities to let them see the prosecution case. This was denied until 18 November, when the first official document arrived - in the Swedish language, contrary to European law.

Unveiled threat

Assange still has not been charged with anything. He has never been a "fugitive". He sought and got permission to leave Sweden, and the British police have known his whereabouts since his arrival in this country. This did not stop a London magistrate on 7 December ignoring seven sureties and sending him to solitary confinement in Wandsworth Prison.

At every turn, Assange's basic human rights have been breached. The cowardly Australian government, which is legally obliged to support its citizen, has made a veiled threat to take away his passport. In her public remarks, the prime minister, Julia Gillard, has shamefully torn up the presumption of innocence that underpins Australian law. The Australian minister for foreign affairs ought to have called in both the Swedish and the US ambassadors to warn them against any abuse of human rights against Assange, such as the crime of incitement to murder.

In contrast, vast numbers of decent people all over the world have rallied to Assange's support: people who are neither misogynists nor "internet attack dogs", to quote Libby Brooks, and who support a very different set of values from those espoused by Charles Reich. They include many distinguished feminists, such as Naomi Klein, who wrote: "Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women's freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!"

Tags: Julian Assange wikileaks

View the discussion thread.

63 comments

Fri, 2010-12-31 19:52 — FreeBradleyManning (not verified)

I sure would like to know the name of that prosecutor. Around here, one couldn't even imagine a Prosecutor to so fervently go after a case against women, that wasn't even established, yet. Not even death by questionable circumstances.

Fri, 2010-12-24 06:22 — Gideon Polya

Excellent article as usual from John Pilger.

I endorse his condemnation of the US lackey Australian Labor Government. Pro-war, pro-US, pro-Zionist PM Julia Gillard violated Julian Assange's rights by declaring him to be guilty of illegality and her Attorney General Robert McClelland instigated an investigation of criminality by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The AFP found that Assange had not broken any Australian laws.

A distinguished list of Australians put their names to an Open Letter sent to the disgraceful Australian Labor Government , protesting statements by prominent Americans calling for US agents to variously "kill", "harass, snatch or neutralize" Julian Assange and asking the Government to "do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness" . The Silence has been Deafening (see "Open letter: To Julia Gillard, re Julian Assange" : http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html ).

Julian Assange is an Australian and World hero. However one must critically observe that, so far, (1) WikiLeaks has largely revealed secret US gossip that merely confirms our conclusions from a wealth of other evidence about the shocking conduct of violent US neocons and their foreign lackeys and (2) WikiLeaks, like Mainstream media, politicians and academics, still fails to report the horrendous human cost of the US War on Terror (8 million violent or non-violent avoidable deaths, so far) (for analysis see "WikiLeaks saga elicits Censorship & active Genocide Ignoring by Australian Mainstream Media": http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20394 ).

Thu, 2010-12-16 00:19 — Unity (not verified)

Marianne Ny hasn't distanced herself from the case at all, she has merely indicated - quite correctly - that the decision to appeal the decision to grant bail was taken by our own CPS, who are merely following their one standard practice in extradition cases.

http://www.headoflegal.com/2010/12/15/it-was-the-cps-who-decided-to-appeal/

Thu, 2010-12-16 01:03 — pessoa

John Pilger doesn't really do emollience does he? Very quick here to blame mendacious 'media feminists' for the problem rather than consider the complications of Swedish law, whatever suspicions there must be about the timing of this case. In John Pilger's writing, where everyone is either a hero or a villain, there is never time to assuage a comrade or negotiate with a critic about a point as emotive and controversial as rape (however legally defined) as we all expected to fight the good fight against you know whom. As a supporter of wikileaks, I think this defence of Assange could have been more persuasive.

Thu, 2010-12-16 01:50 — Tom O'Gara (not verified)

John Pilger: Decider of Who is Guilty and Who is Innocent; Legal Expert; Regulator of Who is a "False" Feminist and Who is a "True" Feminist.

And so on. What, pray, are Pilger's legal and feminist credentials that he can stand in such resplendent judgement on these matters?

Like all Pilger articles, we get a protracted throat-clearing of "context" that preferably features Vietnam, but bleats about Iraq or Afghanistan as a second-best.

What we don't get is any mention or substantive treatment of the material facts of why Assange has been arrested, what he has been accused of, what his position is under Swedish law, and what (if any) discussion he may have had with Assange on the matter.

This is because, despite them being fundamental to an understanding to what is going on, it does not suit him to do so. I echo @bitethehand on this point.

But it is quite plain that Pilger simply does not care about this. The portcullis of paranoia has fallen shut and here is he is, foaming and rasping through the grate at every other journalist covering the matter, including a brilliant lawyer who blogs for this newspaper.

We get instead is a smear of two women who have complained of sexual abuse, and the legal systems of two countries.

We are also offered a critical view of judge's initial descision to refuse bail, with no mention of the fact that the circumstances of the sureties were of little use to the court, and with Assange initially giving (reportedly with a smirk) an Australian post-box number as his address to the court, ample reason to think he would abscond.

Another example is that it was apparently news to Assange's soliticitor that, since it's inception, bail when paid to court is required in cash or cleared funds i.e. a cock-up.

At what point does Pilger's conspiracism and casual dismissal of rape allegations and the rule of law in this country stretch the credulity of even the most ardent troofer?

If Assange were a footballer - instead of someone that Pilger has lauded and featured favourably and uncritically in a documentary already in the can at the time of Assagne's arrest - what would Pilger think?

Let's pick apart a few inconsistencies.

- "Assange still has not been charged with anything"
Then why sign did Pilger, Loach et al sign a letter to the Guardian "demanding" that all "charges are dropped"?

I think this demonstrates that Pilger's commitment to truth is elastic, depending on the argument he is running.

- The PA reports that Assange is in solitary at the specific request of his own lawyers.

- Naomi Klein is a left wing activist, not a "respected feminist". Her use of a patently false equivalence clearly shows where her priorities lie.

- " vast numbers of decent people all over the world have rallied to Assange's support". The Guardian reported that 30 protesters were outside the magistrate's court for the last hearing, outnumbered 3 to 1 by media. Video footage of other protests shows numbers are similarly threadbare.

The sad fact is, even if Assange is extradicted and convicted, all this will do is reaffirm the persecution and conspiracy cravings of a certain type of leftist and their grizzled cheerleader. We have entered a fact-free zone.

As the old buzzard himself says: "To hell with journalistic inquiry. Ignorance and prejudice rule."

Thu, 2010-12-16 01:51 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

I had no idea John Pilger has qualifications in criminal law and feminist theory.

Just as well, otherwise he'd be talking out of his arse on behalf of a suspected rapist.

Thu, 2010-12-16 02:29 — mount1

Just finished watching your film. Thank you. I wept.

Fri, 2010-12-24 12:54 — FreeBradleyManning (not verified)

I can't forget about those 11 children in Nigeria who died and countless others who were maimed by PFucking PFizer, used as guinea pigs in experimental tests in 1996. I can't forget how outraged and horrified I was when I watched Collateral Murder for the first time in April, and every time after that. I can't forget about the atrocities and war crimes committed in Afghanistan, where in one instance mortars were launched into a village, as a wedding party was being celebrated.

Everyone knew it was happening, but Wikileaks gave people evidence and closure. I'm grateful for Wikileaks.

Thank you John Pilger. Thank you for writing this article as well as investigating/reporting the truth and standing up for the truly vulnerable. "Decent people," like yourself, expose and disempower the liars, cowards, and real rapists, as they try to keep the sheep focused on stink. You're all right with me.

Fri, 2010-12-17 19:25 — writeon1

Back again. I thought I'd been banned for being bad.

I've always been a feminist. I rember talking post thingy with a delightful young woman who used to be a driver for an Israeli general. Oh, she's was beautiful, oh, she was intelligent. But she said to me, you're a feminist aren't you? I could only reply "yes." I adore Germaine Greer, my heroine.

She then went on to tell me how the general chose attactive young women soldiers exclusively as his drivers, because he expected sex from them as well, as a perk, because the c*** was a hero of the nation. The old sod was using his status to get sex. Later on at a party where several of Bekka's friends turned up, women who had also functioned as drivers or secretaries in the Israeli Army, I found to my astonishment that at least four more women had also been "involved" with officers who were old enough to be their fathers. I thought, being young and naive, that this was disgusting, imagine having sex with somebody over fifty! Anyway the girls seemed to think I was over-reacting, especially when one considered what these officers had done for Israel. They, and they were very stoned, seeme to just laugh it off, as being life. I don't know what to think about all this, still. Had Bekka been raped or not? This whole sex thing can often be extremely confusing, sex would seem to involve lots of different signals which can easily be misinterpreted or misunderstood. Who really thinks that sex with a stranger is simple?

I can appreciate that the two Swedish women were gobsmacked when they were having a cup of tea and suddenly they discover that Assange has had sex with both of them, and they weren't special at all. The feeling of betrayal and anger is understandable. Now they think, wait a minute, if the sod has fucked us so casually how many other women has he had? I mean he travels the world, he could have picked up anything out there! Some dreadful sexually transmitted desease.

It may be close to heresy, but I think guys go for looks, and women go for status, whatever that means. Assange clearly went for their looks. The women went for his status, his charism.

Afterwards things have simply got out of all control and perspective. The leaking of the women's identities to Aftonbladet, the Swidish version of the Sun was a catastrophe for all involved. The leak apparently came from the prosecutors office in Stockholm or it might have come from a policeman who thought he was on to a nice little number.

Haven't the women been "raped" by the media too? Isn't having your most intimate sexual details spread over the entire world a form of rape? Psychological rape. So the Swedish media aren't that respectful of Swedish women and serious charges are they? Not where money is concerned. The story was pimped to the press and the women treated like whores.

This whole affair is ghastly for them too, unless they are really are spies in the pay of the CIA, which I find hard to believe. Naive, stupid, starstruck... maybe, manipulated certainly, out of their depth, in a media storm they don't understand and cannot control, yes, but little Marta Hari's? No. I think not.

Thu, 2010-12-16 02:59 — Elizabeth (not verified)

An email from Mr Assange's Swedish lawyer to his UK lawyer.

From: Björn Hurtig
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Jennifer
Subject: SV: Our client

Dear Jennifer,

Enclosed You will find a copy of the documents that I have would like to send to the prosecutor. I have not been able to have the document translated in detail, but I will now tell You the most important things in it.

First of all I comment the ongoing investigation and tell the prosecutor that I have asked her several times that they should hear my client so that we can be aware of the accusations. They have said no to this initially (and by this I mean for several weeks). Furthermore I remind her that I several times have asked her to give me the evidence in the case. She has said no to this also. I then tell her that I have asked my questions informally and in writing and tell her about a formal request that I made 14 of September 2010. This formal request has not yet been formally answered, which I find to be a breach of Swedish law (23:18 Rättegångsbalken). I also tell her that Sweden has not followed art 6:3 of The European Convention of the 4 november 1950, because Julian has not been informed of the accusation in detail and in his own language. Neither has he been informed of the documents in the case in his own language. This is an incorrect behavior.

I then tell her that Julian is indeed willing to participate in a hearing. But I remind her that I asked her in writing (14 of September) if he was free to leave Sweden for doing buissines in other countries and that she called me and said that he was free to leave. This is important because it means that Julian has not left Sweden in trying to escape the Swedish justice. Then I reminds her that Julian and I several times have tried to give them dates when he could come to Sweden and participate in a hearing, for example I spoke to the second prosecutor Erika Leijnefors during week nr 40 and told her that Julian could participate in a hearing the 10 of October (a Sunday) or some day the following week. The prosecutor in charge (Marianne Ny) said no to this. Other times Marianne Ny has said no to our proposals due to that one of her policeofficers were sick or because the time did not suit her. This is also important because it shows that Julian has tried but Marianne Ny has said no. I go on remembering her that Julian has suggested that he could participate over a phone line and from an Australian Embassy. She has said not to this also. Then I tell her that Julian is willing to participate through a videoconference or to make a written statement over the accusation and the questions they may have. This is of utmost importance, since it shows his willingness to participate. I remind her of a ruling from our Highest Court; NJA 2007 s.337, in which the court did not put a man in custody although he was abroad and did not come to Sweden to participate in a hearing. It was not proportional to do such a thing, since he left Sweden rightfully (just like Julian) and thus did not try to escape the Swedish justice, he was willing to participate via phone or in writing and so forth.

In the second last section of the letter I tell the prosecutor that she should think of the damage that Sweden already has done to Julian by letting his name in public. I tell her that I have heard that there is a policeinvestigation going on about the first prosecutor who let Julians name out In public, which shows that it is a serious matter. If the prosecutor now goes forward with a request of Julian being put in custody it is my opinion that the damage could be enormous; whatever the outcome of the trial may be. Therefore I urge her to come back to me with a proposal of when and where we could have this hearing instead of her dragging Julian in to court.

In the last section I tell her that if she proceeds with her plans of a custodytrial, I want all documents. This I say because I don not trust them to give me everything.

So Jennifer, this is the main things in my letter. I hope You understand what I am writing. If not, please call me. I will not be able to take Your calls today though, since I will be busy the rest of the day. If You do not call med, please let me know a s a p if I can send the letter to the prosecutor. I would like to send it first thing tomorrow morning. You may tell med by mail.

Best regards

Björn Hurtig