Donate to Links

Click on Links masthead to clear previous query from search box

GLW Radio on 3CR

Recent comments


Syndicate content

Anti-Wikileaks crusade undermines anti-rape campaigns; George Galloway wrong on rape

By Ash Pemberton

August 24, 2012 -- Green Left Weekly -- The personal saga of Wikileaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange has been used to overshadow the ground-breaking journalism of Wikileaks in exposing the secrets of governments and corporations around the world.

Australian diplomatic cables obtained by the Sydney Morning Herald in December revealed, “WikiLeaks is the target of an 'unprecedented' US government criminal investigation.” Despite this, the Australian government continues to argue publicly that it has no knowledge of a US campaign against Assange — the site's editor in chief and founder — and even argued it was highly unlikely.

It is unsurprising that the main party incriminated by Wikileaks' releases — the United States government — is out to make an example of those involved. One of thousands of hacked emails from private spy firm Stratfor released by Wikileaks in February said the US had a sealed indictment against Assange.

Assange was granted political asylum by Ecuador on August 16 after staying in Ecuador's British embassy since June to avoid extradition to Sweden. He remains in the embassy in a stand-off with British police who have backed down on their threat to raid the embassy.

Assange fears being extradited from Sweden to the US on potential charges of espionage — with the possibility of facing torture and execution. The cruel and unusual treatment of the alleged leaker of the US cables, Bradley Manning — facing 52 years in jail if convicted — is an example of Assange's potential fate.

Swedish authorities want to extradite Assange for questioning over rape allegations. He has not yet been charged with any crime. Swedish authorities have refused Assange's offers to be questioned in Britain. Assange has said he is willing to go to Sweden if there is a guarantee he will not be sent to the US.

Karin Rosander, director of communications for the Swedish Prosecution Authority, told BBC Radio 4 on August 21 that the prosecutor had given no reason why Assange could not be questioned in Britain.

Ecuador's decision to grant Assange asylum is based on the fact neither Sweden nor the US could offer any guarantees Assange would not be extradited to the US.

The mainstream media have played their part in poisoning public opinion with a range of attacks on Assange's character, many bordering on the ridiculous. His detractors have labelled him an egotistical “megalomaniac”, a “monstrous narcissist” with bad manners and poor hygiene. The fact that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie did not attend his 40th birthday party was another source of mockery.

Assange's bid for asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy has been treated more like a soap opera than a matter with important implications for journalism and the right of the public to know what their governments do behind closed doors.

Not trivial

However, unlike the gossip about Assange, the rape allegations should not be treated as trivial. Some of Assange's supporters have dismissed the rape allegations as fake or downplayed their seriousness.

One example was British MP George Galloway who said on August 18: “Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100% true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape. At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it.”

This kind of statement is deplorable and deeply damaging to the cause of women's rights. The women's rights movement has fought hard to have these matters taken seriously, against a history of cover-ups, victim-blaming and impunity. Trying to excuse such behaviour — no matter who is accused of doing it — plays into this sexism and should be considered unconscionable for progressive people.

The accusations deserve to be taken seriously, but the highly politicised circumstances in which they have been used by the authorities means the possibility of a fair legal process for Assange is unlikely.

The accusations were first made in August 2010, immediately after Wikileaks released thousands of secret US cables about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which exposed lies and criminal conduct by Western forces. Swedish prosecutors initially dropped the case, until it was reopened after influence from Swedish politicians.

In December 2010, Swedish authorities put out an arrest warrant for Assange — now in Britain — immediately after Wikileaks began releasing secret cables from US embassies, exposing yet more crimes and lies, this time on a world scale.

Stephanie Convery said at Overland magazine's website on August 22 that “it is incredibly naive to believe that all the state attention on the Assange case has anything to do with sexual violence”, pointing out that historically “these forces do not care about women and they certainly do not care about victims of sexual assault”.

Convery said the allegations “need not impact on our opposition to extradition, but they too need a political response, for a whole host of reasons. We don’t have the knowledge to pass judgement on the truth of the charges [allegations] but that shouldn’t be an excuse to dismiss the possibility of their legitimacy.”

In an August 23 column in the British Guardian titled We are Women Against Rape and we do not want Julian Assange extradited”, Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff — members of the British group We are Women Against Rape — wrote: “It seems even clearer now, that the allegations against him are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction.”

Axelsson and Longstaff said: “Justice for an accused rapist does not deny justice for his accusers. But in this case justice is being denied both to accusers and accused. The judicial process has been corrupted. On the one hand, the names of the women have been circulated on the internet; they have been trashed, accused of setting a 'honey trap', and seen their allegations dismissed as 'not real rape'. On the other hand, Assange is dealt with by much of the media as if he were guilty, though he has not even been charged.

“It is not for us to decide whether or not the allegations are true and whether what happened amounts to rape or sexual violence — we don't have all the facts and what has been said so far has not been tested. But we do know that rape victims' right to anonymity and defendants' right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty are both crucial to a just judicial process.”

Axelsson and Longstaff continued: “Whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual violence, we do not believe that is why he is being pursued. Once again women's fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes. The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will, usually to increase their powers, this time to facilitate Assange's extradition or even rendition to the US.

"That the US has not presented a demand for his extradition at this stage is no guarantee that they won't do so once he is in Sweden, and that he will not be tortured as Bradley Manning and many others, women and men, have. Women Against Rape cannot ignore this threat...

"In over 30 years working with thousands of rape victims who are seeking asylum from rape and other forms of torture, we have met nothing but obstruction from British governments. Time after time, they have accused women of lying and deported them with no concern for their safety. We are currently working with three women who were raped again after having been deported – one of them is now destitute, struggling to survive with the child she conceived from the rape; the other managed to return to Britain and won the right to stay, and one of them won compensation.

"Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?"

Axelsson and Longstaff pointed to Britain's gross hypocrisy: “In 1998, Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London after an extradition request from Spain. His responsibility for the murder and disappearance of at least 3000 people, and the torture of 30,000 people, including the rape and sexual abuse of more than 3000 women often with the use of dogs, was never in doubt.”

Despite this, “the British government reneged on its obligation to Spain's criminal justice system and Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile. Assange has not even been charged; yet the determination to have him extradited is much greater than ever it was with Pinochet.”

They conclude: "Like women in Sweden and everywhere, we want rapists caught, charged and convicted. We have campaigned for that for more than 35 years, with limited success. We are even having to campaign to prevent rape victims being accused of making false allegations and imprisoned for it...

"But does anyone really believe that extraditing Julian Assange will strengthen women against rape? And do those supporting his extradition to Sweden care if he is then extradited to the US and tortured for telling the public what we need to know about those who govern us?"

The struggle over Assange is not about the allegations of rape. These are a separate matter from the attacks on Wikileaks. These have included a financial blockade orchestrated against the site by major financial institutions, the persecution of alleged whistleblower Bradley Manning and the documented evidence that US authorities have drawn-up secret charges with which to pursue Assange.

Using the allegations as a cover for the attacks on Wikileaks is the exact opposite of treating sexual assault seriously.

George Galloway wrong on rape

By Susan Pashkoff and Terry Conway

August 22, 2012 -- Socialist Resistance -- The video from Respect MP George Galloway – which appeared on the Guardian website – is extremely offensive and misogynist. Galloway, in seeking to defend Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange not only against the US government and threats of extradition from Britain but from allegations of rape by two women in Sweden, made a series of indefensible statements in his weekly online broadcast, Goodnight with George Galloway.

Galloway trivialises women’s experience of rape and sexual violence by speaking about bad manners and sexual etiquette. He claims that consent is not necessary every time someone wants to have sex.

Lawyers and anti-rape campaigners have rightly pointed out that this is not true under British law – thus trouncing Galloway’s further claim – made in a subsequent statement that, “I don’t believe, from what we know, that the director of public prosecutions would sanction a prosecution in Britain. What occurred is not rape as most people understand it.”

In this second statement Galloway does also say, “No never means yes and non-consensual sex is rape” but his other remarks indicate that he has in no sense withdrawn the core of his unacceptable position.

Galloway has been roundly criticised by the leader of his own Respect Party, Salma Yaqoob who says on her blog:

Let me be clear, as a politician and as a woman. Rape occurs when a woman has not consented to sex. George Galloway’s comments on what constitutes rape are deeply disappointing and wrong.

There are many political issues entwined in the case of Julian Assange. These issues cannot be used to diminish in any way the seriousness of any allegations against him. Any individual accused of a crime, sexual or otherwise, is innocent until proven guilty. By the same token, any individual who believes themselves to be a victim has a right to have their grievances heard in a fair manner and not have their allegations belittled or dismissed. This is the cornerstone of justice.

This turn of events may well act to undermine Assange's defence against those powerful forces keen to make an example of him for exposing the crimes of Empire. It has certainly taken the debate around violence against women a step backwards.

It is absolutely commendable that Salma has done this.

Rape and all forms of sexual violence are completely indefensible. Sometimes these acts are committed by people – overwhelmingly men – who see themselves as progressive and act in radical ways on other questions.

In consenting to have sex with a man on a particular occasion, a woman is not consenting to have sex with him on other occasions. In consenting to have protected sex a woman is not consenting to have unprotected sex. This holds in all situations whatever the nature of the relationship. Part of feminist campaigning to get rape in marriage recognised has been to make this point.

Many testimonies from people who have been raped show that a myriad of emotions including shock or a sense that what has happened is your responsibility rather than that of the perpetrator mean that people don’t always act immediately to press charges. Indeed some never do – and some never talk to anyone about what has happened.

Similarly some people who are subjected to rape fight back physically. Others talk about freezing so that they are not able even to speak let alone try to ward off their attacker or not doing so because they also fear they could be killed or face serious physical injury.

Most of us don’t know whether any of these issues apply to the Julian Assange case. Whether or not they do we stand with women across the world in their determination to make into reality: “Whatever we wear, where ever we go, yes means yes and no means no!”



Tuesday, 21 August 2012

George Galloway is presently in Indonesia but has issued the following statement:

'No never means yes and non-consensual sex is rape. There's no doubt about it and that has always been my position. But if my remarks on the podcast need clarification I am happy to do that.

'Julian Assange, let's be clear, has always denied the allegations. And this has all the hallmarks of a set-up. I don't believe, from what we know, that the Director of Public Prosecutions would sanction a prosecution in Britain. What occurred is not rape as most people understand it. And it's important to note that the two women involved did not initially claim it.

'It is not denied that Assange had consensual sex with woman A on August 14, 2010 and similarly with Miss W three days later. She even hosted a party for him the following evening. Over the next three days the women met up and talked to a journalist about the events. On August 20 both went to a police station, not to allege rape, but to see if it was possible to force Assange to have an HIV test. An arrest warrant was issued and then withdrawn with a chief prosector saying, 'I don't think there is reason to suspect he has committed rape'.

'Assange was questioned by Swedish police but denied the allegations. However on September 1, 2010 the case was unexpectedly re-opened by the Director of Prosecutions who sought to have Assange extradited – not to face charges – but for further questioning. This was eventually granted by the British court, which surely must be unprecedented that someone could be extradited simply for questioning, rather than to face prosecution!

'Julian Assange has said repeatedly that he would return to Sweden for questioning and to contest any charges that might result if Britain and Sweden would provide guarantees that he would not be extradited to the United States, where he could face 100 years in solitary confinement over his part in Wikileaks, like the punishment now awaiting Bradley Manning. What is preventing the two governments doing this? I think we know.'

Galloway fact check

"Assange was questioned by Swedish police but denied the allegations. However on September 1, 2010 the case was unexpectedly re-opened by the Director of Prosecutions who sought to have Assange extradited – not to face charges – but for further questioning."

Wrong. An arrest warrant was issued. He cannot be charged until he is first detained/arrested under Swedish law.

"Julian Assange has said repeatedly that he would return to Sweden for questioning and to contest any charges that might result if Britain and Sweden would provide guarantees that he would not be extradited to the United States, where he could face 100 years in solitary confinement over his part in Wikileaks, like the punishment now awaiting Bradley Manning. What is preventing the two governments doing this? I think we know."

What prevents them from conducting a bait-and-switch on said guarantee? Nothing. What prevented the British from extraditing him to the U.S.? Nothing.

The left is willing to defend someone evading due process simply because he founded Wikileaks. We should not have one set of laws for left celebs and one for everyone else. When Assange becomes a political prisoner, I'll be the first to defend him, but not until then.

And now Salma Yaqoob has left RESPECT thanks to Galloway's re-definition of rape to ensure that Assange cannot be accused of it in this case. The imperialists are laughing at us.

Powered by Drupal - Design by Artinet