*TRIGGER WARNING*
I’ve heard a lot of highly emotive to-and-fro-ing about Julian Assange lately. Just to clarify my own views, I think he’s certainly an egotistical bellend and (if the media’s reporting of his actions has been accurate) a rapist.
Sex without consent is rape. That’s beyond debate, however much George Galloway and other rape apologists may juggle semantics in Assange’s defence. However, the reason the authorities are out to extradite Assange is not actually because of rape – it’s because of Wikileaks – and that’s the huge, trigger-nudging, lefty-dividing problem here.
Jane Fae addresses this in a far more succinct way as part of her Huffington Post article about Slutwalk:
“…Which is why I think Lisa of Women Against Rape has a point when she refuses to join the easy calls for the extradition of Julian Assange: because whatever you think of the merits of that case, it is striking how different the attitude of authority is towards this one individual, compared to how they deal regularly with other rape allegations. Sadly, though, the point is missed: WAR are not asking for especial leniency for Assange; merely that others suspected of this crime receive similar attention…”
The treatment of the Assange case by both the authorities and main sections of the media is an insult to the countless rape survivors, both in the UK and worldwide, whose own experiences have been greeted with a combination of victim-blaming and shoulder-shrugging dismissal. Of course Assange should answer to the charges brought against him, but must be able to do so separately from his involvement with Wikileaks and the probability of his extradition to the USA. If he were to do so in Sweden, that would simply not be possible.
As recounted by the Women Against Rape article in the Guardian, the UK has never shied away from giving asylum to war criminals and deporting women back to their rapists, and the treatment of the Assange case has been exceptional – a nod to the Special Relationship, not a sudden, unprecedented legal backflip by this country to bring about justice for victims of sexual crimes:
“…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?
In 1998 Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London following an extradition request from Spain. His responsibility for the murder and disappearance of at least 3,000 people, and the torture of 30,000 people, including the rape and sexual abuse of more than 3,000 women often with the use of dogs, was never in doubt. Despite a lengthy legal action and a daily picket outside parliament called by Chilean refugees, including women who had been tortured under Pinochet, 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. (Baltasar Garzón, whose request for extradition of Pinochet was denied, is representing Assange.) And there is a history of Sweden (and Britain) rendering asylum seekers at risk of torture at the behest of the US…”
Read the Women Against Rape article in full here and Jane Fae’s Slutwalk article here.
This post isn’t, by any means, rape apologism. This isn’t a post by someone who either doubts the women’s claims, or even likes Assange. It’s a post shining a small but necessary light on the hypocrisy of the authorities when dealing with sex crimes. All rape accusations should be taken seriously, not just those made against a whistleblower pursued for political reasons by a country whose many war crimes were, in part, exposed by his actions. Criticisms of Assange’s supporters are valid – that rape should be taken seriously, even when the accused is someone you like. Yet the reverse is also true in the context of the legal system – rape should be taken seriously, even when the accused isn’t someone you specifically dislike.