Defending Assange against sexual assault allegations

[Jim Lane]

190. Some points you overlook

First, you refer to “rape victims” – which presupposes that Assange committed a crime, in fact multiple crimes. I don’t know if Swedish criminal law includes a presumption of innocence but you are clearly making an assumption of guilt. (It’s the flip side of assuming Assange’s innocence, which you rightly condemn.) The simple fact is that no one on DU is aware of all the evidence that might be adduced at a trial.

You can’t justify use of the term “rape victim” simply by imputing ridiculous views to Assange and to anyone who disagrees with you. (An example is when you write in #162, “Instead Assange believes he does not need consent before compelling a woman to have intercourse. Do you support the position that women do not have the right to choose who they have sex with, that a man should be able to force himself whenever he wants?” For the record, I for one do not support that position, and I’ll guess that no one on DU does.) If there is a trial, then presumably the judges (apparently no right to a jury trial) will hear Assange’s testimony, the testimony of the women involved, and the testimony of others with relevant knowledge; will make findings of fact about what happened; and will evaluate those facts under the standards of what Swedish law does and does not prohibit, including any applicable defenses.

Second, you disparage people who “blame the victim, call them liars....” While it is true, as you point out, that some men, even men we admire on other grounds, commit rape, it is also true that some women, even women we admire on other grounds, make false accusations of rape. With Assange’s case being discussed here, people are free to take note of any relevant piece of evidence. Evidence that tends to undermine the accusers’ credibility is just as valid as evidence that tends to support the opinion that Assange is guilty.

Third, with regard to Assange’s work with Wikileaks: I certainly agree with you that no one is above the law, and that it’s not a valid defense to a charge of rape (or to any criminal charge) to point out that the defendant has done good things. One can believe those things, however, yet also believe that revelations by Wikileaks have ticked off some very powerful people, who would love to see Assange in prison. (You say, “Assange's fate is entirely separate from Wikileaks. The information he helped make available to public is still there, and the website continues. Wikileaks is far more than Assange.” I respond that the people who dislike what Wikileaks does probably believe that it will do a lot less of it in the future if Assange is imprisoned, and I’ll add that I agree with them on that point.) Under those circumstances, it’s certainly reasonable to ask whether official enmity toward Assange played any role in the raising of charges against him. I haven’t studied the case in any detail, but it would be naive to ignore the possibility. Justice demands that Assange, who has exposed a lot of sordid dealings by powerful officials, not be shielded from a criminal charge on that basis, but it also demands that he not be subjected to a criminal charge on that basis.

You wrote (in #66), “Assange is an accused sexual assailant like any other.” If you mean that he shouldn’t be treated any better than others similarly situated, just because of his past heroism, I agree. If you mean that no one is allowed to even mention the possibility that he’s being treated worse than others similarly situated, then I disagree.

Finally, in what is probably a futile attempt to pre-empt responses that miss the point, let me state that I hold no opinion as to Assange’s guilt or innocence, and that, to the best of my recollection, I have never espoused any of the positions you attack in your OP.