![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogNot to prattle on about WikiLeaks, but one angle we haven’t covered yet is the sex crime charges that Julian Assange has been slapped with.
Which I’ve stayed away from mainly because it just seemed too obvious to point out that the charges are politically motivated. Any fool knows that.
On the other hand, some of Assange’s supporters (including his lawyer, reportedly) have been using that supposition to build a case to discredit the alleged victims – which troubles me because on the surface it’s another version of the same tactics used by defense lawyers to get accused rapists off the hook (or to get Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court – as you like).
Which brings me to this piece by Naomi Wolf that demonstrates pretty well that you don’t have to discredit the victims to deduce that Assange is really in jail for leaking govt documents, not for what he’s been charged with.
The evidence: alleged rapists pretty much NEVER warrant this much attention and international cooperation. Ever.
It’s a fair point. And as Wolf notes, there are plenty of victims of sex crimes who wish that local law enforcement would put in a fraction of the effort to arrest, prosecute and convict their attackers that Interpol, Britain and Sweden have put into nabbing Assange just for deciding to go bareback at the last minute (or whatever happened).
None of this is to say whether Assange is innocent or guilty, or whether the alleged victims are telling the truth. I have no idea, and I don’t pretend to know. But it’s still fair to say that he wasn’t picked up just for alleged sex crimes. That’s just an excuse. And everyone knows it.
Which just goes to show who’s really in charge here.
Seeing what sticks,
This is dF
Which I’ve stayed away from mainly because it just seemed too obvious to point out that the charges are politically motivated. Any fool knows that.
On the other hand, some of Assange’s supporters (including his lawyer, reportedly) have been using that supposition to build a case to discredit the alleged victims – which troubles me because on the surface it’s another version of the same tactics used by defense lawyers to get accused rapists off the hook (or to get Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court – as you like).
Which brings me to this piece by Naomi Wolf that demonstrates pretty well that you don’t have to discredit the victims to deduce that Assange is really in jail for leaking govt documents, not for what he’s been charged with.
The evidence: alleged rapists pretty much NEVER warrant this much attention and international cooperation. Ever.
Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.
It’s a fair point. And as Wolf notes, there are plenty of victims of sex crimes who wish that local law enforcement would put in a fraction of the effort to arrest, prosecute and convict their attackers that Interpol, Britain and Sweden have put into nabbing Assange just for deciding to go bareback at the last minute (or whatever happened).
None of this is to say whether Assange is innocent or guilty, or whether the alleged victims are telling the truth. I have no idea, and I don’t pretend to know. But it’s still fair to say that he wasn’t picked up just for alleged sex crimes. That’s just an excuse. And everyone knows it.
Which just goes to show who’s really in charge here.
Seeing what sticks,
This is dF
