Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

What is the feminist view of the Julian Assange stand off

117 replies

TeamGBsometimes · 18/08/2012 13:34

It should be simple shouldn't it. The man is wanted for questioning in Sweden for a sexual assault allegation. Sweden is a western democracy, not a country known for human rights transgressions. I'm sure it's not 100% squeaky clean, nowhere's perfect.

Are Ecuador right or wrong to allow him to asylum in their embassy? Should we just be looking at the sexual assault charge and ignoring the wiki leaks background?

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 24/08/2012 10:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeggyBlondeNE · 24/08/2012 09:41

Whatmeworry - someone already mentioned this link above which touches on the 'questioning' thing...
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

What I've read elsewhere is that second-stage interviews (after arrest, before charging) have to take place in Sweden/on Swedish soil (and the murder interviewed in Serbia or wherever was taken back for that second interview). If that's the case and Assange doesn't want to risk being kidnapped by the CIA en route to Sweden (which is the only thing that would make leaving the UK riskier than staying put wrt extradition) then he should volunteer to go to the Swedish embassy which is technically Swedish soil. I've not heard him make that offer.

The UK court judgement (linked from said article) makes good reading.

Whatmeworry · 24/08/2012 09:32

Are Ecuador right or wrong to allow him to asylum in their embassy? Should we just be looking at the sexual assault charge and ignoring the wiki leaks background?

IMO in this particular case its very risky to ignore the bigger picture, for a whole lot of reasons. The one that concerns me most is the increasing evidence emerging over the last few days that Sweden could have interviewed him in the UK, continually chose not to despite being invited, but still won't give their reasons why not. (BBC, here for example)

Incidentally, it would seem that both Naomi Wolf and Women Aganist Rape are against extradition.

TheDoctrineOfEnnis · 24/08/2012 09:20

Merlin you have shared some of your story before and I am so sorry Sad

Looking after DS right now but will be back later.

MerlinScot · 24/08/2012 08:58

"But if so many women are unsure in themselves that something was rape, which was so clearly is when described to an outside observer, whither the "women cry rape" logic?"

Because the women cry rape logic exists a lot unfortunately. I'll venture a bit more saying that many of the false rape allegations are staged making the police believe the woman was raped following the prejudice and the rape myths. Very often the liars report the rape with their clothes shredded, with possibly self-inflicted scratches, crying like a baby tehy were raped by those brutes of their exes, etc.
Many women aren't believed because they're unsure themselves about what happened. Unfortunately, that's the norm.

I reported my ex for DV the first time, because I was living in fear of his threats, abuse, and violence. In the first report, I stated that I had been sexually blackmailed (my ex asking for sex or he would have done this and that) and abused. Only one month later, speaking to a Women's Aid volunteer I reported him for rape because I had been forced and had physical damages happened in 4 occasions.

StewieGriffinsMom · 23/08/2012 16:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheDoctrineOfEnnis · 23/08/2012 14:06

Do you know what I am finding today?

Around the boards there are women asking "was I raped" "was I sexually assaulted" ...when they are describing events where it was clear they didnt consent.

As a positive nearly every poster, and not just WBY regulars, are saying "yes you were I am sorry"

But if so many women are unsure in themselves that something was rape, which was so clearly is when described to an outside observer, whither the "women cry rape" logic?

I am sure far more women don't recognise that they were raped than ever "cry rape" before we even start the numbers of those who know they were but never told, only told a friend, went to the police but didn't progress etc.

I hope that is clear. I am sad about it all today.

EldritchCleavage · 23/08/2012 13:46

lookat this very interesting take on the Assange debacle.

GothAnneGeddes · 23/08/2012 13:45

Thanks for all the links on this thread.

There has indeed been Olympic level throwing - of women under the bus that is.

KRITIQ is spot on as to why men have this blindspot relating to sexism/misogyny.

One glimmer of light will be if this had lead to a wider discussion about consent and men actually taking that on board.

MerlinScot · 22/08/2012 22:20

theDoctrineofEnnis, what a smart comparison!! I remember when Russell Crowe had the infamous phone-throwing incident there were people actually wondering why he had to beat a receptionist up given that being rich he could use his mobile phone to ring his wife in Australia (I don't know if someone remembers that he lost his marbles after he couldn't reach his wife through the hotel's phone lines). Nobody doubted he did that, he was guilty from the beginning. I wonder what people would have said if he had raped or attempted to rape a woman... probably that he's too charming (or he was) and he didn't need to force anyone to do that.... :/

TheDoctrineOfEnnis · 22/08/2012 15:33

Thanks, Leggy. There's a great poster on the Education threads who teaches sex ed in schools and who really gets to the bottom of consent issues. I wish all schools could have her.

I think another part of the problem, not just a left-right thing, is the widespread misunderstanding that rape is about sex and that an attractive, well-to-do man who would be likely to find a sexual partner freely would have no 'need' to rape.

If the accusation was of another kind of violence and entitlement e.g. if said man punched a delivery guy for bringing the wrong kind of pizza, I think fewer people would say "I don't believe he did that, he didn't 'need' to, he could afford to buy a second pizza after all, if it did happen, the guy must have provoked him." I think they would be more likely to say "what an entitled, violent prick" or words to that effect.

I have no studies, just a feeling.

LeggyBlondeNE · 22/08/2012 14:39

Oops, more important point of course is how to combat that and reduce the cognitive dissonance in the first place to prevent the bolstering happening.

Which I guess comes down to education, talking to young men so they grow up already comfortable with it, men who understand the situation talking to grown men who don't (less threatening, easier to show how the transition to being a 'real' good guy can be done).

I wonder if it's worth a MN campaign to get those fantastic anti-rape ads in ... some English county (or was it Toronto?! I'm thinking of a couple of sets of pictures) ... national. You know - 'just because she's not saying no...' And one of the great campaigns had a gay couple in it too. Something like "when he said he wasn't sure, I stopped".

Those videos for teenagers are good, but big posters on the Tube and in schools etc get to so many more people.

LeggyBlondeNE · 22/08/2012 14:27

Excellent post KRITIQ. "They just hope no one will notice that's what they are doing." Or indeed can't consciously acknowledge that's what they're doing. Cognitive bolstering is a powerful thing. You can believe all kinds of things which keep you from experiencing psychological stress like that.

(Stress is a bad word but it's the basic underlying issue in these things. Too stressful to believe you're capable of sexual assault/your mate is a rapist/you're benefiting from unearned priviledge. So you end up favouring the beliefs/attitudes that bolster you.)

charitygirl · 22/08/2012 14:27

I think you're onto something KRITIQ. Confronting their male privilege for straight men would just require them to make too many actual changes. Better to rationalise it away...

MerlinScot · 22/08/2012 14:01

In reference to the whole issue Assange-estradition, I think Assange and his lawyers are quite cunning in using the wikileaks supporters who think he's kind if a hero in order to let him get away with a horrible crime.

I've already commented on few Assange threads and very often people who idolize him are ready to believe any rape myths of the planet to make him appear not guilty.

Concerning Equador embassy, I can understand their point of view, maybe negotiating for some free money out of the whole situation.

To be honest, if after his trial (if there'll be one) in Sweden, he goes to jail and then he's extradited to US.... well I don't really care.
I still don't grasp why this guy gets a free ticket for everything, for me he would have been in US ages ago.

MerlinScot · 22/08/2012 13:52

SGW, in Scotland you still can be interviewed without any legal representation. I was but because I had no choice when that happened so I wanted to get through the questioning soon and declined to have legal representation.

So now the difference is that you can't be interviewed without police officers asking you if you've a legal assisting you during the questioning.

grimbletart · 22/08/2012 13:28

Also, people conflate being 'left' with automatically being a feminist and make assumptions. Bad mistake.

KRITIQ · 22/08/2012 10:42

Charitygirl, your observations are correct in my experience! I hope I'm not derailing too much, but I have a theory why otherwise right on, progressive men who will take down racist/homophobic/disablist/class prejudiced/etc. bigotry in an eye blink but have a complete blank spot when it comes to sexist oppression.

This is something I've noticed not just amongst many of the more "high profile" men of the Left, but also amongst commentators on sites like Liberal Conspiracy or Guardian Comment Is Free as well as in a range of blogs. Their inconsistency and frankly, hypocrisy, stands out like a sore thumb.

I think for them, the political is just too personal!

Even the white, non disabled, straight, etc. guys can insist they disavow those privileges, pointing out all the good things they've done and through busting the tactics of the bigots - the minimising, denying, blaming and diverting they employ. They put alot of stock in their image as "good guys,"
putting as much fresh air as they can between themselves and the oppressors, showing they identify with the oppressed and not the privileged. (Whether they do genuinely eschew these privileges is another matter of course.)

But, if you have a wife, girlfriend, date women, have other women in your life, it's much, much harder to squirm away from the idea that you benefit from male privilege and on both a personal and wider scale, you contribute to the disadvantage and oppression of women. That idea doesn't "sit" with their image as good-guy-defender-of-the-underdog.

To be fair, some progressive men DO acknowledge this tension, do take active steps not to perpetuate or collude with sexist oppression and put their money where their mouth is on feminist principles. But sadly, lots don't.

To preserve their carefully honed image, they have to deny, minimise, blame and distract on any issues that relate to feminism or the oppression of women. They seem to have learned the techniques well by calling them out when employed by those folks perpetuating the oppression of other groups. They keep each other's "backs" when anyone points out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of their positions.

They'll argue tooth and claw because for them, a lot is at stake. They want to retain their "good guy" image but not lose the male privilege they enjoy. They just hope no one will notice that's what they are doing.

ethelb · 22/08/2012 09:39

you are charged with the reason why you were arrested. you can't be chared before you are arrested that is the only reason assange is not charged.

StewieGriffinsMom · 22/08/2012 09:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

charitygirl · 22/08/2012 08:34

Every feminis should note how quickly 'liberal'' men will throw women under the bus when one of their heroes is threatened (by due legal process). Not just say that rape charges aren't important, but also resort to base misogyny and abuse. Pilger, Galloway and many others - vile, one-eyed egomaniacs.

StormGlass · 22/08/2012 08:29

And I know the extradition situation may be different now if he's claimed asylum from Ecaudor, but he was previously claiming that Sweden would hand him over to the US if the UK goverment sent him there.

StormGlass · 22/08/2012 08:25

I cannot understand why he would not go to Sweden to face these charges unless he's actually guilty.

I'm also extremely skeptical about the notion that two women would invent or exaggerate claims of serious sexual assault or rape, simply because Assange has annoyed the US.

I also cannot understand why the Sweden government is somehow more likely to extradite him to the US than the UK government is. Given some recent cases (like that of Richard O'Dwyer ), the UK government doesn't exactly seem relucant to extradite people to the US.

TheDoctrineOfEnnis · 21/08/2012 12:52

This was posted by JuliaScurr on another thread and I think it is very clear.

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Swipe left for the next trending thread