Protect Assange, Don’t Abuse Him
Friday 17 December 2010
by: John Pilger, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
A painting of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. (Photo: Abode of Chaos / Flickr)
Forty years ago, a book entitled The Greening of America caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual." I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to guru status of the author, a young Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that political action had failed and only "culture" and introspection could change the world. This merged with an insidious corporate public relations campaign aimed at reclaiming western capitalism from the sense of freedom inspired by the civil rights and anti-war movements. The new propaganda's euphemisms were postmodernism, consumerism and "me-ism".
The self was now the zeitgeist. Driven by the forces of profit and the media, the search for individual consciousness all but overwhelmed the spirit of social justice and internationalism. A new deity was proclaimed; the personal was the political.
In 1995, Reich published Opposing the System, in which he recanted almost everything in The Greening of America. "There will be no relief from either economic insecurity or human breakdown," he now wrote, "until we recognize that uncontrolled economic forces create conflict, not well-being . . ." There were no queues in the bookstores this time. In the age of economic neoliberalism, Reich was out of step with the rampant individualism of the west's new political and cultural elite.
False Tribunes
The revival of militarism in the west and the search for a new "threat" following the end of the cold war depended on the political disorientation of those who, 20 years earlier, would have formed a vehement opposition. On 11 September 2001, they were silenced finally, and many were co-opted into the "war on terror". The invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was supported by leading feminists, especially in the US, where Hillary Clinton and other false tribunes of feminism made the Taliban's treatment of Afghan women the rationale for attacking a stricken country and causing the deaths of at least 20,000 people while giving the Taliban new life. That the warlords backed by America were as medievalist as the Taliban was not allowed to interrupt such a right-on cause. The zeitgeist, the years of "personal" depoliticizing and distracting true radicalism, had worked. Nine years later, the disaster that is Afghanistan is the consequence.
It seems the lesson must be learned all over again as a group of media feminists joins the assault on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, or the "Wikiblokesphere", as Libby Brooks abuses it in the Guardian. From the Times to the New Statesman, apparent feminist credence is given to the chaotic, incompetent and contradictory accusations against Assange in Sweden.
On 9 December, the Guardian published a long, supine interview by Amelia Gentleman with Claes Borgström, the "highly respected Swedish lawyer". In fact, Borgström is foremost a politician, a powerful member of the Social Democratic Party. He intervened in the Assange case only when the senior prosecutor in Stockholm dismissed the "rape" allegation as based on "no evidence". In Gentleman's Guardian article, an anonymous source whispers to us that Assange's "behaviour towards women . . . was going to get him into trouble". This smear was taken up by Brooks in the paper that same day. Ken Loach and I and others on "the left" are "shoulder to shoulder" with the misogynists and "conspiracy theorists". To hell with journalistic inquiry. Ignorance and prejudice rule.
The Australian barrister James Catlin, who acted for Assange in October, says that both women in the case told prosecutors that they consented to have sex with Assange. Following the "crime", one of the women threw a party in honour of Assange. When Borgström was asked why he was representing the women, as both denied rape, he said: "Yes, but they are not lawyers." Catlin describes the Swedish justice system as "a laughing stock". For three months, Assange and his lawyers have pleaded with the Swedish authorities to let them see the prosecution case. This was denied until 18 November, when the first official document arrived - in the Swedish language, contrary to European law.
Unveiled Threat
Assange still has not been charged with anything. He has never been a "fugitive". He sought and got permission to leave Sweden, and the British police have known his whereabouts since his arrival in this country. This did not stop a London magistrate on 7 December ignoring seven sureties and sending him to solitary confinement in Wandsworth Prison.
At every turn, Assange's basic human rights have been breached. The cowardly Australian government, which is legally obliged to support its citizen, has made a veiled threat to take away his passport. In her public remarks, the prime minister, Julia Gillard, has shamefully torn up the presumption of innocence that underpins Australian law. The Australian minister for foreign affairs ought to have called in both the Swedish and the US ambassadors to warn them against any abuse of human rights against Assange, such as the crime of incitement to murder.
In contrast, vast numbers of decent people all over the world have rallied to Assange's support: people who are neither misogynists nor "internet attack dogs", to quote Libby Brooks, and who support a very different set of values from those espoused by Charles Reich. They include many distinguished feminists, such as Naomi Klein, who wrote: "Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women's freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!"
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
The allegation against
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 18:06 — Anonymous (not verified)The allegation against Assange only surfaced when Assange became a target. The Allegation is clearly a ploy to discredit and silence him, as was the buggery charge against Mohatir Mohammed.
And then yes, "feminist rage" against the _possibility_ of an act having been committed - without any proof, and in the face its obviously being an establishment-serving lie. But American Moral Indignation knows no bounds, and we're entitled to behave ourselves as animals (e.g. please turn off that cognitive correction - you know, truth, logic, reason) whenever Fox tells us we're offended.
Nobody ever asks why we think the people who lie to us are not our enemies. It's about time to fix that error.
Isn't it time Pilger and
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 22:03 — Ed McC (not verified)Isn't it time Pilger and others also begin screaming about Mr.Bradley Manning who is in solitary confinement and being punished inhumanely...not even a pillow or sheet! His health is at risk and he is being now given (forced?) anti depressants (another government experiment?)
Time for some outrage don't you think?
Wow, one has to hand it to
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 23:07 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Wow, one has to hand it to Naomi Klein to see through such a"feminist extra-legal (or above-legal) charge". Maybe some people, especially some women, are realizing that the charge of "rape" has been used as a weapon of revenge, vindictiveness and aggression for three decades now, and are recognizing that it is being used to increasingly enthrone presumption of guilt based simply on peoples', particularly womens', word alone, doing away with the rule of law and presumption of innocence, leading to the criminalizing, imprisonment and eradication of vast swaths of innocent people.
Government and media claim that people are "guilty", including entire countries, and off we go to the races to vilify, demonize, presume the guilt of, and "castrate" anyone and everyone thus "tried and convicted in the press", even going so far as to mass-murder millions of innocent people in order to get at and destroy the propaganda-created "demons" who are the corporate-fascists' latest targets to keep the military-industrial-media-propaganda complexes' genocidal, obscenely profitable endless war against Truth, (true) Justice and "the American way of Liberty" going in the name of absolute control the world over.
It used to be about "Liberty and Justice for all", but now everything has degenerated into "freeing" millions of people from their very lives because the evil powers-that-be deem it "necessary" and, those millions of mass-slaughtered people, "collateral damage". So what if "a few" whistleblowers who stand for True Freedom are sacrificed in the process, along with everyone else who "gets in the way". The wheels of injustice and mass-murder "must" keep on rolling and crushing their way to larger and larger mass-insanity, global enslavement and worldwide genocide.
Therefore, millions of "We, the People" all over the world are going to have to throw their bodies into the gears in order to stop this madness, otherwise we aren't going to stand a chance of curtailing it and restoring at least some semblance of True Sanity. Putting the brakes on the mass-madness starts with defending and protecting the whistleblowers, all those who are who are swept up and incarcerated for dissenting, resisting and protesting against U.S. and global tyranny, despotism, crimes against humanity, crimes against the peace, human rights violations, war crimes, betrayal of True Liberty and Freedom, and destruction of civil liberties.
The revolution has already begun, but it will not be televised except to demonize those who truly stand for Truth, Justice and Peace. Thus, we must also teach the masses that the demonization is false and not to listen to it, nor to listen to any of the propaganda that "justifies" the endless war(s), mass-slaughter and mass-imprisonment of countless innocent people, and teach them that they ALL have the duty to defend True Freedom and Liberty, to stand up against all the endless war, mass-murder and madness that is taking over the entire world, and to put a stop to all the destruction of human rights, human dignity and human "Life, Liberty and... pursuit of Happiness".
As usual, a few male writers
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 23:10 — Martha Shelley (not verified)As usual, a few male writers like John Pilger are holding forth about what feminists think. I don't know how many "leading feminists" supported the Iraq and Afghan wars. A few right-wing women had pro-war articles published in the mainstream media -- the rest of us didn't have access. We demonstrated en masse against the wars. We wrote letters to the editor that never got published. I haven't heard of any real feminists who give credence to the charges against Assange -- unless Mr. Pilger counts Sarah Palan as a feminist.
I wouldn't be so quick to
Sat, 12/18/2010 - 00:42 — MaximusNYC (not verified)I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss rape allegations. Only the people involved know exactly what happened. I have no idea whether Assange is guilty or innocent, and neither does this author, nor does anyone commenting here.
It's important to separate the question of Wikileaks from the question of the rape allegations against Assange. Rape victims have suffered for centuries from having their accusations dismissed by people who "know" that the accused rapist is a "good person" who could "never have done such a thing". It's sad to see people in a progressive forum falling into this classically regressive mode of thinking.
Again, I am not pronouncing Assange either guilty or innocent. I am simply withholding judgement until more facts are available. That is the only responsible course.
"I wouldn't be so quick".
Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:04 — Anonymous (not verified)"I wouldn't be so quick". Are you serious, how obvious does this need to be for you to see what is going on here, wake up!!
How about holding off until
Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:13 — Anonarcmous (not verified)How about holding off until "proven guilty by jury of peers.." if necessary?USgov strength to "make your life miserable" b/c at this time, we cannot outright assassinate you..
Martha, I noticed an article
Sat, 12/18/2010 - 18:42 — PGreen (not verified)Martha, I noticed an article by Amy Siskind of the "New Agenda" on Huffington Post attacking Naomi Wolf's piece on the harassment of Assange. In it, she accuses Wolf of trivializing rape. I expect that this is the sort of thing that Pilger and Naomi Klein are referring to: the reflexive (though usually appropriate) outrage of some women in response to an accusation of rape when such a charge likely has political overtone. Klein's example is the case of women's freedom and Afghanistan. The US administration is very good at using such righteous feelings to divide and conquer.
"PGreen", your comment is
Sun, 12/19/2010 - 01:29 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)"PGreen", your comment is completely right-on except, and I was completely with you until, you claimed that "reflexive... outrage of some women to an accusation of rape..." is "usually appropriate". So, what you're saying there, whether you know it or not, is that presumption of guilt in the case of rape is supposedly okay. Well, that's completely unconstitutional. ALL Americans have the duty to completely obey the Constitution; and, therefore, to ALWAYS presume people innocent until totally PROVEN guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". But most "Americans" have been indoctrinated, conditioned and programmed not to know the Constitution, not to take it seriously even though it is the Supreme Law of the Land (and the Supreme Law of the States in the case of the state constitutions, or those parts thereof that reiterate the Bill of Rights in the federal Constitution as they do), to presume almost everyone who is arrested of being "definitely" guilty before they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore to constantly disobey the Constitution(s)...
...We have got to overcome
Sun, 12/19/2010 - 01:30 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)...We have got to overcome that indoctrination and programming, and condition ourselves to ALWAYS presume everyone innocent until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. People, including women, lie and/or are mistaken on the witness stand quite often, mis-identify the "guilty" far too often, and the government and media constantly lead us by the nose to presume almost all accused people, including Assange, of their "guilt"; so we've got to fight that, stop parroting other peoples', including the media and government pundits, words, and seek to ALWAYS presume EVERYONE innocent until they are completely PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, we are all, especially when we serve on juries, acting as judge, jury and, in many cases, executioner; far too often when people have NOT been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, we are ALL supposedly to seek to be completely independent thinkers who do not let ANYONE lead them to think ANY certain way(s), unless those ways of thinking are completely proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Otherwise, we are just "good" little sheep and slaves, which is what the Constitution(s) seek to prevent.
Correction (in capital
Sun, 12/19/2010 - 01:32 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Correction (in capital letters): "PGreen", your comment is completely right-on except WHEN, and I was completely with you until, you claimed that "reflexive... outrage of some women to an accusation of rape..." is "usually appropriate"...
Forgive me if I misspoke, or
Sun, 12/19/2010 - 13:04 — PGreen (not verified)Forgive me if I misspoke, or did not speak clearly, S Wolf. I certainly agree that we should not pre-judge. However, I suspect that outrage upon hearing an accusation of rape is often appropriate, as such feelings might be to any personalized report of violence. One would hope that guilt is not presumed, that the target of that rage is not chosen solely on the basis of an emotional response, that our constitutional protections are honored. But (as you say), that is not always the case. I am also of the opinion that the political overtones in this case call for being suspicious of the charges, that the accuser's feelings might be manipulated in such situations by those with ulterior motives. Thank you for your further thoughts on the matter.
Further corrections: ...We
Sun, 12/19/2010 - 16:01 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Further corrections:
...We have got to overcome that indoctrination and programming, and condition ourselves to ALWAYS presume everyone innocent until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. People, including women, lie and/or are mistaken on the witness stand quite often, mis-identify the "guilty" far too often, and the government and media constantly lead us by the nose to presume almost all accused people, including Assange, of their "guilt"; so we've got to fight that, stop parroting other peoples', including the media and government pundits, words, and seek to ALWAYS presume EVERYONE innocent until they are completely PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, we are all, especially when we serve on juries, acting as judge, jury and, in many cases, executioner; far too often when people have NOT been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, we are ALL supposed to seek to be completely independent thinkers who do not let ANYONE lead them to think ANY certain way(s), unless those ways of thinking are completely proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Otherwise, we are just "good" little sheep and slaves, which is what the Constitution(s) seek(s) to prevent.
Attention, T/O Commentors,
Tue, 01/11/2011 - 14:03 — Frances in California (not verified)Attention, T/O Commentors, MaximusNYC has to be none other than my "favorite" troll, Mike in NYC, come to make everyone thoroughly miserable with his disingenuous posts. Ignore him; maybe he'll do America a huge favor and go away again. Didn't miss you, Max.