On Julian Assange

Even by what Julian Assange’s own defence lawyers say, he’s a rapist.

He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”

So in both cases Emmerson doesn’t dispute the version of events. The first woman was asleep. This is rape. Legally and morally. She did not consent. The fact that she consented AFTER he had started still doesn’t mean that it isn’t rape (it is, in the eyes of the law). People in Sweden have been prosecuted before for doing the same thing (such as in 2011). The second woman didn’t want sex without a condom and he wasn’t wearing a condom, which means that he did not have consent and he tried to rape her. Again, btaining consent afterwards doesn’t make a difference in the eyes of the law in Sweden (and in the UK).

It doesn’t matter that the women had engaged in consensual sex with Assange before because consent can be given and withdrawn at any time. Having sex with someone doesn’t immediately make them available for your sexual use without the need for prior consent. As for the fact that the woman didn’t properly fight him off, that is completely ignoring the emotional trauma of sexual violence and places responsibility on the victims, which is completely fucked up. And you don’t have to use words to withdraw consent which you never gave…

 

And as for the argument that they didn’t go to the police immediately, it’s not unusual for sexual violence to go unreported (only approximately 5% of rapes are reported in the first place). We don’t know what kind of emotional trauma they were personally experiencing. It takes a lot to accuse anyone of rape, let alone a man with such a huge cult following. Judicial proceedings in sexual violence cases are notoriously traumatic, lengthy and extremely upsetting, and evidence (including physical evidence) is often dismissed. Would I have reported a rape like that? No, I probably wouldn’t have. For fear of the trauma, fear of being disbelieved and attacked, maybe even because of an emotional connection to the person (most rapists are people we know, after all). Were they encouraged to come forward because of who he is? Who knows? That doesn’t make their accusations any less legitimate or worth following through. Assange should face rape charges in Sweden. He shouldn’t be extradited to the USA and executed for his involvement with Wikileaks, which is currently hindering progress on the rape allegations front.

 

Assange admitted to having sex with a woman whilst she was asleep and pushing another woman’s legs apart when she said no. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with that. Assange said that he THINKS he had consent, and he didn’t. There’s a reason why so many rapists have no idea they are rapists. They don’t think putting their penis inside someone without consent is rape.

Under Swedish law, Assange committed rape.

Then there’s the fact that Assange’s lawyers also said that the prosecutor leading the rape and sexual assault case against Julian Assange is a “malicious” radical feminist who is “biased against men”. Many of the Assange apologists have something in common: a contempt for feminism and for women who dare to challenge their perfect vision of Assange. When someone accuses a person of rape, their accusations should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as hysterical and malicious. There’s a reason why only 5% of rapes are reported and why only 6% of rape cases result in a conviction. All the odds are stacked against women who report rape. And if 94% of women are deemed to be liars, it’s no wonder that Assange’s accusors are receiving the same treatment from numerous people on the internet, most of whom are male and some of whom come from the left.
It’s worrying that many people identify more quickly with a suspected rapist than with a victim. Assange’s legal representation basically admitted the rape and tried to downplay it. One would have thought that, by now, penetrating a woman who is unable to consent or using force to penetrate a woman would be classed by everyone as rape and therefore punishable.

I still support Wikileaks, which is run by many people and therefore not dependable on Assange to survive. I still don’t believe that Assange should be extradited to the USA. I still think that there are many who would like to see Assange’s downfall and view the rape allegations as a convenient way in which to facilitate it. The idea that this is a huge set-up on the part of the anti-Wikileaks lobby is highly unlikely. Wikileaks is a huge organisation which is fully-functioning without Assange. It is possible to simultaneously believe the rape allegations may well be true and that the US and its allies will milk them for their own ends, and to oppose the latter. Assange has done a lot of good. That doesn’t mean he can’t rape women. Rape is a frequent occurence. We must not ignore these women because they could may well be rape victims, ordinary women who are being exploited by all sides of the Wikileaks debate and who deserve justice. This sentiment is echoed by writers such as Laurie Penny in this excellent article.

The same people who throw about phrases like “lack of evidence” and “feminazis” are ignoring the fact that this is exactly why 94% of women who say they’ve been raped are not believed. The system is biased against rape victims. Defending Assange like this is buying into the culture of disbelief which produces the shocking rape conviction rate in the first place and which ensures that any powerful figure like Assange is considered unable to commit any real crime when the likelihood is that, by legal definition, he is a rapist. Rapists are everywhere amongst us. Anyone can be a rapist. Neither Assange’s name or his political history should make any difference when it comes to putting him on trial for rape. Sexual violence isn’t rare. The odds are stacked against these women and all we are doing is contributing to the fact that reports are actually becoming less frequent because of distrust of the police and for the fear of not being believed. Assange’s defence lawyers essentially admitted that he had non-consensual sex. Assange doesn’t seem to think that having sex with a woman without her consent is rape.

And this is why I think Julian Assange is probably a rapist.