>
The rape charges against Julian Assange have inspired a massive flareup of pure bushittery on the net, amongst Men’s Rights troglodytes and liberal bloggers alike, vilifying the accusers and dismissing their charges as politically motivated revenge schemes. The gist of it all: the charges are false, and it wasn’t even real rape, and the women charging him are evil feminist harpies and might be working for the CIA.
And, as Kate Harding points out in a Salon piece that is the best thing anyone has written about any of this so far, all this speculation is based on … a whole lot of nothing. We don’t know the specifics of the accusations, and much of what little we do know of the case comes second-hand from tabloids and other unreliable sources. One thing is clear: the few new details released today indicate that he’s being charged with real rape all right, so let’s move on from all the indignant and uninformed talk about “sex by surprise.” (Feministe has the only really intelligent discussion of the “surprise” issue I’ve seen.)
Harding sums it up:
The fact is, we just don’t know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not.
Public evidence, as The Times noted, is scarce. So, it’s heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women.
So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let’s suspend our judgment about Assange’s guilt or innocence. Liberals want to support Assange because, you know, he’s fighting the power and shit. (Even Naomi Wolf has joined the pro-Assange chorus.) But the fact is, sometimes politically admirable people do bad shit to women. Men’s Rightsers want to vilify the accusers because the primary accuser is a feminist. But the fact that someone is a feminist doesn’t mean that she can’t get raped.
The low point of the Men’s Rights discussion of the case so far is probably this blog post by ScareCrow, who took a few moments from posting comments here to write up the strangest attack on the accusers yet. ScareCrow first demands that everyone assume that Assange is “innocent until proven guilty,” conveniently forgetting that those of us not actually serving on juries are entitled to come to whatever conclusions we want on criminal cases, for whatever reasons we want. (Heck, we’re allowed to disagree with jury verdicts: I have no problem calling OJ a murderer, even though he wasn’t convicted as one.)
Still, in this case, given that we have no real evidence to weigh, there’s no good reason to assume either guilt or innocence at this point.
It’s what ScareCrow does next that’s telling: after indignantly telling us not to assume Assange’s guilt, he spits forth an extended series of vicious “speculations” about the accusers, based on … what they look like in a couple of photos he’s seen of them. Of one accuser, he writes:
This woman reminds me of those women – to whom – everything is a simple “chess game”. Move and counter-move – guile and deceit. This type is what I like to call the “quiet” and “not so brainy” type. Smart when she was young perhaps, but upon hitting puberty, blamed her supposed “lack of attraction” on the fact that she was “no so brainy”. This lead to a contempt of men. I can see that in her face. A certain bitter frustration that her encounters with men did not proceed according to the “tea parties” she used to imagine as a small child – is what I see written on her face.
And of the other:
Ah yes. The look on this woman’s face is painful for me. Why? Simple – she looks like many women I have met – who consider themselves to be excessively attractive. Since they believe they are so attractive, they use that “feature” to hurt men. This type of woman was basically the “parasite” I encountered many times in my youth – at clubs, in college, and various other places where young men and women are supposed to “hook-up”. When being approached by a man, such women would usually respond with extreme callousness and uncalled for hostility and rudeness. Looking at her face, all I see is malice and hatred of men.
Yep, that’s right: she’s a dirty man-hating liar because … she reminds ScareCrow of women who turned him down turned down other dudes (who definitely weren’t him) when he was in college. Absurd, to be sure, but not, in the end, all that different from liberal bloggers and Men’s Rightsers who, in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case.
Go read the Harding piece.
More on the case from Jezebel and Amanda Marcotte.
EDIT: A new piece on Feministe critiquing Naomi Wolf’s idiotic blog post on the case.
>Oooh, Look at the fish in the barrel.DAVID SAID: "So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let's suspend our judgment about Assange's guilt or innocence."THEN DAVID SAID: "ScareCrow first demands that everyone assume that Assange is "innocent until proven guilty," conveniently forgetting that those of us not actually serving on juries are entitled to come to whatever conclusions we want on criminal cases, for whatever reasons we want."AND THEN DAVID SAID: "Still, in this case, given that we have no real evidence to weigh, there's no good reason to assume either guilt or innocence at this point."So even though we're allowed to think whatever we want, David decrees that there's not enough info so don't think whatever we want till there's more info. . .okay. . .Random Brother
>People are entitled to think what they want — they're not obliged to impose a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard on themselves — but in a case like this where we have very little information it makes sense to suspend judgment.
>If Scarecrow actually thought people were "innocent until proven guilty", he wouldn't go around impugning guilt–of false accusations–to Assange's purported victims based on spurious assessments of their appearance. Scarecrow is, of course, allowed to think whatever he wants about all the actors involved, but his analysis can be rightly critised for its inherent prejudices.On the other hand, the fundamental problem with Harding et al's analysis is that it's difficult to treat Assange's case as a rape or assault case when the motivations of the authorities in issuing his arrest warrant were clearly elsewhere. Whatever the verdict, either Assange or these women will have been done a real injustice by this approach.
>Hahaha, Bishopsinsiter. "Lists logically consistent statements. Reveals he cannot grasp their consistency. FISH IN A BARREL." That post by Scarcrow is disgusting. It is telling that he cannot bestow the women the same courtesy he requests for the man. Instead, he tries them based on their facial expressions, and finds them wanting.Scarcrow, can you not see that a facial expression in a press photo is not evidence? Your interpretation of this "evidence" reveals only what is already in your head: hate and mistrust of women.
>The most hilarious part of Scarecrow's post to me is the blog sources he cites as if they are credible sources. The-spearhead? Seriously? lmao.
>The charges were dropped once after the prosecutor admitted to a lack of evidence, then taken up again. Nothing suspicious there, nope.In other news – straight from the mouth of the feminist hog – the Duke students are still suspect for rape because "we weren't there" to see it.
>I thank God for the charges against Assange. Now the average lefty can see what "rape culture" theory has brought. The ease by which a couple of women can use machinations to strip a man of his freedom, shame him, have is face plastered all over the world, is revolting. I don't take the woman's word alone – ever. I look at context and character. I a couple of self absorbed groupies trying to get famous. They achieved it. They'll get book deals and money. In my opinion, they should be in prison.
>I have pointed it out before on this very blog: in Sweden, 99% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction, indicating a disproportionate number of false allegations there. It's pretty obvious to me that the reason for this is because in Sweden they use sex crime charges as a weapon to amplify the reach and power of the government. In this case, it would not surprise me if the U.S. selected Sweden as the jurisdiction that legally would have the best chance of securing a bogus indictment against Assange.Source:Cross National Studies in Crime and JusticeBureau of Justice StatisticsSeptember 2004, NCJ 200988Edited by David P. Farrington, Patrick A. Langan, and Michael Tonryhttp://www.dvstats.org/pdf/rape/farrington-langan-tonry-2004.pdf
>John Dias: Just because 99% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction in Sweden, does not indicate a disproportionate number of false allegations. That's just ridiculous to assume. It could just as easily mean that there's not enough evidence, the police force is no good, et cetera. -Lexie Di.
>LexieDi: 99 percent is an awfully high number of allegations, relative to convictions. Sweden is an advanced western nation with one of the highest living standards in the world; they are not lacking for financial resources. But Sweden is a very ideologically feminist country.
>LexieDi said… …..It could just as easily mean that there's not enough evidence, the police force is no good, et cetera. It could however also mean, the punishment for false rape allegation is ridiculous lenient or even not existing (as it is often the case in Sweden)http://www.thelocal.se/24244/20100107/At least he was not charged for rape, but only for buying sex. And these 3 women were not charged for their false accusation of rape, and even not charged for theft.Great example of feminist justice and their liberated women after 40 year of feminism in Sweden …
>Okay. That makes no sense. The conviction rate for rape is low in Sweden and then in this round-about way, you blame that on feminism..That's ridiculous. If there were OMGCRAZYFEMINISTLAW then the conviction rate would be *fanfare* higher. Only makes sense.
>LexieDi: The conviction rate for rape is low in Sweden and then in this round-about way, you blame that on feminism..I blame feminism for distorting the meaning of 'rape' to harm men. Nowadays nobody knows anymore, what is rape and what not…If you say YES, it might mean NO, even if you say YES before, during and after having sex… and you say good bye to the boy and after some weeks you recall your consent out of whatever reason… and this is rape?And now about SWEDEN:For a man in Sweden, the situation is not that bad I would say if you compare it with USA.In Sweden, of course there is almost no punishment for women fabricating false rape allegations as women have to be protected under any circumstances, even criminal women. Regardless their crime.Yes, true, however it should be noticed that Sweden is known to be 'relatively fair' to men in return and punishments for 'rape' of any kind are remarkable lenient, maybe the most lenient punishments in the world.So-called date-rape is rarely more than a fine.He says – she says…Swedish law limits jail with 10 years. Even the worst criminals, male or female does not matter, are released after serving a maximum of 10 years.Sweden is especially lenient in case of minors, both boys and girls regarding sex. There is no way to accuse a young child for sexual harassment, the minimum age for a crime to be kept responsible is 15 year old. Age of consent is 15. This is all in strong contrast with truly man-hateful feminism in USA or UK. It is said by foreign men who had a divorce with a Swedish woman while living in Sweden, that divorce laws and the courts are surprisingly fair to foreign men. In Sweden no man will be sent to jail for being jobless and unable to pay child-support.No young man who is still a minor, will be sentenced to 10 years in jail for oral sex with a 15 year old girl like in USA.No boy 8 or 10 year old will be accused for rape and facing a trial with a jury as an adult like in UK.And of course for pissing behind a tree in Sweden you need not to be worried to find yourself on the sex offender list.Nobody in Sweden will call you a pedophile, because you are 28 and the girl is 17.Nobody in Sweden will call you a loser if you prefer a foreign wife, there is no VAWA-IMBRA…Compared to the USA/UK for sure EU/Sweden is the better choice for men despite rampant feminism. Scandinavian feminism is dominant but all is done in a very gentle soft way towards men.About Assange, I think, this is a political case, similar to the Russian arms dealer who was extradicted from Thailand to USA. USA wants Mr. Assange behind bars, for reasons we all know. Mr. Assange made the mistake to have sex with a woman in a feminist country despite his controversial position. Mr. Assange is not known to us to be supportive to the MRM, much more the opposite if you consider his activities regarding AI, but maybe in future he will change his mind.
>@ SandyHow is this: "So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let's suspend our judgment about Assange's guilt or innocence."And this ". . .conveniently forgetting that those of us not actually serving on juries are entitled to come to whatever conclusions we want on criminal cases, for whatever reasons we want."Logically consistent? A call to suspend judgement then noting that we can come to whatever conclusion we want which would not be suspending judgement.Also kindly note that he later clarified his position.Thanks for playingRandom Brother
>@LexDi – Let me help you out since the application of statistics and math are clearly not your forte.The mainstream feminist movement advocates that individuals who press rape charges should themselves not be investigated, no matter how suspect those charges are. If a woman were to accuse a man of robbery, murder, or property damage falsely, he would have the option to seek justice within the legal system against her for his losses, both civil and criminal.Now, what feminism does is make it easier to press rape charges as against any given man for anything – it could be for not cuddling her afterward. The false accuser herself could know that she wouldn't get anywhere with that case, but then that's not the point. The point is to in some way harm the man, by any means necessary. Because she knows she'll be protected by rape shield laws, she accuses away, the man gets humiliated and harassed after the charges are dropped, and she walks away with a smug sense of satisfaction.Hence, you have a country with a 1% conviction rate because of how easy it is to falsely accuse a man of rape.I hope I helped clarify things for you. I know logic probably isn't your strong spot, but you can't let feminism do all your thinking for you. By the way, he wasn't arrested for rape. He was arrested for not wearing a condom.Stupid feminists.
>LexieDi: If there were OMGCRAZYFEMINISTLAW then the conviction rate would be *fanfare* higher. Only makes sense. Yes in USA, but not in Sweden.Sweden offers still fairness, and while feminism is dominant, its execution is much friendlier and softer towards men than in USA or in UK.While Scandinavian women with false rape allegations or any other crimes are getting away with no or ridiculous punishments, men are also subject to remarkable low sentences for crimes, including sex-crimes. The maximum sentence in Sweden is 10 years, children will never be subject to a trial up to 15 years old, and minors will never be charged as adults.No court in Sweden will sentence a 17 year old boy to 10 years jail for oral sex with a 15 year old girl, and no man will ever be considered to be a sex-criminal for pissing behind a tree like in USA.Foreign men facing a divorce with a Scandinavian woman are calling the Swedish courts as surprisingly fair with a clear cut and no way to claim alimony from the ex-husband for the next 40 years like in UK.Nobody in Sweden will call you a pedophile if you are 28 and the girl is 17, and nobody will consider your foreign wife as a mail-order-bride calling you a loser. There is no VAWA-IMBRA restricting dating abroad like in the USA.Why are conviction rates low? Scandinavian men are not known to be violent and I think, this is also because of missing greedy lawyers and because of open-minded judges who often try to negotiate and to calm down the situation between the accuser and accused in case of 'he says/she says', Alcohol also plays a major role btw..Most of these so-called date-rapes are settled with a small fine or suspended sentences of a few months.Legal fees are often fixed in Scandinavia/Continental Europe and it is not possible to earn much out of commission for a lawyer in a criminal or family court.———-Julian Assange is a very special case and not the typical way Swedish courts and Swedish women are going in general.I never heard about a case in Scandinavia where a man was accused for rape, because he was not using a condom while enjoying sex with a consenting woman.It is a political case, America wants him to stand trial in the USA for reasons we all know.Julian Assange is not known to be friendly towards MRAs. He was very actively supporting feminism within AI (Amnesty International).Maybe he will change his mind.
>Random Brother, I like how you still can't see how their consistent. He clarified for your sake, the rest of us could see it without the clarification.The statements are consistent. 1. We are free to judge him by whatever standard we want, we are not limited to beyond a reasonable doubt or held to what the jury decides. 2. We should use that freedom by suspending judgment until we hear all the evidence.
>@ IR: And you accuse ME of not having sttistics and mathematics skills? You have one statistic and giving only one reason for that statistic is STUPID, especially when there are a huge number of potential reasons including the one you give.Here, I'll help you. You have one red marble. That red marble sands for false accusation. Then you have, lets say, 20 green marbles and each one is a different possible reason for that statistic. We put all 21 marbles in a bag, shake them up, and without looking, you reach in. What are the chances you'll get the red marble? Well, simply put, it's not likely. In fact, the true reason for that statistic is probably a little bit of all the possible reasons for that statistic, including the one you mention. It only makes sense.Also, what you "explained" to me wasn't mathematics and statstics, it as you blabbering on about what you think goes on.Trust me, just because I'm a woman and a feminist does not mean I'm dumb. @ Yohan: Seriously. You're a funny fellow. I've never heard of an 8 year old boy going to jail for being abused by an adult woman. Could you site that for me? I think you have your cases and informaion seriously mixed up. You see, I'm not saying the legal system is fair when it comes to men and women. It certainly is not (at leat partially due to patriarchal beliefs that women are weak and innocent and don't do bad things, when they clearly do). Also, false accusation is a crime… at least in America, for men and women. I'm not saying that false accusations relating to rape don't happen. They do, of corse, but I have a hard time believing that 99% of rape cases in Sweden are false.
>Here's what I wrote:"I have pointed it out before on this very blog: in Sweden, 99% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction, indicating a DISPROPORTIONATE number of false allegations there."@LexieDi:"In fact, the true reason for that statistic is probably a little bit of all the possible reasons for that statistic, including the one [false allegations] you mention. It only makes sense."Thank you, LexieDi; your concession has been noted.
>IR, to clarify, Julian Assange has four charges against him; one of which (having sex with a sleeping woman) falls under the definition of rape under most jurisdictions. The others might more properly be defined as sexual assault. The charges are listed here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLBCkkC5l0NVV0gEYkAA04x83Wrg?docId=B32488671291733403A00Also, an understanding of mathematics doesn't help much with understanding the low conviction rate for rape, but a knowledge of the law does. While IR suggests that laws encourages false allegations to promote the feminist agenda, the fact is that rape is an extremely difficult crime to prosecute by its nature. In all cases of irreconcilable testimony (not just rape cases), the legal system always favours the defendant. To clarify: in cases of he-said/she said, there will always be reasonable doubt, and where reasonable doubt exists, juries are instructed to acquit. (N.B. Legally, this decision is not equivalent to declaring the plaintiff's testimony false; only that there is not enough evidence to convict). This explains why in most western countries with comparable legal systems, rape conviction rates are extraordinarily low, and implies nothing whatsoever about false accusation rates in those countries. For this reason alone, it seems probable that Assange will be acquitted of his present charges.As to false accusation itself, it inevitable occurs and as LexieDi points out, it's a crime. A number of high profile cases recently in the UK (where I live) have brought the issue to light with increasingly severe penalties awarded to false accusers. I can't speak to other countries, but there's a motion here not to remove the rape shield law, but to extend anonymity to defendants as well as plaintiffs. Given the potentially vulnerable position of both parties, this would be the solution I would favour. It's a moot point in this case as the identity of Assange's accusers have already been revealed–which invalidates any suggestion that they might put forward a false accusation with impunity.
>OK, funny enough."she reminds ScareCrow of women who turned him down when he was in college"Read it again."When being approached by a man, such women would usually respond with extreme callousness and uncalled for hostility and rudeness"I am talking about those women who would "stop the music" by suddenly making a scene by shouting at some poor fool who approached them – not me specifically. I witnessed spectacles like this many times in such clubs and whatnot.This is interesting too:I am assuming their guilt of lying about rape?Very telling indeed.Those two women are not accused of any crimes.Julian Assange is. Therefore, it is Julian Assange that must be thought of as innocent until proven guilty.The two women who are NOT charged with a crime:I can think anything I want to about them.Furthermore, if you read the next article I wrote – on DEC 7th – you'd see that what constitutes "rape" in Sweden is a total joke.And – you are right – you can disagree with any juries decision you want to.However, as an American, I think that when somebody is ACCUSED of a crime, they should be thought of as being INNOCENT.The two women are NOT accused of a crime.Julian Assange is.Dang, you really aren't too bright eh?
>Here is a good article about one of the accusers:http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/Also, did you know that the rape charges were actually filed, and dropped – the re-filed?Here is a link to a Glenn Beck Video.http://www.youtube.com/v/WQUYfSo1i2EP.S. What I wrote about those two women was "pure speculation" – I clearly mention that in the post. Try READING it – and NOT taking anything out of context.At the end of the post I say, "Could I be wrong? Of course".As I said – PURE SPECULATION.So – you are ENTITLED to think of OJ as murdering his wife – even though you are completely ignorant of what got brought up during the trial (projecting your own issues onto the case? You are a murderer? – Do you remember saying that in your post? – here is the quote, "…in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case").I however, am not entitled to "SPECULATE" about two women who have accused, dropped, then re-accused a man of a crime.Let me guess – in your feminist mind, that makes me a hypocrite…Tad Re-Tahded Eh DAVEE?
>Blackwell, thanks for the comment. It got caught in the spam filter, but it's up now. ScareCrow, you might want to reread my post before commenting again. Obviously your comments on the two women were speculation, and I quoted you calling them such in my post. The firedoglake piece you link to, which was also discussed in the Harding piece I recommend everyone read, was essentially just a rehash of a not-very-credible article in counterpunch that Harding also wrote about. I am sorry I suggested that women were turning you down in college. I will change my wording.
>LOL – I love that cross out you did – now that is funny:"she reminds ScareCrow of women who turned down other dudes (who definitely weren't him)"OK – you got me to laugh at that one. In fairness, sometimes it was me. No secret – read my blog. However, I witnessed women making scenes at men far more often than I had them made at me – smartass (but honestly, a good smartass – it got me to laugh).What you failed to point out is that after my speculation – I said:Could I be wrong – of course.If you are allowed to speculate that OJ is a murderer after 12 people presented with proper evidence in a court of law found him innocent…Then I am allowed to speculate about the character of two women accusing a man of rape.Deal with it.And it is funny, here is a quote from your post:"who, in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case."Is that what you are doing with the OJ case? Projecting your own issues onto it?And Dave – I am reading plenty of articles about this Assange affair.I think it is unfair of you to say that "who, in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case" to start with – absence of evidence? No, the evidence includes a broken condom, twitter logs from Anna raving about how cool Assange is AFTER HE RAPED HER?!?The articles I have been reading do show that some foul play is afoot here.Am I projecting my own issues onto the case?No, but I will project them onto the two women accusing this man of rape.Again – Deal with it.
>@Blackwell, I wanted to add a bit about rape sheild laws in the US, as you focus on the UK, which appears critically different. In the US, every person who testifies as a witness has their identity made public in court records and the defendent has a constitutional right to be free of anonymous accusation. There is no such thing as an anonymous crime victim in the US if charges are pressed or it goes to trial. Period. Trial records are public documents, available to any member of the public upon request (with specific exceptions regarding ongoing trials and, in some jurisdictions, minors who are the subject of a custody dispute) and include the names and social security numbers of the witnesses and victim. Most people honestly do not bother to go to the local courthouse or library that keeps such records, but they are available to anyone seeking them. Journalists are also not legally barred from disclosing the names of victims, though it is considered unethical within the profession to do so. Rape sheild laws in the US neither grant anonymity to victims nor make them exempt from being forced to testify at trial. What the laws do in the US is make certain parts of the victim's history presumed to be not relevant and to be more prejudical than probative (and therefore not admissible) unless the defendent can show otherwise. This means, for example, that a defendent cannot use the fact that the victim was involved in an orgy five years before to prejudice the jury. It would not, however, preclude the use of a prior conviction of the victim for perjury or falsifying evidence, because that issue is genuinely relevant to the question of the victim's credibility. Though it can have a big difference in practice, because it keeps judges and attornies in line, this in fact only forces the court to apply the general standards for determining admissibility under the federal rules of evidence-which require that in order to be admissible evidence must be relevant and may not be substantially more prejudicial than probative.