What the Assange Case Reveals About Rape in America

[CBHagman]

From today's Washington Post: Jessica Valenti, editor of Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape, commenting on the reporting the sexual assault charges against Julian Assange.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.html

Let's get this out of the way: Sweden does not have a "broken condom" law. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was not arrested because his contraception failed mid-coitus. Nor is he charged with "sex by surprise."

(SNIP)

Now, we don't know if Assange is guilty or innocent - but we do know that the accusations against him have been badly reported, misconstrued and generally pooh-poohed. In the same way that Assange's document dump held a mirror to U.S. diplomacy, the accusations against him and the subsequent fallout reflect our country's overly narrow understanding of sexual assault, and just how far we are from Sweden's legal standard.

The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.

(SNIP)

None of this is to say that the accusations against Assange are true - we have no idea. And there is little doubt that the timing of the legal proceedings is politically motivated: Assange's accusers came forward in August (the same month they allege being attacked), but it's only now that authorities are vigorously pursuing the case.

Assange clearly believes that the world has a lot to learn from his work with WikiLeaks. But we can also learn from his dismissive attitude toward these allegations.

Background, from The New York Times, including some information on Swedish law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world/europe/19assange.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=rape%20+%20assange&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/europe/08sweden.html?scp=9&sq=rape%20+%20assange&st=cse

[ixion]

1. Or, we could let the court focus on Assange while we focus on the corruption

and fraud rampant in all the world's governments, the latter of which seems of far greater importance.

[DemocratAholic]

2. Thanks for posting this

This article does a very good job of clearing up some misconceptions about this situation, and separating one issue for another, i.e., the WikiLeaks issue from the assault accusations. However one may feel about WikiLeaks, we must be careful to separate these issues. We should not attempt to marginalize these people who are making these accusations because we support what Julian Assange has done with WikiLeaks. Nobody knows the truth about these assault accusations except for the people involved. The proper place for these charges to be addressed are within the justice system. We don't know anything about this man (or these accusers) except for WikiLeaks. Sometimes people who do good things publicly do bad things in their private life. Is there something that appears serendipitous in the way these charges were made immediately following this WikiLeaks scandal? Absolutely. Doesn't mean the charges are not true. And if there is truth to the charges, this is a very serious crime. Anyone who has been the victim of this kind of crime will tell you that this is probably one of the most difficult, embarrassing accusations you can make. Unfortunately, there are still many people who do not believe this sort of a thing is a crime, or think they can get away with it. All thoughtful people must clear, people are entitled to withdraw consent at any moment, and anyone who fails to respect that is committing a very serious crime. Period. This has nothing to do with broken condoms. This is about someone who claims they withdrew consent, and claims he failed to respect that. We need to take this seriously for the sake of all of our safety. You wouldn't want this sort of thing happening to you, or people making light of it if it did happen.

[stray cat]

3. Sweden does have tougher laws about sexual asault - I learned that indirectly from wikileaks

[Lefta Dissenter]

4. thank you for posting that (n/t)

k&r

[Swagman]

5. All I am learning from this is that an allegation of rape means the burden of proof

is put upon the accused to prove their innocence and not visa versa as in other law cases.

I don't like this article and this part is out of order :

"But we can also learn from his dismissive attitude toward these allegations."

He HAS NOT had a dismissive attitude-he has consistently maintained his innocence and that sex was consensual.

I have not heard or read of any other statements from Assange that take on a 'dismissive attitude'

[Igel]

7. The burden of proof is the same.

It has to be proven that he didn't stop after consent was withdrawn. It's a nasty burden of proof for the woman: Typically intercourse is private, and anything becomes a case of he-said/she-said. What's left are things like what the two say to others afterwards, how long it takes to press charges, secondary, tertiary, circumstantial things.

In 1991 I had to read the sexual assault policy for the school where I started my grad program. I attended some sort of program describing the same policy: At the program, the guy said that you can have been given the go ahead for vaginal intercourse (or any other kind) and be a couple of seconds away from climax. If the woman says "stop" or otherwise indicates that you should stop you stop, at once, immediately: After that word is uttered it's rape.

As for Assange's attitude I can only go by what people have said he said: That it was consensual and therefore he's innocent (this is an assertion and conclusion, not just two separate assertions). This is expected. It's not dismissive.

However, what's claimed is that he continues to say that the charges are trumped up and that the accusers have an agenda against him. In other words, they're not just lying because they're pissed at him; they're lying as part of a conspiracy against him. His lawyer alluded to secret police documents that would show Assange's innocence and prove that they have an agenda against him. (His lawyer represents him.) This is dismissive.

[bemildred]

6. STDs, Broken Condoms, and ‘Sex by Surprise’: A Primer on the Charges Against Assange

"A research project last year funded by the European Commission found that Sweden leads Europe in reports of rape, with 46.5 per every 100,000 citizens, compared with 36 in No. 2 Iceland and 26 in England and Wales. At the same time, Sweden’s 10 percent conviction rate for rape is among Europe's lowest."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/crayfish_parties_and_broken_co.html

It's a "He said, she said" sort of situation, at best. If one is serious about preventing violent rapes, I would think that focussing on Mr Assange was counterproductive.

"The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States were raped last year."

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

Just for comparison with the European numbers.

[Igel]

8. The rape stats for Sweden are a disaster.

The definition of rape is different than in many countries.

The reports are higher, but the conviction rate is far beneath the rates of reported rapes. Why this is so is a mystery--more rapes, a weirdly high rate of reports, abnormally low conviction rates?

Then there's the "46.5 per every 100,000 citizens" in Sweden compared to "72 out of every 100,000 females in the United States." If Sweden's about 50-50 male/female, and if rape is primarily male on female, then Sweden's a bit worse than the US. That strikes me as a strange result.

[bemildred]

9. Swedish numbers are reported, US numbers are estimated.

It is also estimated that around 2/3 of rapes go unreported here (US), that number (unreporteds) is likely different in Sweden, because while the rules are rigid about disagreements about how to proceed when f**king, they also seem to make crucial distinctions between when violence is employed and when it is not. If you get started voluntarily and never have a real fight about it during the act, that is a different case from when violence is used and/or threatened from the outset to get ones way. In this case, the accusers seem to have not realized that they were raped until some days afterward, and to have other motives for being annoyed with Mr Assange, so the water is very muddy.

I am not one who thinks that women ought never engage in casual sex, but that is clearly what this was, and that seems to be how Mr Assange thought of it, a casual roll in the hay. The trouble appears to have started when his two partners felt "scorned" afterwards and decided to get even.

I don't think the criminal law should get involved in sex between adult peers where no force is used, done under no color of authority. People are absolutely nuts when it comes to sexual matters, and there is no likelihood that the criminal law will rationalize it.