tip off

Rundle: ringside for Assange’s court appearance, in all its gory detail

WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange is in custody in the UK tonight, after failing to win bail on a European arrest warrant issued to extradite him to Sweden.

Assange went voluntarily to a London police station on Tuesday morning, having been in contact with UK police over the past several weeks. His barrister John Jones told the court that Assange would agree to a range of conditions including daily reporting and electronic tagging, if granted bail, and sureties were offered by six high-profile people including journalist John Pilger, director Ken Loach, and Jemima Khan.

However, the judge ruled that the combination of the seriousness of the charges, Assange’s nomadic lifestyle, and the fact that his UK residency (which is merely the six-month visa free entry granted to any Australian) might expire before the service of the warrant had been concluded.

However he intimated that the prosecution had been remiss in its failure to bring forth any of the evidence supporting the charges in the Swedish warrant, on which the warrant is based.

A first hearing on the substance of the European arrest warrant has been scheduled for December 14.

wikieaks1

A double page spread in yesterday’s Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s highest circulation morning newspaper

Swedish charges made

The European arrest warrant was served on the basis of a Swedish warrant, which is now for prosecution, rather than merely as part of an investigation. There are four charges, combining allegations of r-pe, s-xual assault and “ofredande”, the distinctive Swedish charge of misconduct/annoyance.

Three charges are based on the allegations of “complainant A”, in whose apartment Assange was staying in mid-August. The first is one of r-pe — that Assange used his body weight to lie on her, pushed her legs open and forced s-x.

The second charge is that Assange “assaulted her s-xual integrity” by “having s-x without a condom despite complainant’s earlier expressed unwillingness to do so”. Another s-xual integrity assault is that Assange “pushed his erect p-nis into her back without permission, while sharing a bed”. The fourth charge is by the second complainant, “complainant W” which alleges “having s-x with the complainant while she was asleep, without a condom”.

Outside court, Assange’s solicitor Mark Stephens sounded a feisty note, telling 150 or so of the world’s journalists that “this is going to go viral … Many people believe Mr Assange to be innocent, myself included. Many people believe that this prosecution is politically motivated”. Pilger gave a rolling presser lasting about half an hour as TV crews followed him around, assailing the Swedish charges as “absurd” and suggesting that r-pe charges had been reinstated for political reasons.

The decision to remand Assange was greeted with little surprise by many — the Serious Crime detectives lingering in the court foyer dismissed any suggestions of a line-ball call, saying that “there was never any doubt” that bail would be denied, due to the possibility of absconding. However, Jennifer Robinson, part of Assange’s legal team, told an author covering the event that she was “shocked” at the result.

Assange’s legal team immediately announced that it may appeal the bail decision, and will certainly fight the extradition charge, possibly all the way to the British High Court. The case will certainly prove a test of the discretion that national courts have over the serving of a European arrest warrant.

WikiLeaks has confirmed that it will keep running, and will return to the business of cable release almost immediately.

The reading of the Swedish charges against Assange has been the first full airing of accusations that have been surrounded by rumour since they were first made in mid-August. Crikey readers got the full story a lot earlier than most, but even your correspondent decided to minimise the more explicit details because of simply, well, yurrrgghhh.

For better or worse, better and worse, Swedish s-x crime law has taken on the values and attitudes of Macquarie University c.1989, in which myriad acts between bodies are constructed as a series of legal permissions. That separates Sweden from the mass of other countries as behaviour that other cultures would see as private exchange becomes public law.

Even taking that into account, the situation has entered bizarre territory. Can anyone really say that the resources of two states and an international police force should be directed to investigating the provenance of a wayward morning glory?

A case to answer?

This charge, number three, is obviously farcical to 90% of the planet, male and female. What about the other charges? Charge two, unsafe s-x, does not allege non-consent. It alleges earlier notice of an unwillingness to engage in unsafe s-x, quite a different thing — and presumably the reason why it is being charged as an offence against “s-xual integrity”.

S-x while sleeping? What? Through the whole thing? Either this bends the truth, or Assange went to a Steiner school. How on earth do Swedish prosecutors propose to establish this to a standard of proof? That question is further complicated by documents suggesting collusion and false reports, and a blog by one of the complainants including a how to guide to “revenge on lovers”, which includes a section on “lying to get the law involved”.

That leaves the first charge, a charge of explicit and deliberate r-pe. It would be wise here to remember what is being objected to by Assange’s supporters — not the charge itself but the chaotic process by which it has been brought. Not everyone is observing this line. Bjorn Hurtig, Assange’s Swedish lawyer, has been on the media arguing that his client “isn’t the sort of person who could do these things”. Well, that’s no real argument. John Pilger has charged in foursquare, rejecting the r-pe arguments as “crap” and politically motivated — and also mangling the whole sequence in the telling, telling the world’s media that the “chief prosecutor” threw out an earlier r-pe charge, and that this was then reinstated by political pressure.

That’s completely arse backwards and fails to understand what is going on here. The initial charge was made by a junior duty prosecutor on a summer Friday in Stockholm, based on the “inquiries” by the two complainants to the police. This was rescinded a day later by the regular prosecutor, Eva Finne, who was so concerned by the events (which had been placed in Expressen newspaper by the police) that she had the documents couriered to her summer cottage, and promptly rescinded the order.

The next week, the two complainants hired as their lawyer Claes Bergstrom — former minister in the Social Democratic Party, big wheel. Whether they sought him out, or he volunteered remains to be seen, but he managed to convince Marianne Ny to take the case.

Ny is not the chief prosecutor either — she runs (or ran, until recently) a “crime development unit” out of Gothenburg, two hundred clicks from Stockholm. The unit lives effectively, by finding new types of crime — and especially s-x crime, which is Ny’s field. Like much of the Swedish state it has to be entrepreneurial within the framework of public funding, to maintain its existence.

Crayfishgate, and the crisis of feminism

This is crucial to understand, because simple stories of political interference won’t cut it — though they play a part. The core process that has Assange in trouble is the autonomous process of a (once) socialist, feminist state. This has been difficult for many people to interpret, because it is so rare. Sweden (and maybe one or two other Nordic countries) is the only state where feminism has achieved state power, actually won the long march through the institutions. As such it is now exposed to the full contradictions of that role, including running wars, armies and police forces.

This effectively brings to the surface contradictions inherent right at the start of second-wave feminism in the early ’70s — between the idea that existing power structures could be taken over (which ultimately became liberal feminism) and arguments that the very character of power — and the state — had to be transformed.

Imperial feminism?

One of the truly bizarre things about this event is that Assange has made history even when he didn’t intend to — this moment is when the contradictions of second wave feminism are played out to endgame, because feminists will have to choose which side they cleave to — a state prosecuting possible s-x crimes (whose possibility I do not deny), laced into a global power structure, or a radical force holding states to account, and unleashing new forms of social energy and flow that challenge inherited patriarchal structures?

We’ve seen this before of course — in the period of imperial feminism of the mid 2000s, when numerous liberal feminist commentators took the next step, and committed themselves to imperial wars that they hoped would advance the cause of gender liberation in patriarchal societies.

In Sweden this is given institutional form, because a feminist state is laced into a military one — Sweden’s once-prized neutrality has long been forfeited to a de facto NATO alliance. Central to this is the Nordic battle group, the naval force run as a joint NATO/Swedish exercise, and a key part of the new more aggressive forward strategy of NATO in relation to Russia — as recently revealed by WikiLeaks. This is part and parcel of a gradual surrender of neutrality to US dominance — as recently revealed by WikiLeaks.

This circle closes with news tonight that Swedish and American authorities are already in discussion about co-operation to begin extradition proceedings against Assange once he is in Sweden. It comes as WikiLeaks releases a new series of cables that show that Scotland was effectively bribed by Libya to release Al-Megrahi, the man convicted (possibly wrongly) of the Lockerbie bombing.

In other words, the hits just keep on coming. And it is faintly possible that Assange decided, once s-x crime allegations were made against him, that his project would best be served by a series of trials that convulsed the world.

Who knows? Maybe it’s all in the archive somewhere …

21
  • 1
    j-boy57
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Always wear a non slip condom or a wikileak can occur.
    The main cause of this is men thinking their wick is larger than it is.
    The consequences can ironically be larger than you think.

  • 2
    Mort
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    I think pandagon addresses this issue very well.

    http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/cmon_we_can_do_this_acting_like_grown_ups_thing

    “Interpol is using a rape accusation that resembles this one to put Julian Assange on their most-wanted list. As Lindsay points out, this is just silly. Sex crimes are never actually taken this seriously — -we feminists wish! — -and I’m annoyed to see rape used in this way, considering that rape apologists are already eager to suggest that rape accusations are about some evil bitch with ulterior motives.”

    But

    “We can be grown-ups here. We can entertain the idea that Wikileaks is performing a valuable service while acknowledging the strong possibility that Julian Assange is himself an asshole who treats women like they’re objects”

  • 3
    David
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    The whole fiasco appears to be a beat up, stinks to high heaven and I smell the USA as the predominent odour.

  • 4
    Greg Angelo
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    As is becoming abundantly clear, one’s suspicions about lies and misrepresentation peddled by politicians worldwide are now been confirmed by of the Wikileaks publication of secret documents. Unfortunately, Julian Assange has to paraphrase a well-known book title, “kicked the hornet’s nest”.

    Elements of that bastion of freedom and democracy and free speech, America, have been calling for Julian’s assassination. Our own Prime Minister is little better.

    Does Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s expressed contempt for Julian Assange’s “grossly irresponsible” actions extend to the editors of newspapers including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the UK Daily Telegraph, The Australian, and The Age to nominate some of the well-known media outlets that have published the leaked cables.

    What would her attitude be if a Chinese dissident leaked 250,000 diplomatic cables from China underscoring the duplicity of the Chinese government. Would she be sucking up to China by claiming that this was “grossly irresponsible”? Would the American rednecks be calling for this hypothetical Chinese dissident to be murdered?

    Whether one likes it or not, what is being challenged hereis the the freedom of the press, and lapdogs like Gillard are cosying up to the likes of Sarah Palin in the US, rather than defending the right to free speech, however unpleasant that freedom might be. It is becoming abundantly clear that due process in in Sweden has been manipulated for political reasons probably under pressure from the US.

    I for one find it refreshing to hear the truth about the lies and misrepresentation peddled by politicians of all persuasions. This includes candid evaluations of ex-prime minister Rudd bringing Australia into disrepute in the eyes of its strongest ally the United States.

    Whilst I understand the grief that US authorities may have in relation to their candid assessments being made public, the Wikileaks disclosures have provided a valuable resource with which to test and evaluate the duplicity of the political process. Our troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan while corrupt Afghan officials are stealing billions of dollars of aid, with the full knowledge of their American supporters as identified by Wikileaks publications. Whilst the press have generally surmised this situation, the Wikileaks cables prove it. We must defend the right to free speech and freedom of information.

  • 5
    Norman Hanscombe
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    When True Believers of ANY kind suddenly realise two or more of their core beliefs clash, they must either go through a painful re-appraisal or simply turn a blind eye to the embarrassing contradictions. I recall Australian ‘feminists’ welcoming the Ayatollah’s victory in Iran because the Shah “wasn’t good” re women. For a long time there was also a refusal to condemn female genital mutilation because of reluctance to cross the noble ‘multicultural’ line.

    It seems that on this occasion, however, much of the comment on the Assange issue by ‘progressive’ forces indicates they’ve moved far more smoothly to mounting a united front struggle.

  • 6
    Lucy
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know. I think we are being peddled something of a false dilemma here. Can’t we acknowledge that, however much an individual actor may be doing to expose the (frequently patriarchal) systems we despise, it may nevertheless be just to hold him to account for transgressions of his own?

    I happen to agree with you that, on the balance of probabilities, it’s looking like a beat-up of great proportions - and given the political context, it’s almost impossible to view this incident as a pure question of criminality, or to distinguish the charges relating to his personal conduct from the crusade against Wikileaks in general and Assange in particular. I get why certain powers would opportunistically use these charges to bring Assange into the system on other, more explicitly political grounds. And that is something we should struggle against, independently of what, exactly, Assange did with those two women in August.

    But what if Charge 1 had substance? Should we nevertheless be hoping he gets off scot-free, and accept that the victim is collateral damage in the grander war on the System? I don’t think so. Meanwhile there is something frankly creepy about the certitude with which Pilger, Loach et al assert Assange’s innocence. Were they there, or what?

  • 7
    David
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Prime Minister Gillard is doing herself and Labor no favours. …21000 responses up to this morning on a poll do you support Julian Assange and Wikileaks or not? 90% responded yes. That is one hellava response to a snap 3 day poll on the first day, regardless of having no scientific application.
    Interesting to hear the PM today say she would not comment on the cables. Change of heart from JG ? or perhaps realised she had gone too far the first time she responded?
    Frankly I find her handling of the whole matter very disappointing and as much as I despise Abbott and his cronies they must be looking forward to a wonderful Christmas/ New Year, as the Govt continue to flounder around. NBN report delayed, medical clinics delayed, schools website delayed, Murray/Darling, who knows?….not a good look.

  • 8
    CML
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    @ GREG ANGELO - Re your remarks on Kevin Rudd. I am happy to be corrected, but aren’t these comments coming from the embassy when the previous US Ambassador to Australia, appointed by George Bush, was still there? If this is correct, then that puts an entirely different slant on the whole “candid evaluation”, doesn’t it? After all, Rudd had just knocked off the yanks favourite lap dog - John Howard - so you would hardly expect the remarks to be favourable.

    More generally - I have always admired the British judicial system, and if, as has been suggested, Assange’s extradition to Sweden is but a “stop-over” on his eventual arrival in the US, surely no judge in that system would have any part of it. At least one would hope not. There have already been many calls from various prominent Americans for Assange’s execution. I would be devastated if the British condoned even the possibility that this might happen. Remember Lee Harvey Oswald (and others)!

  • 9
    David
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    That poll was in the SMH, sorry didn’t say earlier.

  • 10
    nicolino
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    The U.S. doesn’t like the truth coming out in any shape or form. Julian Assange is an easy target for the land of free speech. If they’re hosting a Freedom of the Press binge next year then they’re hypocracy is there for all to see. What good does any protestation do when we know they’ll do exactly what they like. They have all those nuclear armaments after all and a massive military to keep us in order. Talk of Imperial Rome.

    The next time I hear of a politician talking of noble ideals of freedom of speech I’ll get my air sick bag out, use it and throw it in his/her direction. Tokenism.

  • 11
    micae
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Lol at Naomi Wolf -
    “Dear Interpol:

    As a longtime feminist activist, I have been overjoyed to discover your new commitment to engaging in global manhunts to arrest and prosecute men who behave like narcissistic jerks to women they are dating.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html

  • 12
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    What a fun place to visit - Sweden - how big are their gaols?
    Why isn’t the media looking at what constitutes “rape” in “Scandinavia Party Central” when it comes to the likes of a “sociopathic sex fiend, and misoginist” like Assange, with his “record”? But, then, they caught Capone on tax charges.
    But all is not lost, yet!
    Heard the funniest “Derek and Clive” interview at lunch time - or was it Alexander “The Grate” Downer and an ABC employee - he r’Abbotting on about what a “trooly orful” thing this Wikileaks was :-“Someone leaking personal observations of Kevin Rudd’s character - can ewe believe it - will diplomacy ever recover - what a dish Grace?” - all the while not the slightest hint of irony for the character assassination campaign his party, in concert with their “Limited News media minder PR team”, made it their business to alert the public on - “Policy #1” - after Rudd won the ‘07 election (as illustrated in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, you Burke!”, then “Flying High - with a Control Freak” and “The Grech! Who Stole my Xmas?”)? From neither participant, interviewer (supposedly having researched?), nor his Lawdship. Near spilled my Martini?

  • 13
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Greg A - that’s called “diplomacy”, which makes it all Right!

  • 14
    John james
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    I must say I feel uneasy about the timing of these charges, given the obvious determination to prosecute Assange for what is widely seen as his irresponsible use of classified material.
    The charges are serious, so I hope Assange has good legal representation and the process is transparent.
    More broadly, these are the questions that I would like to see addressed about Assange.
    1. Are the statements attributed to him, regarding his determination to undermine United States Intelligence and Security operation, accurate?
    2. Have the lives of any people working in any security service, or otherwise, been placed at risk by his actions?
    3. How does the journalism community regard Assange’s work?
    4. Is Assange, on the public record, committed to a freer and more transparent flow of information, or is the converse true?

  • 15
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    DAVID: My cynicism is convincing me the Swedes are acting as cats paws for the Americans, if for no other reason than they are besotted with sex. Julia Gillard’s comments reduce her to the level of John Winston Howard. And as being yet more of a cat’s paw than the Swedes.

    Julian Assange looks so slight and fragile. Is he? Does he have form for these types of offences? It is at once circuitous and facile. All very odd.

  • 16
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    What “charges” are these? I thought he was being held for rape.
    As for “regard”, “the journalism community” - the way they’ve been bought out, used and abused? The sort of “standards” on display in our tabloids where politics is “a game for the whole family” (of owners)?
    “Lives at risk”? Was that a concern for Plame, among the same “Rupublicans”, when she was thrown over, as payback for her husband’s honesty in informing the public what was going on in their name? Or the Kurds or the likes of the Hmong?

  • 17
    David
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    VENISE the more I read of the Swedish affair and their handling of it, the more sus I become.
    America = JFK - Oswald - Martin Luther King - Malcolm X - RFK - Bay of Pigs - Vietnam - Iraq - Afghanistan - ? Whatever happened to the Land of the Free or was it a myth?

  • 18
    Norman Hanscombe
    Posted Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    1. “Julian Assange looks so slight and fragile.” ????? Now that IS relevant — - even if ONLY to show how it’s writer forms judgments?

    2. “Does he have form for these types of offences” ????? Now that’s a sound judicial approach — - even if ONLY by the same standard.

    Any wonder emotively driven “Tue Believers” often have so much difficulty analysing their deeplyheld shaky personal positions?

  • 19
    Jenny
    Posted Thursday, 9 December 2010 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    So, Mr Rundle, if Sweden is such a feminist utopia, how is it that Amnesty International highlighted it as one of the worst countries for rape victims to get justice?

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/rape-victims-worldwide-denied-justice-and-dignity-2010-03-08

    Even if we assume that the case has been prioritised and the extradition and denial of bail have more to do with wikileaks than with sexual assault - that does not mean that he did not commit crimes against these women. How about we stop the trial by media, let the courts do their job and refrain from attacking and ridiculing these women when none of us were there and don’t know what really happened.

  • 20
    Posted Thursday, 9 December 2010 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    DAVID: I don’t think the man looks well, but I didn’t want to come right out with it and ask if he had TB or something. So I couched the question tactfully. Apparently
    the resident ape disapproves. YAWN

  • 21
    junglejim
    Posted Thursday, 9 December 2010 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Any wonder emotively driven “Tue Believers” often have so much difficulty analysing their deeplyheld shaky personal positions?”

    A popular Indian guru once lamented that the last thing a guru wants is disciples. Some of them are dipshyttes that give a guru a bad name.

    Norman, no point in unnecessarily tarring people with one brush. People from all stripes make idiotic comments, and it’s not restricted to supporters of one side or another.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...