Tweet
Rape victims, according to the BBC, are “legally entitled to anonymity for life.” One can be arrested in the United Kingdom for naming rape victims in tweets. There is an understandable and generally accepted rule in not just the British media, but also in the United States media that one does not name rape victims because of the humiliation it could bring to victims. And so, when whistleblower and former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray went on the BBC program Newsnight to discuss Julian Assange on the night of August 20, there was great disgust from the guest who appeared alongside him and the host.
This is what was said:
JOAN SMITH: My problem with this is how insulting it is that all these men—and it is mainly men on the left—are queuing up to cast aspersions on two women, who are making very serious allegations of sexual wrongdoing and those women are as entitled to Assange. They have human rights too. They are entitled to have him answer the case that they have made.
HOST: They’re entitled to hear him answer the case.
CRAIG MURRAY: Let’s look at the conduct of these women…
SMITH: How do you know about these women?
MURRAY: Anna Ardin—I know about the conduct of these women the same way you do.
SMITH: No, no, no, I’m not claiming that I do. I am not an expert on the criminal justice system and neither are you.
MURRAY: I’m going to say—I’m going to say some things that I know to be true. Anna Ardin, who’s the one who claims…
SMITH: I’m sorry. You should not be naming alleged rape victim.
HOST: [talking over guests] You should not be naming potential rape victim.
MURRAY: …Everybody listening…
HOST: And they can look it at it on the Internet but please don’t name a potential rape victim…
SMITH:…Why would you do that?…
HOST:…Please do not name a potential rape victim…
MURRAY: Because everybody knows it and there’s no point…
SMITH: No, I don’t think everybody does…
MURRAY: …And there is…
SMITH: Do you see how little respect this man has for women who’ve made serious allegations?
Now, at this point, it would have probably been good to concede the point that rape victims (actual or potential) are to be left anonymous, but Smith had not been the most friendly guest during the previous part of the segment. Murray felt a need to defend his decision to name the accuser, which really only made the situation worse:
MURRAY: That is absolute nonsense. I would like to say I’m married to a rape victim and I take the charge of anything to do with rape extremely seriously.
HOST: There is a great difference between you talking about something to do with your wife, presumably with her consent, and you talking about someone who has no rights because she’s not here. So, if you want to make a point, make the point and do it anonymously.MURRAY: My point is the lady, the night after she claimed was a physically coerced rape, took Julian Assange with her to a crayfish party. She turned down…
SMITH [host talking]:…What that’s got to do with anything?
MURRAY:[host talking] …She chaired a meeting at which she spoke. She chaired a meeting at which he spoke. The next day she went to dinner with him again.
SMITH: These should be tested by the investigating authorities in Sweden who have experience in the area of sexual abuse and rape. We know very well that a lot of women who have suffered some kind of sexual assault take a while to process the fact of what’s happened them. Rape victims don’t always go straight to the authorities. Sometimes they’re in a state of shock.
How the host and guest reacted is perfectly acceptable and reasonable. There is this understanding that alleged rape victims are not supposed to be named on shows, whether the names are known on the Internet or not. It seems that legally and ethically the BBC program had an obligation to step in and inform Murray that he needed to talk about the accuser without using her name. [I, myself, until today, had never typed her name in a post and published it. I have always referred to the accusers as just "women."]
Yes, it is true the names of both the women, who have accused Assange of sexual assault, are known. For example, here are Swedish police reports (translated). That does not necessarily mean I or anyone else should go on a news program and say the name of alleged rape victims—even if they are victims in cases that are believed to be cooked-up.
The decision to name the accuser should frustrate supporters of Assange, because this is an excellent sound bite that now will be difficult for supporters to highlight because all opponents of Assange will just want to condemn or joke about how disgusting it is that Murray named an accuser:
MURRAY: Let me talk about four people, all of whom I know personally. James Yee, chaplin at Guantanamo, blew the whistle on torture in Guantanamo Bay, was charged with adultery and pornography on a government computer. Janis Karpinski, brigadier general at Abu Ghraib, blew the whistle on Donald Rumsfeld’s sanctioning of torture at Abu Ghraib, was immediately charged with shoplifting. Scott Ritter, UN weapons inspector, entrapped by a honey trap. I was charged myself with sexual coercion of visa applicants after I blew the whistle on extraordinary rendition…
HOST: [interrupting]… That’s a very clear point…
MURRAY: …Everybody knows that whistleblowers are charged with non-whistleblowing related offenses.
HOST: Indeed, and everybody also knows that women sometimes get raped by people who may otherwise perform a public service…
This is a very strong point he made. He also made this point yesterday in his speech in support of Assange. It makes it clear that suggesting there is a possibility that the sexual allegations are a cooked-up offense being pushed by the Swedish authorities is not some outlandish thing to claim. It happens. The state targets people in ways that will not only lead them to be convicted of crimes but will also potentially wreck their reputation entirely.
Murray has experience that makes it possible for him to offer great insight into diplomacy, international relations and the Assange situation. It is not my opinion that Murray’s decision to name an accuser here should neutralize all the other things he said and make them taboo to discuss. He could have made his points about the women without naming an accuser (maybe—if the host and Smith let him).
Now, to Smith’s suggestion throughout the show that Assange expects “special treatment,” he’s “no different than anybody else” and there is a “moral and legal duty to comply” with authorities. First off, Assange has not failed to comply with authorities to date. Secondly, seeking asylum is something legally available to all individuals. If one contends they are being politically persecuted, they can go to an embassy and apply for asylum. Of course, the authorities are then going to suggest that person is trying to avoid due process. Of course, the authorities and people who believe he should face the crime will argue that the person is running away. But, these opinions will be symptomatic of the fact that they do not believe the person is being politically persecuted, that they believe the person’s fears are entirely unjustified. That is the case here. Smith and others fed up with Assange apologists do not buy the “conspiracy theories” that the United States has some criminal investigation into him and is likely to pursue extradition in the near feature and he should be wary of the countries which he goes to because they might cooperate with an extradition over a political offense—the publishing of previously classified documents via WikiLeaks.
There is a polarization happening here between those who have developed an utter distaste for Assange and those who see Assange as a whistleblower and valiant hero. There are sharp views and they make it incredibly difficult to discuss the sexual allegations aspect of all this soberly and objectively. One’s character can easily be assassinated for defending Assange and suggesting he is the victim of Swedish prosecutors, who have cooked-up charges to tie him up and make it hard for him to run WikiLeaks. This is because one immediately finds his or herself being told they are sexist and not properly considering the rights of the alleged rape victims. On the other hand, one can find their character assassinated for defending the alleged rape victims and not think the sexual allegations are part of the political persecution he is facing. This is because one this view immediately finds his or herself being told they are filled with prejudice and supportive of rogue power.
Upon intense examination of the investigations against Assange (there are at least two), here is what can be accepted as true all at once without being in conflict:
- The alleged rape victims deserve to be respected, not named on television and Assange should have to face the sexual allegations.
- State powers go after whistleblowers and dissidents by cooking up non-whistleblower related offenses so there is a possibility that these allegations are being pushed by the Swedish Prosecuting Authority for political purposes.
- Assange has a legal right to pursue asylum and make a case that he is being politically persecuted.
- Ecuador has a sovereign right to grant diplomatic asylum to an individual like Assange if they believe that the person’s fears are valid and if they believe the person is indeed being targeted for political offenses and could be abused or potentially put to death if taken into custody for these offenses.
- The United States has an open criminal investigation into WikiLeaks. A federal grand jury has been empaneled to investigate. It has been meeting. A case against Assange and other WikiLeaks managers, staffers and individuals connected is being put together with resources and the support of the US Justice Department.
- The Swedish authorities could question Assange in London but have refused. They also will not publicly assure Assange that he would not be extradited to the United States. This makes it easier for Assange to justifiably claim he is being politically persecuted.
26 Comments
I’m glad the Beeb shows such concern, but, the identities of both women have been known virtually from the start — the BBC is locking the barn door long after the horse escaped.
As a recent episode of the Australian documentary show Four Corners states, there are only two semi-official complaints that were made, and both were apparently part of an effort merely to get Assange to get tested for STDs — and one of the women, when she saw that the Swedish police instead intended to arrest Assange on rape charges, was so horrified at being “railroaded” (her term) that she refused even to put her signature onto the testimony she’d already given:
As noted earlier in the program, the allegations that were later made by the woman I call “Person 1″ (Person 2 having dropped her efforts to get Assange tested for STDs the moment she realized her testimony was being used to get him arrested on a rape charge) concern an alleged event that would have happened around the same time she arranged a party for Assange, was tweeting and texting how “cool” it was to have him at her place and in her bed, and refused an offer to have Assange stay somewhere else other than her apartment during his time in Sweden.
I don’t know about you, but if I had been subjected to forced sex by a houseguest, I don’t think I’d keep letting him stay at my place, much less throw parties for him or be telling everyone how cool it was that he was there. Maybe somebody else might, but I sure wouldn’t.
‘zactly!
Neither of the two women accuse Assange of rape. So technically, they are NOT alleged rape victims.
how disgusting was that segment? both the host and female guest were so sanctimonious about the rights of the women. they seem to have never heard of whistle blowers being accused of crimes and also clearly didn’t want to hear it. nor had they heard about the long arm of the u.s.
i winced when murray said his wife was a rape victim. he clearly doesn’t shine in such an adversarial situation. much as i loved his speech yesterday at the ecuadorian embassy, i was dismayed feeling his frustration during this segment.
exactly what kind of woman has consensual sex, enjoys it, parties with him and then goes to the police about it for an aids test? the time to ask for an aids test is um before sex. if you are asking after the fact, ask the man directly.
From Craig Murray’s Blog:
I agree that the outrage is a pathetic spasm and that is because it won’t be limited to people saying don’t name alleged rape victims on air. People will now use this to unjustifiably discount all his views, especially Assange opponents. I will not tolerate Assange opponents who use his “naming” of an accuser to defame or go after WikiLeaks or Assange supporters. And I do not discount the fact that Anna went to the media to tell her story or give comments on her accusations.
What you call the “pathetic spasm” is, in my view, a type of fake political correctness that is generally used for the ultimate purpose of suppressing and/or distorting truth. People will definitely TRY to use this to discount Assange but as long as there are people like you who will not tolerate it, then their efforts will fail and truth will prevail.
MURRAY: Let me talk about four people, all of whom I know personally. James Yee, chaplin at Guantanamo, blew the whistle on torture in Guantanamo Bay, was charged with adultery and pornography on a government computer. Janis Karpinski, brigadier general at Abu Ghraib, blew the whistle on Donald Rumsfeld’s sanctioning of torture at Abu Ghraib, was immediately charged with shoplifting. Scott Ritter, UN weapons inspector, entrapped by a honey trap. I was charged myself with sexual coercion of visa applicants after I blew the whistle on extraordinary rendition…
HOST: [interrupting]… That’s a very clear point…
MURRAY: …Everybody knows that whistleblowers are charged with non-whistleblowing related offenses.
Newton’s first law of physics… When criminality is exposed by a victim or a “sharp tack,” the messenger gets whacked!
Good post, important topic. As a feminist, I believe the problem of naming (or not naming) people who have been raped avoids underlying issues of shaming female sexuality and replaces concern over sexual violence with paternalistic protecting of women by making them invisible and anonymous. Just sayin.
Interesting wording, since any orchestration of complaints would likely have been the work of the CIA.
…to which she has been tied, I’ll add. That wording *is* suspect.
Good point.
I’m also receptive to the argument that outrage against this is from people who believe in political correctness of which I have a low tolerance. Nonetheless, I don’t know that Murray gains much from naming who these people are that are accusing Assange on air. It certainly backfired. He is still maintaining he was right to use their name and has put up a few insightful posts that I think demonstrate he had no malicious intent when he named the accuser. But I think as a journalist I am willing to accept the standard that you just don’t name rape victims on air. Especially if you think the case they are pursuing is a result of authorities putting them up to it, their names are immaterial to the larger story.
But Murray is not a journalist.
At some point, sanity has to enter this argument on the Left. Either we are going to fight the creeping world police state and the decrepit estate of journalism-become an organ of state/corporate propaganda, or we are going to tie ourselves up in a post modern knot of uselessness over the importance meaning and political preeminence of identity politics’ and symbolism…..Thats where we are and thats what this argument is about. And before anyone has a fainting attack over that statement..Try to remember the the left has rendered itself UTTERLY-FUCKING-USELESS and completely incapable of fighting back on ANY FRONT the globalist capitalists choose to actually defend…you’ll notice they dont really care about any of the modern lefts most precious causes and crusades, but when it comes the corporate global state and the ultra reactionary economic plans – they will stop at nothing to roll over us – while we argue over the most specious and worthless fights ..ana ardin is not worth fighting over. She and her right wing causes and connections were discussed right here on this very blog when the rape case against Assange was manufactured by the Swedish prosecutors office.
and for the record – the etiquette of not naming of rape victims applies to actual charges and convictions of the crime of rape. Julian Assange, now (rather conspicuously) two years after the allegations, has NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME BY SWEDEN. If ana ardin (a woman ive never met) decided to accuse me of raping her in sweden (a place ive never been) i could not be expected to not name her in my own defense..
“There is a polarization happening here between those who have developed an utter distaste for Assange and those who see Assange as a whistleblower and valiant hero”
And where do the people (like myself) who really couldn’t care less about the celebrity and personality of Mr. Assange, come in? How about Glen Greenwald? Greenwald is probably not very fond of celebrity egos but he has been all over this story from day 1. The outrage comes not from any fandom but from having the rule of law and our civil government (ragged as they were in the US)completely taken away from us, with nothing but fawning cooperation from the MSM and the usual PC handwringing and hair twisting from “the left”…
And finally
“It is one” (pov) “that ultimately respects the feminists who believe Assange should be held accountable for violating the women, if that is indeed what he did.”
whether their opinions deserve respect or not. Assange has become(how predictably) a person of great symbolic meaning for them (feminists),who’s actual guilt or innocence, and ultimate fate are expendable and secondary (if considered at all) on the road to their very narrow ideological goals – which in this instance is having their belief system publicly affirmed and upheld, by having a public sacrifice of Assange.
Appreciate the comments, solerso. I think both of them get at key truths, which is what I tried to do with this post whether I failed in my attempt or not.
There’s a lot of emotion injected intentionally to obscure the discussion and shift it away from the shadowy diplomacy going on to ensure Assange can be extradited to the US eventually.
The CIA has a long history of supporting feminists. That’s why they financed Gloria Steinem.
That’s just about right, in my estimation.
The naming or not naming of the women is a valid, important issue, but it is best left as an aside to the Assange case rather than a central issue. Since you are one of the only journalists covering JA and Manning in depth, it’s probably better to go with the established journalistic treatment of women accusers and not name them. JMVHO.
And thanks for writing the diary just the same.
This is exactly why I believe that accusations of sex crimes are being used against Assange. It is so easy to divide the left as it descends into weighty arguments over fairness and equality. Those *are* important discussions to have, though.
And…those issues are being deliberately injected into the Assange case, I suggest, for the specific purpose of division and control of the left. At some point, the left is going to have to look at its own role in colluding in its own defeat.
That was for solerso.
Thanks for that reminder, that Ardin outed herself.
What really gets me mad is that it is illegal under Swedish law to name the ACCUSED as well as the accusers under a conviction has been secured.
Julian Assange has had TWO YEARS of being ‘named’ by every journalist and broadcaster on the planet, often in the most despicable and prejudicial terms. He has been subjected to the most vile abuse AGAINST THE LAW. Agreed, rape accusers shouldn’t be named but, as someone upthread pointed out, calling them ‘victims’ prior to conviction – especially when the accused has been publicly named – is also highly prejudicial to his chances of a fair trial.