Getting the Assange issue wrong
Posted by David Allen Green - 10 December 2010 17:15
Some illiberal thinking by well-meaning liberals.
A mother and her child offer their support to Assange. Photo: Getty Images.
The Guardian today publishes this letter in support of Julian Assange.
Most sensible and liberal people will find something to endorse in the letter. Although the moral certainty of some of those involved in or supportive of WikiLeaks can be off-putting - and I for one am glad that their fingers are only on "to publish" buttons rather than any others - there is no doubt that they are currently facing sustained and hostile actions intended to undermine their activity.
But at the end of this letter of support come demands which are flatly, horribly wrong: "We demand his immediate release, the dropping of all charges...".
No. This is a person accused of sex offences and against whom there is a European Arrest Warrant. It may well be that he will be able to defeat the attempt to extradite him, or it may be that he will be cleared of the allegations, or acquitted of any charges if tried. But as it stands, he should not be treated any worse or any better than any other person accused of such offences who is subject to a live extradition process.
When the allegations first broke back in August, it was immediately clear that many of his supporters were rushing in to casually smear or dismiss the complainants. This was an ugly and unfortunate reaction which, if anything, has intensified. Many observers - and not only feminists - are rightly disgusted by this display of instinctive or intended misogyny (including a great piece today by Libby Brooks, also in the Guardian).
Just as in August, the complainants deserve to be accorded respect. Mr Assange, in turn, should have the benefit of the presumption of innocence. And, unless there is a good basis for defeating the extradition proceedings, there should now be a speedy procedure which will now either determine any guilt or clear his name.
All this is simply "due process" and, once upon a time, well-meaning liberals wrote letters to the Guardian in defence of this liberal value too.
David Allen Green is a lawyer and writer. He is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and was shortlisted for the George Orwell Prize in 2010.
Tags: wikileaks Julian Assange John Pilger The Guardian
9 comments from readers
- Richard E
10 December 2010 at 17:44I've read a couple of feminist critiques of what's happening in the Assange case, notably this one: http://bit.ly/fW8HCa – and I tend to agree with them. However there are two points here.
One is the allegations themselves and how the subject of those allegations should be dealt with. I have no disagreement with your position on this whatsoever.
The other is the timing and circumstances surrounding the allegations. Under current circumstances it is inevitable that many will assume that Assange has been set up one way or another, and will recall this sort of thing happening in the past.
If Assange has indeed been set up, then it would seem less than likely that he could receive a fair trial. However, we do not know whether this is the case or not.
What, then, is the correct course of action? Both releasing Assange and continuing to hold him carry the risk of injustice. Which does one assume and why?
What do we mean by "due process" if the accused has been set up – or as here, if there are reasonable grounds for believing this is the case?
If we know there is an attempt to extradite someone under circumstances where we *know* they will not receive a fair trial, we may rightfully oppose such extradition. This might be the case, for example, in opposing the extradition of a suspected hacker to a friendly, nominally democratic country. What if we has reasonable grounds to suspect, purely on the apparent convenience of timing and precedent, that the allegations are trumped up, and they will not receive a fair trial, as in this case?
- gerry
10 December 2010 at 17:48David - excellent, powerful stuff: Assange is accused of serious sexual assault and rape, yet Pilger, Loach, and the human rights mega-rich lawyers hate Amercia so much and so venomously that they instinctively rush to his defence.
They have showed themselves up as the patriarchal liberal creeps that they truly are, misogynists to boot...
It reminds me of the liberals and lefties who back Polanski, who had sex with a 13 year old girl...truly disgusting misogynistic people,one and all.
Liberal hatred of women is an unedifying spectacle... I dont know if Assange is guilty or not, but you are right, he must face those charges in Sweden IN COURT...
John Pilger, Ken Loach, Jemima Khan et al...you have shown yourself for what you are, which are morally repugnant and deeply reactionary individuals!
- Alun
10 December 2010 at 17:57"Liberal hatred of women is an unedifying spectacle"
Are you saying that 'liberal' hatred of women is more unedifying than the traditional and much more common misogyny of those on the right?
- Ricardo
10 December 2010 at 18:02Well said but just one thing: As a liberal I've always believed in the presumption of innocence, however this case has made me rethink.
If the accused is innocent until proven guilty, surely that must mean the accuser is guilty until proven innocent? And I don't feel comfortable with calling a rape victim a liar. Just because there's an obvious motive for Assange to be set up as part of a conspiracy to punish him and darken his reputation, doesn't mean he's incapable of rape.
I believe that when it comes to rape both the accuser and the accused should remain anonymous until the trial is over. If the accused is guilty then by all means let people know who he is, if not then the identities remain secret.
Of course if that was how rape was dealt with then it would have been very ironic for Julian Assange's alleged crime to be a state secret!
- Sarka Bohemina
10 December 2010 at 18:09I am horrified at the presumptuousness of the "liberal" crowd who believes that having the right ideology should automatically guarantee impunity. In fact, these people are not liberals at all - they are ordinary, spoiled, petty bullies who are having tantrums because the world does not work the way they want.
- M Gadsby
10 December 2010 at 18:46I think the fact that the case was dropped by the first magistrate to receive it, and has since been resurrected makes it easy to be sceptical. Having also read what details there are available of the alleged assualts the case sounds flimsy at best. Certainly anyone who has read the Wikileaks releases would not put it beyond the US Gov. to engineer something along these lines.
The fact that assange may, instead of facing a court in Sweden, end up getting extradited to the US is another reason people don't want to see him go there. I would also be interested to know how often Interpol put individuals accused of similiar crimes on their most wanted list.
- Margie
10 December 2010 at 19:13Look, I'm not a legal person, but it's my understanding that the original prosecutor said that there was no case and that Julian was free to leave. I think this is why people are saying, "let him go"
The other thing is, that he's not been charged, just wanted for questioning, but the swedish lawyer seems adamant this should happen in Sweden.
I think for me, that is the truly suspicious part.
Julian has kept himself available to the legal authorities, he has stayed in communication, requests have been sent numerous times to the legal representatives in sweden with no response or answer, honestly if this is the standard way you guys do your lawyering, I'm not terribly impressed, but then again, I am uneducated in these matters. Hoping to be better informed by one of you guys.
- Hans Castorp
10 December 2010 at 19:39Here here DAG. It's Polanski all over again x100. Or something.
If Assange was a left-winger for Man City I doubt Pilger & Co would demand his release on baseless evidence of a vast conspiracy that requires no proof BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CIA.
This letter really goes to the heart of what Pilger is about. If you are anti US, you can do what you want, it's fine by him. No questions asked. He'll even bring out a dismal haigiography about you to keep his corpse from going cold.
- Hans Castorp
10 December 2010 at 19:43Margie, that was the case but Assange is now under arrest under the Euro warrant.
Assange refused, during the 40 days his lawyer says he was in Sweden after the events at hand, to go to and STD clinic when asked by these women. That to me is what's really suspicious. Who would refuse that?
Also, in Sweden prosecutions work differently to here, where everything is done centrally by the CPS. So what looks suspicious to us in blighty is actually pretty normal under their system.
Also, funny to see leftists elsewhere abandoning their internationalism to slate Swedish law and the idea of extradition.
Post your comment
Saturday, 11 December 2010
New Statesman - Getting the Assange issue wrong
via newstatesman.com
Flickr - projectbrainsaver
www.flickr.com
|
