The allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are pretty straightforward in terms of Swedish law: he’s been accused of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The charges allege that Assange held one woman down using his body weight to sexually assault her and that he raped another woman while she was sleeping.
Yet the media ““ everyone from Naomi Wolf and Glenn Beck to bloggers across the internet – is reporting that Assange is being charged with “sex by surprise,” or some bizarre Swedish law having to do with a condom breaking, not rape. Multiple reports also characterize the sex as consensual.
The truth? There’s nothing in Swedish law about “sex by surprise” or broken condoms. (Here’s the penal code, see for yourself.) And despite reports to the contrary, Assange’s accusers have always said that this was not consensual sex.
So what are actually very serious charges are being diminished by shoddy reporting and victim-blaming ““ and it all starts with AOL News. All of the news sources and blogs reporting that the Assange charges are simply “sex by surprise” cite this piece from Dana Kennedy at AOL News.
The international manhunt for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a sex-crime investigation in Sweden apparently stems from a condom malfunction.
Assange’s London attorney, Mark Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called “sex by surprise,” which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.
“We don’t even know what ‘sex by surprise’ even means, and they haven’t told us,” Stephens said.
So you would think that Kennedy, a seasoned reporter, would do some sleuthing into what the law actually is. No such luck. Instead Kennedy goes on to report the really important “facts”: that one of the accusers is a blond radical feminist who “once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men.”
But here’s the thing – if you look at that “treatise” against men, it’s actually just a blog post that links and translates an English eHow article that has nothing to do with dudes. So yeah, she didn’t write anything – just re-posted a rando article. For that, she’s a conniving feminist bitch. Kennedy then goes on to use the article in The Daily Mail tabloid – the same one Naomi Wolf used – to outline the rest of the case (stopping along the way to point out the other accuser was wearing a pink sweater, of course).
Now, the BBC, The Guardian and The New York Times (among other reputable news outlets) have all reported the real charges against Assange ““ the correct information is out there. So why hasn’t a correction been issued? At the very least, a follow up piece is in order. But instead of doing some more reporting on the truth of the charges, Kennedy has a new angle: “Lawyer: Assange Faces ‘Tough Climate’ in Feminist-Friendly Sweden”
One of Assange’s two accusers is also known for her strong feminist views, having once written a treatise on how to take revenge on men. [There's that bullshit again! -Jessica] Both she and Borgstrom have been active in the Social Democratic Party.
“Assange is going to be coming into a very tough climate up here, and I wonder if he understands how much danger he’s in,” said Per E. Samuelson, a high-profile defense lawyer in Stockholm who specializes in defending men accused of rape.
“Some of the laws regarding rape are rather extreme, and the way they are applied in court is sometimes unbelievable,” Samuelson told AOL News. “To be accused of a sex crime in Sweden is considered very serious. Swedish courts tend to believe what the woman says.“
The horror – they trust women?! But what really kills me about this follow up piece is that Kennedy finally accurately reports what Swedish law is:
There are three categories of rape in Sweden, “severe” rape, “regular rape” and “less severe” rape as well as a host of other charges involving sexual assault and coercion, the nuances of which were outlined in The New York Times.
So the folks at AOL News know the truth, they’ve just chosen not to correct their error – instead leaving up the original post to drive traffic and influence an army of blogs, forums and media outlets to misreport the story and smear the accuser’s names.
Now, I have no opinion about Assange’s innocence or guilt – we don’t know shit about it. But I hardly think that accurately reporting the charges against him is some sort of militant feminist conspiracy. Because of the irresponsible reporting of AOL News, the truth has been muddied and even lost; even worse, women who may be rape victims have been lied about, smeared and trashed the world over.
Twitter
Facebook
Tumblr
YouTube
45 Comments
YES! This was excellent. As a Swedish man I’m constantly horrified to read what foreign (and domestic btw) has to report on the Assange case. Personally I am very fond of wikileaks as an organisation but it should be made clear that Assange is not wikileaks. As a feminist, I feel that the way the victims has been treated has made another leak so abundantly clear, the leak of a very very frakked up view on women. It makes me sad and quite ashamed. So, thank you for this. It was a much needed read.
I honestly think now that assange’s caught, he’ll have more fish on his plate than rape. He’ll have treason or espionage charges also. I find this a bittersweet situation. While he was arrested for rape, which is excellent. It sucks that now who’s going to leak clandestine documents issues by the US government?
Uh, Mike, Assange is Australian and thus CANNOT be charged with treason in the US. And I’m far from the first to observe this, so you must be really NOT paying attention.
Also, Assange and Wikileaks did not “leak” any “clandestine documents” (many of which were not secrat, BTW, and one of which were Top Secret). They published documents that were provided to them by a leaker. The leaker is criminally liable; WIkileaks is not.
Jessica, thank you for this! I wanted to share that Gizmodo published a “That’s Not Rape-Rape!” diatribe against the alleged victims based solely on this AOL News story. When readers pointed out that, yes, Assange is charged with rape, the editors issued a disclaimer as if the actual charges were breaking news unavailable at the time the original article was written and (this is amazing) stipulating that the writer was wrong but leaving it up anyway. I guess some “news” sources are more interested in victim-blaming and perpetuating harmful rape-lite myths than they are in reporting actual news. Truly an exercise in rape culture.
Being a crusader for free speech and being a rapist is not an either / or situation. It *is* possible to be both, but jumping to someone’s defence just because of who they are or the ‘good’ they have done is a selective application of justice.
*IF* HE’S GUILTY, why should Assange be privy to the same judicial impunity that Wikileaks seeks to deny governments and corporations for THEIR illegal / unjust acts?
WTF, internets! Less victim-blaming, more cat videos, please.
It continuously boggles my mind that some people seem to think that involvement in radical feminist politics would make somebody *more* likely to falsely accuse someone of rape than otherwise. Leaving aside the issue that false rape allegations are relatively rare, I would think that involvement in feminist politics of any sort would certainly make someone even less likely to falsely accuse rape in order to get petty revenge on some dude, or whatever the bullshit narrative is, because any woman who’s spent more than thirty seconds of her life paying even the smallest bit of attention to feminism and feminist issues already knows that that’s the least effective way of getting a dude into trouble in the WORLD. So unless this woman could see the future and knew that in three months, multiple world governments would be looking for Assange’s every unpaid parking ticket to get him into custody… why in God’s name would a feminist activist think that this would get him in trouble?
The claim that “Swedish courts tend to believe what the woman says” is not borne out by the evidence. Sweden’s conviction rate for rape is among the lowest in Europe.
http://ewlcentreonviolence.org/IMG/pdf/Summary_Findings.pdf
It’s important, too, to not use the word “charges,” to describe these allegations, because Sweden hasn’t “charged” him with anything in the legal sense. It’s my understanding that these are just what was on the extradition request/arrest warrant/red notice. If you look at the actual transcripts that have been released from the interviews with the women, it’s pretty murky exactly what charges ought to apply.
Admittedly I don’t read the whole internets, but has anyone advanced the theory that this is a plot by Sweden to hold Assange in protective custody, then refuse to extradite him to the US when he is charged with espionage? I came up with this idea yesterday, and while I don’t think it’s likely to be true, I think it’s within the realm of possibility.
Take a look at amnesty international’s report on rape convictions in Sweden. They are near to impossible to get –
http://www2.amnesty.se/externt/aiglobal.nsf/(sidor)/E940A657CA9E7167C12574C5002E9495/$file/Case_Closed_2008.pdf
The prosecution rate of rape charges made is around 13% and of those about half are found guilty. Which means of all of the charges of rape made in Sweden, about 6% result in convictions (based on 2006-2007 data) Hardly a land of crazily broad rape law – in face I would argue the opposite. But no one seems to be looking at the data.
Can you provide a link to the alleged charges please. That would be really helpful. Thanks.
For a woman to “change her mind” in mid-coitus is a horrific thought, given the extraordinary need to reach sexual completion in a male. It causes personal physiological damage. It requires a male to commit self-battery.
So I am forced to ask, why is male sexual battery acceptable when female sexual battery is not? Perhaps women know more about being a male than men?
This sure looks like a double standard to me.
@contrarian Are you seriously comparing “blue balls” to rape?
@contrarian
And after a dude is raped it’s damn near impossible to reach orgasm through coitus. Ironic, ain’t it?
With a name like “contrarian” I can only state: trolls gonna troll.
@contrarian
Hold on, are you calling masturbation “self battery”? Because that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. You know, except for the part where you said that women don’t have the right to change our minds about wanting to have sex with someone.
And if masturbation causes “personal physiological damage” then perhaps you should consider getting professional help.
@contrarian Also, did I misunderstand, or did you just refer to masturbation as “self-battery”?
“It requires a male to commit self-battery’ …. DUDE. It’s called masturbation. Do it and leave the rest of the world alone.
Last time I checked, blue balls weren’t the cause of nervous breakdowns and flashbacks, and no one with blue balls has had to see therapists for decades or changed their lives around for fear of more blue balls.
If you have blue balls, you either have no hands, aren’t doing something right or been sitting in the bathtub with your Denim jeans.
@Contrarion
Seriously? Blue balls is not a medical ailment while, extreme pain during intercourse is. Its called a bottle of lubriderm + your hands. If this doesn’t fix your physiological damage, you are doing it wrong.
@Panic Seriously!
Don’t feed the trolls. contrarian is just spewing absolute garbage to get attention.
Actually, I was referring to retrograde ejaculation, associated embolism, and related male dysfunction. I had to look up “blue balls”.
No, masturbation is not self battery despite the fact the word actually means that…according to catholic teaching…not relevant…other than their teaching seriously compromises dialog.
No, I don’t want attention. I’m really quite angry…furious actually.
I mainly question this vapid transition from consensual coitus to “rape”. I bet there are female (actual) rape victims who feel injury that you use the word “rape” to describe this mid-coitus change-of-mind trick. (This trick appears in feminist literature as a means for revenge.)
Even in many existing societies and history, coitus out-of-wedlock would be unacceptable, grounds for divorce, or even criminal for both people. Somehow, women argue superiority to such culpability. This is the rape of reason. I can use the R word too!
“I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.”
@contrarian: Believe it or not, women actually have the right and the justification to change their minds mid-coitus, whether that makes you furious or not. And as soon as she says “stop” you have to respect that. Because, if you don’t, that IS rape. And speaking from personal experience, it’s not a trick. It’s realizing that you don’t want to be in that situation. I’m sure you could find women around who have and would do that to piss someone off, but that’s still a very ignorant generalization to make.
And also, there’s a huge difference from CONSENSUAL sex between an unmarried couple, and rape, whether sex out of wedlock be considered criminal or not, because the sex is just that: consensual. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT. The only “rape of reason” here is how you don’t seem to find THAT logical.
In this article I read:
“despite reports to the contrary, Assange’s accusers have always said that this was not consensual sex”
In the article which “always said” links to (supposed to be the proof):
“Both women reported that they had been involved in consensual sexual relationships with Assange, but each reported a separate non-consensual incident”
(which I understand is no condom use at some point for one of the women and sex while sleeping for the other).
So overall, does that make the sex consensual or non-consensual???
This sure is confusing…
How can you make a statement implying sex was never consensual?
Secondly, I looked for the AOL article and read one of the women wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men and was once thrown out of Cuba for subversive activities.
Do you know wether this is a lie two?
why is contrarian quoting “as good as it gets”?
and “according to catholic teaching”? really?
@Max Re: consent even the quote you pull refers to the accusation of non-consensual sex. So…yeah. And the fact that you’re asking me if one woman wrote a treatise against men shows me you never bothered to read my post.
I find it seriously baffling that it is easier for people to believe that this is an international global conspiracy put together by two evil, radical, man-hating feminists than it is to believe that a dude did something inappropriate during sex.
For everyone crying about how you can’t change your mind during sex…I didn’t know we were still living in the gender-equal dark ages, I’m sorry. If you consent to sex under the condition that the man wears a condom [a very reasonable request] and he either refuses to, that is unacceptable, and it is rape. She was held down while she did not want to have sex. That is rape. Putting stipulations on sex, saying “it is acceptable if you agree to a, b, and c.” is an intelligent move, and a very progressive move, and it shows that the woman gives a shit about what is happening to her body, which is ENTIRELY REASONABLE. If you agree to those terms, and then do not follow them, you are willingly doing something against the will of the woman. And you are a rapist.
dealwithit.jpg
Can we all agree on the following?
1.All rape allegations should be taken seriously, regardless of who is accused and who is making the accusations.
2.Based on the way governments have tried to publicly smear people they don’t like in the past, it’s okay to be skeptical about criminal charges against Assange. Skepticism here DOES NOT=”she was askin’ for it”.
@JasonM I mean, I guess – but that’s not really what this is about. This isn’t about being skeptical of the charges – it’s about how the charges and accusations have been continually misreported and lied about in the media. It’s about the ridiculous propaganda campaign against Assange’s accusers.
@HMH THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR EXISTING!
I for one am fed up with the “but she…” lines that have all but plagued the articles that Jessica had linked in her articles. I can understand some skepticism in the trial itself, it is the judicial system’s job to determine if there is a case or not. BUT the constant blows to these women’s personal lives is just sick. The case is about the situation in which the rape/not rape happened. Its not about if the woman hired a feminist lawyer, or if she wrote a blog about “taking revenge on men”. This case about these women and their personal right to say no and if that right is violated then its rape.
*thank you*
Again, can you provide a link to the charges please? I’d like to be able to make this argument but I want to be able to reference exactly where the charges have been described before I do. Thanks
Thank you so much for this piece. After reading so many hateful websites full of “assumptions”, from the far right until the far left, it is such a relieve to read some evidence in their defense that makes more sense than any of the allegations I have read. This gives hope to all rape victims who have been accused of lying. Thanks again!
Jessica, Could you clarify your source for Swedish penal code. I ask because your source is in English and is not on a Swedish Government website.
Most law enforcement studies estimate that between 6% and 16% of all reported forcible (as opposed to statutory) are easily demonstrably false allegations. They define these as cases where the accuser either provides statements directly contradicting evidence or who recant. This does not include cases where the victim identifies the wrong perpetrator (i.e. DNA evidence points to a different rapist) or where there is simply insufficient evidence. So beyond question women lie about rape. (Source: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf) Considering the seriousness of the allegations they’re making, any woman who knowingly wrongly accuses a man of rape frankly deserves some smearing.
In this particular case, not one, not two, but THREE Swedish prosecutors agreed there was not evidence that a crime had been committed and thus attempted to drop the case. So many people have a motive either for or against the alleged rapist. In addition, the nature of the accusations makes clear physical evidence highly unlikely (both women admit they had sex with Assange consensually outside of the allegations). Ultimately, you may believe Assange raped these women. Many others believe he did not. Whether he actually did or not is unlikely to ever be known. But personally, like the three prosecutors, I’m willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
Hazel, the penal code is from the Swedish Gov: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3926/a/47455
False reporting in rape happens at about the same rate as false reporting with any other crime; though I find it interesting that you cite this study which actually states: “There is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors which feeds into a culture of scepticism, leading to poor communication and loss of confidence between complainants and the police.” I also think it’s pretty telling that you say that someone “deserves some smearing.”
In terms of prosecutors dropping rape cases – this one or others – because of lack of evidence – that DOES NOT MEAN a rape didn’t occur or that prosecutors “gave the guy the benefit of the doubt.” It means they don’t believe they could get a conviction, which are notoriously hard to get in cases where the attacker knew his victim. (In fact, only 20% of reported rape cases make it court in Sweden)
Hey Hazel, could you please provide the reason for why you’re so quick to jump on the anti-rape victim bandwagon? I ask because your arguments are tired and your reasoning is flawed, as opposed to being consistent.
“Most law enforcement studies estimate that between 6% and 16% of all reported forcible (as opposed to statutory) are easily demonstrably false allegations. They define these as cases where the accuser either provides statements directly contradicting evidence or who recant. This does not include cases where the victim identifies the wrong perpetrator (i.e. DNA evidence points to a different rapist) or where there is simply insufficient evidence. So beyond question women lie about rape.”
Three things are wrong with this remark.
1. The accepted statistic, at least in the United States, for the incidents involving “false” accusations of rape is actually two percent; to go as high as six is a stretch and 16 is simply beyond truth.
2. Rapists lie, and they do it all the time; they claim an act of violence was an act of consent, and why shouldn’t they? They have folks like you, in the pro-Assange camp, who want to “give the guy the benefit of the doubt”. But rape isn’t defined by what the perpetrator thinks; it’s up to the victim.
3. “Mistaken identity” cases are rare. Sneaky, but you don’t get to garner the few that do happen as additional proof that women lie; especially since “mistaken identity” doesn’t equate to “knowingly wrongly accusing” someone of rape.
“In this particular case, not one, not two, but THREE Swedish prosecutors agreed there was not evidence that a crime had been committed and thus attempted to drop the case. So many people have a motive either for or against the alleged rapist.”
Really? Did they agree that there was not evidence (any, as you imply) or did they agree they didn’t have enough evidence to secure a conviction? HUGE difference. One, you know that the crime is bogus; the other, you think it’s possible but can’t justify the investment in trying to make other people determine whether a crime has been committed. I’m inclined to believe the ladder. The number of rape cases that actually make it to trial in Sweden are disgustingly low. You have no way of saying that it came from a desire to give Assange the benefit of the doubt, so don’t try to play it up like some poor bastard got sucked into the anti-man agenda and these three dudes were birds of a feather who wanted to avoid further emasculating him.
@ Suriviving
“Posted December 11, 2010 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
Take a look at amnesty international’s report on rape convictions in Sweden. They are near to impossible to get –
http://www2.amnesty.se/externt/aiglobal.nsf/(sidor)/E940A657CA9E7167C12574C5002E9495/$file/Case_Closed_2008.pdf
The prosecution rate of rape charges made is around 13% and of those about half are found guilty. Which means of all of the charges of rape made in Sweden, about 6% result in convictions (based on 2006-2007 data) Hardly a land of crazily broad rape law – in face I would argue the opposite. But no one seems to be looking at the data.”
Sweden has the worlds 2nd highest reported rape per capita. Sweden also gets a lot of flak since so few cases go to court.
Sweden and rape-statistics… its a big mess.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/dear-government-of-sweden
Great work. I have read that some of this misinformation comes from Assange’s lawyers. When there’s the possibility that you lack a strong defense, you create a conspiracy that paints everyone — accusers, police, prosecutors — with the same brush. Does anyone recall the lawyer defending the “Preppie Killer” in NYC making claims that the victim had a ‘sex diary’? (She didn’t.)
It wasn’t hard for some elements of media to change a few details. ‘Sex Diary’ becomes ‘Revenge Blog’. ‘Rough sex’ become ‘Surprise sex’ or ‘Condomless Sex’. ‘Accuser’ becomes ‘Blond Radical Feminist’, as if that in itself is an explanation for the rape charges.
What is disturbing is that the various pundits who have published inaccurate information about this case — AOL, Michael Moore, Keith Oelbermann, Naomi Wolf — has one of them yet made a public apology about misrepresenting the facts? Instead, they cling even more rigidly to some political conspiracy theory that as yet has not had one ounce of evidence to support it. Ignoring the possibility that the timing of these charges could be due to the fact that the accusers lawyers asked Swedish authorities to investigate further.
It’s just another disturbing indicator of how people lionize celebrities accused of rape. These prominent people they idolize can’t possibly be violent, or have unsavory behaviors that aren’t known to the public. So they tend to ignore the accessible facts of the case in their haste to dump a reputational slop bucket over the heads of the accusers.
Excellent summary, Jessica.
Over on Huffington Post, a supposedly progressive outlet, these canards have been repeated endlessly by blind followers of Assange.
Like you, I don’t claim to know whether Assange is innocent or not, but I am incensed by the level of willful ignorance and shoddy unprofessional reporting and op-ed.
Lisbet puts the matter clearly and cogently. The sexual assault or rape charges against Mr. Assange have to be dealt with carefully and correctly, in accordance with the laws of the country where the incidents took place – in this case, Sweden. There is no reason to confuse or combine the two unrelated charges. Presumably the espionage charge — or something related — would be made in a U.S. court.
Thank you for this posting. Unfortunately, this has turned into the kind of “political football” issue in which almost nobody really cares about finding the truth, just fighting for their “side”.
I’m just hoping that the increased attention ends up in a fair application of the system of justice, and a fair trial if prosecutors in Sweden think they have a case.
Just a question: Does anyone have a screen shot of the original “how to..” article mentioned? It seems ehow have taken it down and I would like to have a copy to present to people who STILL go “but she wrote about revenge!!!!!!”
As a comment to Swedish lawyer Per E. Samuelsson’s statement that Swedish courts “tend to believe what the victim says” I’d like to point out that the High Court of Sweden (the judgements of which lower courts are to follow) have in several cases stated that it is not not impossible per se to reach the “beyond reasonable doubt” level based only on the victim’s story, but it has so far never happened. /Another Swedish lawyer
You have no opinion about Assange’s innocence or guilt, but I do, because I believe in those women