For feminists, the case of Julian Assange has produced a headache that threatens to create a permanent division.
Assange is rapidly achieving superhero status, an Australian David battling the American Goliath. A Fairfax article refers to him as the digital age's Ned Kelly. Pundits such as Catherine Deveny proclaim he makes them proud to be Australian. An open letter to PM Julia Gillard asking her to ensure Assange's rights as an Australian citizen are respected has garnered more than 4000 signatures.
He claims to be fighting for freedom of speech and government transparency. Ideals that feminists also hold dear. But Assange has been arrested on rape charges and many feminists will find it hard to reconcile their defence of him with their support of rape victims. He denies these allegations vociferously, claiming they are trumped up by his detractors.
There is no doubt that the timing of the charges is suspect. Surfacing and quickly dismissed by Swedish authorities in August, the hunt was suddenly back on in the wake of the first dump of the US diplomatic cables last week. Interpol went as far as to issue a 'Red Alert', usually reserved for cases pertaining to murder ... and terrorism, of which Assange has been wrongly accused.
This prompted many to dismiss the charges as fabricated, which means claiming the two women who made the accusations are liars. This is a common smear against rape victims, whether the man they are accusing is famous or not, and one frustrated feminists work tirelessly to overcome. By placing the shame on the alleged victim and casting doubt on the veracity of her story, such smears discourage other victims from reporting their own experiences. And thus the so-called rape-culture is perpetuated.
This is why Naomi Wolf has attracted ire for her column in the Huffington Post where she scornfully derided the accusations and hence the accusers, claiming Assange was guilty of nothing except perhaps being a jerk. She, in turn, has been slammed by other writers such as Salon's Kate Harding who say she is undermining her own feminist credentials by 'smearing ... rape accuser(s)' despite a lack of access to information in the case.
Assange is undoubtedly the victim of a witch-hunt, with calls to charge him with terrorism, espionage and even — absurdly, given that he is not a US citizen — treason.
"To automatically dismiss the allegations because of suspicious timing could potentially undermine future cases of sexual molestation."
Ironically, even as the likes of Sarah Palin call for Assange to be hunted down like Osama bin Laden, even as WikiLeaks continues to have its access to resources shut down due to US governmental pressure, and even as the Australian government talks of cancelling his passport, the mainstream media continues to publish the documents that WikiLeaks has — legally — made public.
But to automatically dismiss the allegations because of suspicious timing could potentially undermine future cases of sexual molestation. While commentators such as Wolf claim the women simply had a case of regret, this ignores the fact that often women do reluctantly submit to unwanted sex due to intimidation and fear, only to find themselves awash with anger and shame and a very real sense of violation. This is not simple 'regret.' This is a sex crime.
If Assange did use his body weight to hold down one of the women, if he did continue the sex act after she asked him to stop, if he did refuse to wear a condom despite repeatedly been asked to, as has been alleged, then he has committed serious crimes. But according to one Reuters report the women originally approached the police not to have Assange charged, but in the hope of persuading him to undergo an STD test.
What then led to such serious charges? If the accusations are found to be false or exaggerated, the credibility of future rape victims and the likelihood of them coming forward will be seriously undermined, particularly in high profile cases. In an ideal world, Assange's status as WikiLeaks founder and spokesperson would have no bearing on the rape case. But in reality, there is little doubt that WikiLeaks is also on trial.
It's a murky case and one in which the true details seem unlikely to emerge. But one thing is certain: it's only going to get uglier for Assange and his alleged victims.
His adoring fans are already mounting web-based personal attacks on the two women, calling their credibility and morals into question. But at the same time, the cult of personality surrounding Assange mean the likelihood of a fair trial is next to impossible. Hatred of his organisation has led to a stop-him-at-all-costs mentality.
It is more than likely that Assange will wind up in prison. There is even talk of his being extradited to the US from Sweden. Vindication perhaps for the supporters of his accusers, and haters of WikiLeaks, but cold comfort for those of us who not only believe in justice but who balk at women being used as pawns to settle scores between men.
Ruby Hamad is a freelance writer and graduate from Victorian College of the Arts, where she majored in screen writing and directing. She also holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Economy from the University of Sydney. Ruby currently lives in Sydney where she is developing several feature film scripts.
Main image: Julian Assange at the Embassy of Ecuador in May 2017 (Jack Taylor/Getty Images) [Article updated 12 April 2019: Image added]