Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin – Why Opposite BBC Policies? 284

The BBC repeatedly named Nafissatou Diallo, the alleged rape victim of Dominique Strauss Kahn, while the criminal investigation into the alleged rape was still in progress. Yet they have a policy that Anna Ardin, the accuser of Julian Assange, must not be named – or investigated.

Why the contradiction?

Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin had both gone public and given statements to the media in support of their allegations.

From the New York Times, 25 August 2010:

Anna Ardin, 31, has told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that the complaints were “not orchestrated by the Pentagon” but prompted by “a man who has a twisted attitude toward women and a problem taking no for an answer.”

There was no legal barrier to my mentioniong Anna Ardin last night; the case is no longer sub judice in the UK and there is no expectation of any legal proceedings here. Those are precisely the grounds on which the BBC mentioned Diallo very often. I did not see Oliver Kamm, Charles Crawford, Harry Cole, Charles Murray or any of the other far right commenters trolling about my “disgrace” last night, make a single protest at the naming of Diallo on scores of occasions by the BBC. Why their sudden new-found concern in the case of Assange?

Why the difference? Why is Ardin protected from scrutiny in the entire British mainstream media when Diallo was not, in precisely the same legal circumstances? Has Ardin been D-noticed in the UK when she is reported widely everywhere else in the world?

Anybody who still believes that the Assange allegations are a genuine criminal proceeding following due process, should think very hard indeed.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

284 thoughts on “Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin – Why Opposite BBC Policies?

1 2 3 10
  • R Sheehan

    Exactly Craig – was so embarrassing watching the Establishment Media circle its wagons. That halfwitted rent-a-gob Joan Smith clearly didn’t know what she was talking about, and somehow hadn’t managed to learn any of the facts of this whole set-up before going out live on tv!

    Esler seemed genuinely shocked that someone was trying to explain what this whole Assange thing was all about – the media continues to do its best to obfuscate the reality of the situation!

    Isn’t it obvious that they don’t want to discuss what Assange did? Anyone can find out in seconds, but you’ll not hear the details on Newsnight. The pravda-style hacks wouldn’t be able to continue to peddle the propaganda lie about “sexual molestation” and “rape charges”..

    I wouldn’t have kept as calm as you Craig! These vulgar propagandists humiliate themselves.

    Good on ya!

  • Ken

    The BBC named Diallo because there was nothing to stop them. They seem to be claiming that they cannot name Anna Ardin because Swedish law prevents it, but that law does not apply in the UK. Obviously there is an agenda at work and it was used last night against you.

  • Alaric

    Agenda or ignorance, waters were muddied and hornets nests stirred, briefly at least. Anyone who takes the time to read more than 140 characters on this site surely will understand that, on the balance of probability, it is likely that, whatever is going on behind the scenes is at least similiar to other whistleblowing situations and at most, a concerted effort to reach a conclusion that constitutes a form of revenge.

    Operation ‘shut him up’ to paraphrase Bill Hicks

  • Eddie-G

    Craig – I thought it was a bit of both, Esler pitched it that his moral ourage had some legal backing.
    Diallo is a excellent example for you to put out there, and often (very good) BBC reporting from war-zones includes interviews with rape victims, not always with their identities concealed.
    So no question at all, this was selective and absurd outrage (when you realise Ardin had spoken to the press about her allegations), and the BBC owe you an apology.

  • Mary

    Meanwhile Ref Syria and from the horse’s mouth, ObomberBush MkII.

    “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is (if) we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” Mr Obama said. “That would change my calculus. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Mr Obama told an impromptu White House news conference. He acknowledged he was not “absolutely confident” the stockpile was secure.

    And naturally he has concerns for Israhell.

    The US president said the issue was of concern not only to Washington but also to its close allies in the region, including Israel.
    Surely he misuses the word calculus in his plotting/planning/calculations. No mention of his evil drone warfare of course.

    1. Pathology An abnormal concretion in the body, usually formed of mineral salts and found in the gallbladder, kidney, or urinary bladder, for example.
    2. Dentistry See tartar.
    3. Mathematics
    a. The branch of mathematics that deals with limits and the differentiation and integration of functions of one or more variables.
    b. A method of analysis or calculation using a special symbolic notation.
    c. The combined mathematics of differential calculus and integral calculus.

  • Mary

    John Pilger comments on Assange

    “I have known Julian since he came to London and and gave the world vital information about Afghanistan and Iraq which governments had suppressed and denied.

    “What is always left out of the public portrayal of Julian is the moral dimension of WikiLeaks. The very mention of morality, of principle, embarrasses those who consort with great power; but ordinary people recognise it straightaway and are not embarrassed; they’re inspired.

    “WikiLeaks is about the public’s right to know, and the right to practice the kind of real journalism that has made Julian powerful enemies — enemies he should wear as a badge of courage. Indeed, the whole point about Julian Assange is courage. That’s why this is a day of triumph — triumph for human courage, for principle and for truth.

    “Julian has not broken free, not yet, but with the help of the admirable Rafael Correa and his comrades in this embassy, he has seized back the initiative from those who think they have a divine right to rule the world and to lie and commit war crimes in our name. We should celebrate our resistance and salute Julian.”

    John Pilger 19 August 2012

    Hear! Hear!

  • CE

    Joan Smith was right. Most people on the left cannot separate two things:

    1) JA is/was a risk taking whistleblower
    2) JA is an alledged rapist who has skipped bail.

    And Craig Murray has a deeply troubling attitude to women.

  • CE

    Sections of the far-(quasi)left are imploding right now. Galloway, Benn and Murray are tying themselves in intellectual knots to excuse the pathetic Assange. If it were not for the fact that the human rights of two women are currently being relegated to a back-story, it would be very funny.

  • DtP

    @CE – i’ve never been left in my life, further to the right than the fish knife and years of campaigning to get this daft government elected, 90 hour weeks, interminable committee meetings, regional hustings, leafletting at 5 am in the mornings (especially in band end estates – don’t want to get my head caved in, tricks of the trade dontcha know) and yet I can see this as a stitch up. If you think this is about left vs right then you’re deluded, if you think this about rape, you’re deluded, if you think this is about Craig, you’re deluded. This is a stitch up, a woman scorned with an axe to grind that Julain didn’t appreciate her hidden sensitivity. She’s using the law like millions of spurned women do in divorce cases, she’s fleecing the lad. It’s the victim industry in full international flow.

  • Komodo

    No excuses from this section of the left. If he committed a crime in Sweden, then he should get a fair trial in Sweden. However, he has every right to assurances that he will not be further extradited on the basis of unspecified charges based on activities which are not crimes in the country/s in which he carried them out.

    But it’s nice to see the far right and radical feminists in bed together. You can plan the day when a bust condom is a criminal offence here, too.

  • R Sheehan

    CE – Joan Smith just touted irrelevant suggestions about the possible pyschic state of Ardin:
    “oh, she went to a crayfish party with him because .. sometimes rape victims are in a state of shock! yeah, that’s it! Oh Mr Murray, you’re such a woman-hater!”

    Educate yourself, you imbecile!

  • Jives


    “Sections of the far-(quasi)left are imploding right now. Galloway, Benn and Murray are tying themselves in intellectual knots to excuse the pathetic Assange. If it were not for the fact that the human rights of two women are currently being relegated to a back-story, it would be very funny.”

    So other than the two women it’s funny that Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 800+days when the US constitutional limit is 120? Funny like that you mean? Or that he’s denied clothing and bedding? Or a trial? Funny like that you mean? Or funny like Sweden has already got form in extrordinarily renditing 2 men who were subsequently tortured? Funny like that? That Assange may also recieve the Manning treatment when there are no charges against him? That sort of funny you mean?

    Id sure hate to see you furrow your brow on really serious. issues.

  • R Sheehan

    Jives – right on! lets not forget the real crimes here are the US war crimes Manning risked his life and his sanity to make public.

    This Assange story is a con-trick, designed to distract attention from the ongoing Imperialist wars

  • intp1

    The BBC have a habit of controlling the angle of argument while engineering their invitees. If they wanted a balanced discussion about the Swedish allegations, they would have had e.g. a Swedish attorney but they invited Craig who was not the most qualified on the actual rape allegations. They ambushed him with all that indignant shrieking. Its all part of the overall discrediting game. The shill pundits and journos are working overtime because the British public do smell a rat, or a poodle with a rat. Even the Daily Mail comments are way pro-Assange.

  • Ken

    Craig, thanks for the reply. Yes, I did see the exchange and I saw how Esler replied, but that was no excuse for you not to make the obvious point that Swedish law does not apply to Britain.

    I think we need a narrative of our own on this one:

    Assange went to Sweden and fell in with two girls, both of whom were quite happy until each found out that he had slipped a length to the other. Then humiliation set in as each realised that instead of making the great, ego-boosting, power-tripping conquest that they fondly imagined had happened, in fact they had just been used to polish a knob.

    So they started screaming rape to get their revenge for that humiliation. The fact that “rape” in Sweden seems to involve not being entirely honest with a mare as to whether she is being ridden bareback or not just makes the whole thing even more risible.

  • Lee

    Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin: both Obama/CIA sting operations.

    Why is it ok for the BBC to mention Diallo ? She’s black.

  • Chris Jones

    Whatever are the specifics of the Assangae case, isn’t all of this legal minutiae a perfect distraction for the mainstream media and government? There are obviously bigger things to deal with – the complete hypocrisy and defunctness of the media and government for starters. Easy for me to say behind my screen but still.

    Assange is just one man.Whoever he is, not all faith should be put in one man

  • Clark

    CE, Assange could not have submitted himself to custody without losing the chance of political asylum, which requires physical freedom to exercise. Assange had to pre-empt extradition to the US, or lose his chance, probably permanently.

  • Jon

    @CE – not being able to tell the difference is the point though, isn’t it? The comments on these past several posts, where they’ve been sympathetic to Assange, have often offered a way that the allegations can be answered. But for opponents of Assange/Wikileaks – whether or not they are paid for their disinformation – it’s as if these very reasonable points aren’t made at all. Repeat all the one-sided distortions, ad nauseum, see what sticks.

    What is your view of Assange not being interviewed in Sweden for the weeks he stayed there for that purpose? Why do you think the Swedes won’t interview him in London? What is your view for their refusal to explain why they won’t come here?

    As a feminist, I am fully in favour of alleged sexual crimes being fairly investigated. But there are competing priorities here, and the role of Wikileaks in exposing the machinations of the powerful needs to be factored into the equation. How do you see that balance?

  • Will K

    Nasafitou Diallo concerned the DSK case – the BBC could name her as their was no serious indication that the British left would start hounding her to check the genuiness of her accusations. French politics are not an over-riding concern of the British left.

    Obviously, attacking America and the West – lining up behind silly crackpots and haters like you, Pilger, Galloway and Tariq Ali, while they do so – is a massive political objective of the left. So guarding this woman’s identity then becomes much more important – as soon as she is named BY THE BBC, thousands of anti-Western left-wingers who take their security for granted (e.g. YOU) will start trying to attack her.

    The different obligations that the BBC has regarding its audience in the two cases are clear. You obviously are pursuing your own agenda, and it’s entirely indicative of your selfishness and your desperate desire to self-promote that you completely ignore that obligation. But hey, I am sure you can justify it to yourself with the usual tedious moral supremacist guff about the crimes of USA

  • Komodo

    Re the Lib Dem Green selling his soul in the Stoadsman, he says this:
    Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”

    It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

    By asking for this ‘guarantee’, Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported ‘guarantee’.

    Probably an intentional diversion. Under Swedish law, a person whom Sweden has extradited from another country A may not be re-extradited to another country B without the permission of A’s government. Hence, the answer lies in Hague’s hands, as it appears that the Swedes won’t come over here and interview Assange. If the UK doesn’t give its explicit permission, Assange can’t be extradited (legally) to the US from Sweden. Simples.

  • Jon

    But it’s nice to see the far right and radical feminists in bed together

    It is indeed a very strange combination. Sex-negative feminism does have a lot to answer for, but feminism is a broad church – Naomi Wolf has supported Assange consistently, afaik.

1 2 3 10