Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

by craig on September 11, 2012 1:05 pm in Uncategorized

There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:

“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”

Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.

If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?

Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.

Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .

11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.

13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.

14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.

Anna tweets at 14.00:

‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’

This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”

15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:

‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’

Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.

16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.

20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.

21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.

Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.

No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:


Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.

Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.


Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.

She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.

Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it.


I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.

Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.

Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.

By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?

Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.

Tweet this post


1 2 3 20

  1. This is all very interesting but you are not judge and jury. The case needs to go to court.

  2. excellent analysis Craig Murray

  3. Andy

    I see you did not read as far as the final three paras. And there is no jury. In fact, it is so obvious from your comment you did not actually read the article – and your comment appeared within 120 seconds of my posting it – that I am genuinely concerned at your motivation in getting in incredibly quickly to post a derogatory comment under something you did not read.

    I don’t believe anybody can really read through that article and write and post a comment under 120 seconds.

  4. Cross posting this from Medialens.

    Is this true about the Assange case, and sex and politics in Sweden
    Posted by walter on September 11, 2012, 10:50 am

    From Christine Assange:

    “Interestingly, there is a domestic political agenda involved in Sweden. When the rape allegations were made on August the 20th, in one month’s time there was to be local and general elections in Sweden. And, “coincidentally”, woman AA, the police officer that interrogated woman SW, and both the lawyers in the law firm that picked up the case against Julian after it was dropped by the chief prosecutor, were all running for the same party, in the same elections, on the same platform of widening the definition of rape within consensual sex”.

    If this is true it seems odd. Imagine someone being prosecuted in the UK by four Tory party members (candidates?) – specifically for something that falls within the new boundaries of the changing definition of a crime they were politicizing just before an election.


  5. @Andy, I’m certainly of the view that any serious legal allegations, if they lead to prosecution, should be tested in court. Of course it is not clear that the allegations relating to AA will get to court, since Assange has to travel to Sweden first (and everyone knows why he will not do that at present, even if they don’t agree with the reasons).

    As I keep saying, there are good public interest reasons why Swedish prosecutors should have a formal interview with Assange over a telephone or video link. It has been suggested that they could not come to see him, since that starts a timeframe in which they have to prosecute or desist, and that the travelling to and fro could make that difficult. I seem to remember that period being two weeks. If this is so, it still does not explain why it could not be done remotely.

    I’ve heard it said that Assange should not be able to demand concessions or special treatment. In fact, I agree totally – the reasons why I think this case should be treated on its facts is the precedent it sets for everyone in the UK. Extradition to various places is still rife with injustice – the Natwest Three, still languishing in the US, come to mind.

  6. Oh yes – I should qualify my first paragraph with concerns, as Craig says above, about there being no jury. I hear that this is something that has been the subject of criticism in Sweden for some time, rather than just in relation to this case.

  7. No surprise here.

    Full details of WikiLeaks & Assange Ofcom complaint over documentary “WikiLeaks: Secrets & Lies” / Monday 10th September, 15:30


    For reference – the OFCOM Board. I see Craig’s old friend Dame Lynne Brindley from the British Library is on it.

    Ed Richards
    Chief Executive

    Lord Blackwell
    Board member

    Dame Lynne Brindley DBE
    Board member

    Tim Gardam
    Board member

    Dame Patricia Hodgson DBE
    Deputy Chairman

    Stuart McIntosh
    Board member

    Mike McTighe
    Board member

    Jill Ainscough
    Board Member

    Click on their names. An incestuous circle. Banks, global accountants, Blair, Brown. Those connections are all there. They nearly all have seats in other organisations.

  8. I somehow deleted Colette Bowe’s name. She is the Chairman of Ofcom.

    Her Register of Interests as a case in point.

    Colette Bowe (Chairman, Appointed 11 March 2009)
    Board Member, Morgan Stanley International (2010 – 2011)
    Chairman of Electra Private Equity plc (Board member from 2007, appointed Chairman 25.5.2010).
    Board Member, London and Continental Railways Ltd, (2008 – 2011)
    Board Member, Camden Peoples’ Theatre (2002 – 2010)
    Trustee, the Wincott Foundation (2003 – May 2011)
    Board Member, UK Statistics Authority (2010 – )
    Member of the Supervisory Board, Axa Deutschland GmBH (2008 – )
    Governor of Bancrofts School (2009 – )
    Trustee, Tablet Trust (2010 – )
    Trustee of the Nuffield Foundation (2011 – )
    Chairman, Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (24 July 2012 – )
    Board Member and Chairman of the Audit Committee, Axa Investment Managers (July 2012 – )

  9. read through that article and write and post a comment under 120 seconds.

    Darn fast reader, I should say!!!!!!!!!


    At last you have understood:

    ….. we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six

    Now all you need to do is recount that Karimov never tortured his people, he never boiled them alive, and you mistook his “spoiling” of his people, because you are not all that fluent in Uzbek!

    Presto you may even get invited to be a director of one of Gulnara’s many companies, and get your post back in FCO and even made into a TV celebrity judging Britain has big boobs competition!

    I despair at the extent of the illiteracy of a bunch of zombiefied and uniformed mob who help to assail my human rights and reduce the quality of my life to that of a hermit crab.

    Keep up the good work guy.

  10. Agreed 100% Mr. Murray.

    But just to play devils advocate on your question “Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?”, never underestimate the motives and perversions of evil:

    “All fascist cults need demons to vilify, and feminism is no exception; its misandric propaganda typically hides from truth and reality for its survival. Feminists need women to be victims, they have no vested interest in improving the wellbeing of women; they value them too highly as morbid object lessons, to be pickled in jars of oestrogen. Meanwhile, the few real male criminals, act as vectors to spread the disease of feminism via hysteria; hence feminists have a symbiotic need of bad men, rather than a need of safe women; which is why the feminised legal system generates unjust laws to provoke men, and insinuate their guilt. The induced paranoia of women, and the feminisation of law, ensures no incentive for truth or justice.”

  11. I think you’ve pretty well nailed it there. Like you say the evidence of any serious intentional wrongdoing on Assange’s part is so flimsy it is a wonder so much has been made of it. Or not, since the motive is ulterior, to get Assange to the US via Sweden. I’ve blogged on why they do not want to extradite him directly from the UK.


    Yes fit-ups never happen. Did anybody watch Hillsborough – the search for the truth on Channel 5 last night. What a cover up!

  12. Neil Saunders

    11 Sep, 2012 - 2:20 pm

    Apropos “incestuous circles”, there’s a mealy-mouthed admission to an FoI application that some Ofcom personnel have attended Common Purpose training courses. (Incidentally, I’d be cautious about dismissing concerns about this secretive organisation merely as symptoms of a “right-wing conspiracy theory”, although I’d also like to know a lot more about some of CP’s foes and THEIR motivations.)

  13. The idealist in me would like to see Assange stand trial in Sweden, have the evidence properly litigated, and see the court reach the correct verdict.
    But in what universe does a court – especially in a highly politicised case – turn round to the prosecution presenting the flimsiest of evidence and tell them to piss off? Never happens, of course.
    The Lockerbie trial was when I had my eyes opened.

  14. @Mary Chairman of Ofcom and Leaks

    How ironic?

    In 1986, during the Westland Helicopters affair, Colette Bowe was chief press officer at the Department of Trade and Industry. She was named in the House of Commons as having leaked a letter in which the then solicitor-general, Sir Patrick Mayhew, attempted to discredit Michael Heseltine.

    Westland stayed independent, Heseltine walked out of a Cabinet meeting, and Brittan was posted to Brussels. Bowe stayed at the DTI for 10 months before moving to a similar job at the Independent Broadcasting Authority, predecessor of the present Independent Television Commission.


  15. Another good article on the subject. The main point still being that Anna Ardins accusations are completely and totally belied by her subsequent actions.

  16. AA would certainly have a lot to answer under a proper cross-examination. I doubt it would get to court since it would be too embarassing and would weaken the case regarding SW. I could see her being called as a hostile witness for the defence – if such were allowed.

    I’m now hoping some kind of diplomatic solution can be cooked up to allow a trial in Sweden, since the case is weak.

    I do fear Assange could still be convicted on very weak evidence and the trial and even the verdict could end up being kept secret.

    It’s ultimately Assange who’d have to run the risks of jail time (or worse) so it it’s up to him how he handles it. Many fools are quick to caste aspersions but few if any of us are willing to go to jail (even if guitly) if we can possibly avoid it.

  17. Where allegations of rape or child molestation occur there is a percentage amongst society that react emotionally to the words alone, their personal disgust of the connotations of the words alone has them hating the recipient of the allegation to such an extent that guilt by association with those connotations takes place. I have personal experience of the level of illogical insanity that can take place in such occasions as follows……..
    I was a Trades Union representative at a company where a young lady who worked there had the grave misfortune of having a father that was convicted of child molestation. The man on the face of things was a respectable middle class family man, wife, daughter, good job and nice suburban family home, both his family and social acquaintances were completely oblivious to his dark and deviant double life. He was arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison for his hidden deviant life, his name being published in the local papers along with his crimes. Now at this point any right thinking human being cannot fail to see that his family, who were absolutely unaware of what he was doing are every bit victims in this case, their lives devastated, the revelation that husband and father a secret depraved sexual monster I cannot begin to understand how you deal with, it must tear your reality wide open and life would never be the same again. But here is the bit I for the life of me do not even begin to understand……… This family that had just been torn apart by the revelations of what this man had secretly been doing was, whilst he was now locked away in prison, subjected to hate mail, dog shit posted through the letterbox and various other forms of harassment, I became involved in it through a series of events that occurred in the workplace, his daughter who worked there was increasingly subjected to harassment, was having a great deal of problems from this and her manager had completely failed to address it in any way at all. One woman who worked in the same department as her had actually said to her, “I don`t know how your boyfriend can touch you knowing what your fucking father is”, the illogical emotional response and insane hatred that develops in a sector of society in these events I found hard to understand, but I witnessed it and it was horrendous. As if this young lady had not already suffered enough in her life at the emergence of the knowledge of what her father had secretly been doing, this pious, self righteous and deviant sector of society reacting to those connotations created from words such as rape and child molestation enacted gross cruelty upon the mans family, completely indifferent to their suffering in this they set about getting their pound of flesh for his crimes by destroying them? In the end things had gone too far with that element at the company and I forced a frustration of the employment contract on the company through their neglect in protecting her within the workplace, secured her a substantial compensatory payment and luckily managed to arrange alternative employment through the help of the Union Branch office for her, but I felt no victory or satisfaction in doing so because the emotional scars that remain on her can never be compensated for or made right.
    This allegation that has been made against Assange is far removed from the severity of the realities of that case I was involved in, but from my experience of the above case I know full well there is a sector of society that will, even if he is proved to be innocent, have already deemed him guilty through association of the allegation because of the dark connotations the allegation creates in their own mind, there really are people that exist that are that crass, illogical and emotionally unbalanced that they judge in such terms and because of that you only need in this world to sling mud and you are absolutely sure that some of it will indeed stick. Such crimes as rape and child molestation are heinous, but because of the reaction of society to them false allegations of such crimes are equally heinous too.
    I have read through some of the statements made by the ladies making the allegations and have to agree with Craig that there are sequences of events that are rather hard to fathom and comprehend in this, they are certainly questionable to a high degree and Assanges alleged guilt in this is vague and not clearly defined at all. Hand on heart I could with no level of certainty proclaim him guilty or innocent with any level of certainty, but the series of events does leave me with grave doubts that he is a rapist.
    The one comment I will make because I am absolutely certain of it, when I look at this case although in the words Tweeted by Anna this group of people were “The world’s coolest smartest people”, what I see is a group of people who may be academically smart, in some areas have excelled, but in their social life are little better than moronic celebrities and celebrity groupies, Assange trotting around like a bed hopping rock star and a myriad of groupies quite blatantly inviting the star into their beds and it saddens me, it saddens me because because the world we live in is a world of shit, homelessness, poverty, fiscal attacks on the disabled and needy, unemployment, global neocon warmongering for power and corporate profit and mass suffering that ensues from all of it and at the top, either on the side of creating injustice for profit or purportedly standing against it, what we see is that in one way or another they are all the same, egotistical power junkies, self seeking deviants lost in a world of celebrity illusion and insanity, all wrapped up in ego and bullshit and it does not bode well for the poor, oppressed and unfortunate at all.
    The time is long overdue that we bring the whole damned lot crashing down, but I fear that even if that day comes they would be replaced by little more than more of the same who would take their place. What we need to do is not remove those that are at the top, what we need to do is take a good hard look at the power/celebrity ass kissing and ego obsessed society we live in, see just what a degenerate, counter productive and illusionary world it is and once and for all call a halt to it and develop something real which would be to the benefit of all and not just the ego tripping few.

  18. Craig,

    Your post sums up what seems to be a “fit up”. I remain astonished that the mainstream media do not seem to be examining this case at all.

    On the 19th Aug 2012, The Guardian published a piece on Julian Assange.I don’t really want to repeat myself but the Guardian were “moderating” and then disappearing anything which suggested that Ardin’s story needed examining.

    I find it deeply worrying that this is happening – it really smacks of press control.

    I do start to wonder if the tinfoil hat chaps have a point.

  19. Splendid comment Dale.

  20. Dale, thanks for your comment – I agree entirely. And how odd that people would behave in that way to the man’s family, it beggars belief.

    As for “bringing it crashing down”, yes – if we could inject some democratic accountability into the media, enshrined in law, it would change societal perceptions over the long term, and people would generally become less consumerist, and more altruist – both of which I consider healthy developments.

  21. Arnold Bocklin

    11 Sep, 2012 - 3:27 pm

    The way to test these matters is in court.

    It’s truly horrifying to see Craig suggesting otherwise.

  22. Keith Crosby

    11 Sep, 2012 - 3:39 pm

    Why worry about HIV when mundane gonorrhoea is more likely?

  23. Keith Crosby

    11 Sep, 2012 - 3:40 pm

    ~~~~~The way to test these matters is in court.

    It’s truly horrifying to see Craig suggesting otherwise.~~~~~

    Find me one that’s not bent and I’ll agree with you.

  24. “As for “bringing it crashing down”, yes – if we could inject some democratic accountability into the media, enshrined in law, it would change societal perceptions over the long term, and people would generally become less consumerist, and more altruist – both of which I consider healthy developments.”

    The road to hell is paved with Guardian Readers.

  25. Dale at 3:04pm on 11th Sept 2012, that’s a deeply evocative narrative at every level, thank you so much for posting it.

  26. JimmyGiro – I dread to ask – you think reducing consumerism and increasing altruism in people, through a media that is more reflective of social justice, are bad things to aim for?

  27. “Why worry about HIV when mundane gonorrhoea is more likely?”

    The problem in a world of political correctness, with its moral-relativism and equivocations, is that Guardian Readers don’t know ‘arse from quim’.

  28. Jon dreaded:

    “JimmyGiro – I dread to ask – you think reducing consumerism and increasing altruism in people, through a media that is more reflective of social justice, are bad things to aim for?”

    You can aim for what you like dear, but your previous comment suggested making it law for the rest of us.

    Read up on Hayek’s “Road to serfdom”, then ponder on why it’s stupid to push string.

  29. it is 3.59pm. Where is Andy?

  30. JimmyGiro – in other words, you won’t say. Much like your answers to my many questions to you over these years, you struggle to provide straight answers. I should have known, but hope springs eternal :)

  31. Anna Ardin is not a credible witness if all accounts, including much of her own, are to be believed. Militant feminists, and their pathetic male supporters, do not like the characters of alleged rape victims to be questioned, let alone discredited. There is a myth that has been created that the usual rules of justice do not apply to rape victims. Rape victims are special, different, more reliable as accusers. And any male involvement in the proper investigation of the truth is vilified as mysogyny and conspiracy to deny a victim of justice. It’s funny how these malicious accusations never apply when the female victim is murdered, not raped – I wonder why?

  32. Jon beamed:

    “…I should have known, but hope springs eternal :)”

    Crumbs… does that mean you feminists are planning a 3rd wave !?

  33. @JimmyGiro
    11 Sep, 2012 – 2:06 pm

    Ripper quote. Can you please advise who wrote/spoke it? Maybe a link?

  34. Arnold Bocklin,

    Let’s have an open court with public and media access and cross-examination, and you will have my hearty agreement. You won’t get any of those in a Swedish sex trial.

  35. Jemand:

    “Ripper quote. Can you please advise who wrote/spoke it? Maybe a link?”

    Forgive me Jemand, but being the product of a thundering Irish protestant father, and a screeching Italian fascist mother, I’m naturally naaaaarcissistic, and quoted myself:


  36. Julian Assange should be applauded not persecuted for hearing the sound of suffering that our leaders are causing in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and more.

    It was in the Iraq war and more recently in Afghanistan, innocent men, women and children are being murdered and maimed in what the Red Cross describes as the greatest civilian carnage…

    Julian’s WikiLeaks documents have allowed us to ponder the judgements and decency of our leaders and their decision makers. To examine the massive duplicity and deceit the leaked documents reveal. We realise our own establishment is an undemocratic institution that does not represent it’s own citizens, operating independently of the Justice system and in conjunction with a mass media providing an arm of executive power broadcasting lies and propaganda far more often than it exposes them.

    In the illegal Iraq war I can advance with a degree of certainty that terrible and hideous torture employing electric drills, acid and more [Ellen Knickmeyer] and mass murder has occurred. Julian’s cables reveal Mr Blair et al. bear a major responsibility for these warcrimes, among the worst since the end of WWII. These zombies people are still free to lavishly spend their vast wealth obtained from exploiting others.

    I ask here can you ever image the magnitude of revenge from the murder of hundred of thousands of Muslims if/when Iran is smashed next?

    God forbid.

    It is in this light I applaud Craig Murray for his consistent support for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

  37. Excellent post Craig.

    A powerful and most thought-provoking comment from Dale also.

  38. @JimmyGiro – thanks Jimmy, I”ve saved your link in my free thinkers resource kit.
    Irish + Italian, great combo, hah!

  39. I don’t really think a court is the right place to scrutinize these vague, confused, contradictory, and not least unprovable allegations. What good would a trial do? How would one prove who was telling the truth, without physical evidence and without any witnesses to the alleged crimes? Assange is unlikely to incriminate himself and the prosecution can’t prove anything the women say actually happened the way they remember it. So, under these circumstances a trial would be a waste of time, do to the extraordinary weakness of the prosecution case.

    It would seem incredible that this case would be allowed to even lead to charges being made, let alone a trial, given the above. But this isn’t how things work in Sweden. Often the state, prosecutor and police, arrest someone and keep them in solitary without bail, which like jury trials doesn’t exist in Sweden, for months. This is an “unofficial” way to punish someone without the need of a trial. And it happens over and over again. One can look at the issuing of the EAW as part of this process too, a way to punish Assange for over-stepping the unwritten rules of Swedish sexual conduct, namely, don’t treat respectable women like groupies, even if they act like groupies. In this context Assange has already been punished more than adequately for his “crimes.”

    What’s truly appalling and frightening is the hysteria and witch-trial atmosphere among the UK hacks, especially many of the liberal/leftie feminist types, like the ridiculous Laurie Penny, who are almost totally uninterested in the facts and details of the case, and the glaring and obvious weakness of the state’s case against Assange. Their premise seems to be that Assange should face the music in Sweden, clear his name, and effectively fight to prove his innocence, which kind of turns due process and the presumption of innocence on its head.

  40. @Jemand – I’ve nothing against Jimmy personally, but I’d advise caution with his advocacy. Do a search for “feminism” on this very site, and you’ll find plenty of his railing against Marxist Feminazis (yes, really) and one of the most persistent sets of question-dodging I think we’ve seen here (and there are several strong contenders).

    I do agree that genuinely problematic takes on feminism (“militant”) are in danger of discrediting the much more even-handed versions (i.e. the incremental equalisation of women’s rights in spheres where their power has traditionally been secondary to men). Some responses to the former – Jimmy’s included I think – are taking the form of Mens Rights Activism (MRA) which are, consciously or otherwise, forwarding intellectual arguments for misogyny.

    Thus, MRAs and militant feminists are largely the same thing, except each prefers the supremacy of a different gender.

  41. @Jon
    11 Sep, 2012 – 3:49 pm

    “JimmyGiro – I dread to ask – you think reducing consumerism and increasing altruism in people, through a media that is more reflective of social justice, are bad things to aim for?”

    Jon, isn’t the problem inherently one of media ownership? Ownership based primarily on profit-motivated private shareholdings, with advertising revenues, cannot be reliably expected to discourage consumerism and increase altruism. Although, I’d prefer the media to focus on truth, knowledge and accountability. The ownership could be in the hands of the consumers themselves, each shareholding vote being equal, voting being voluntary. Maybe a news organisation can be divided into two independent parts – the business side that ensures viability and an editorial side that ensures quality of content. As it is, the MSM have simply become part of the establishment and without fundamental change to ownership and structure, it is unlikely to ever change.

  42. Dale – powerful post – I agree completely with what you say about the egocentric and celebrity obsessed culture that surrounds us all; it’s a degrading and insidious factor. (Craig’s post re Anna Karenin alludes to a film director with an eye problem) How to counter it though? I do my small bit with grandchildren by pointing out the crassness of the ads that are directed at them and challenging their unthinking and careless use of language. They’re polite kids and don’t actually laugh in front of me – but I’m not sure how effective I am at raising their awareness, although I find humour helps.

  43. Craig old man,you were wasted as a diplomat, you would have made an excellent defense lawyer….just showed your post to a collegue that was convinced he was guilty…she is now questioning her belief..keep it up…oh, and by the way, I would take an evening with Kiera rather than Andy any day, but then I am stuck in a remote village in South Sudan so I may be biased !

  44. It is strange how the story of Assange & Wikileaks has morphed from being about serious disclosures of scandals and errors in diplomatic communications/public policy matters into one of unproven sex issues in another country. I would always be suspicious of “kompromat style” issues when they surface so conveniently against someone whom the intelligence/security apparatus has a problem with.
    I wonder if there is still any serious risk of Mr. Assange being extradited to the US now, and risking further huge public disclosures at a future trial over there, when Mr. Assange’s enemies already seem to have achieved much of their objective with Wikileaks appearing to have been silenced, the discussion morphing into one about sex, and Mr. Assange “locked up”, albeit in an Embassy.

  45. @Jon
    11 Sep, 2012 – 5:25 pm

    Re feminism, various forms.

    I’ve always been in favour of justice and fairness for all but my personal experiences with feminists is emotionally equivalent to that suffered by victims of racism. Intimidation, ridicule, harrassment, bullying – it’s all the same to me, whatever the reason. I have visited blogs run by feminists and the language is no less hate-filled than what you would expect on some neo-nazi or homophobic blog. It is utterly vile.

    The fundamental problem, I believe, is the permanent division of society into two competing groups. Tribalistic psychology drives the development of a hostile ideology that seeks political and legal concessions, privileges etc. The idea that one side seeks only equality is a bit too hopeful. That would imply that feminism would eventually become irrelevant and society would dismantle feminist infrastructure and slowly forget the culture that grows around it. Can you ever imagine the day that universities close down their Women’s Studies courses? I see the Swedish experiment spreading to other parts of the West with concommitant problems.

    We might have to agree to disagree on this subject.

  46. AFAIK JA is not accused of rape, yet. The Swedish prosecutor wants to interview him regarding the allegations by the sluts. The whole thing is a media show. The prosecutor(s) had ample opportunity to talk to JA while he still was in Sweden, had they wanted to. But they choose not to.

    Something else is going on here, AA is a crazy woman, a liar and well connected in parts of the establishment, no doubt. But the other one, SW is also very interesting, she came from absolutely nowhere right into the underwear of JA in just a few days, seems to me she was there on a job. And not only a blow-job.

  47. @Sunflower…moderation mate..

  48. It is that morphing that worries me Roderick and why my post addresses the positive angle of Julian’s WikiLeaks blurred by the fog of sexual allegations that have been outed in my book as an attempt to destroy his reputation and WikiLeaks to boot. I do not however want to undermine the splendid and honourable attempts to demolish the flaccid accusations calculated to ultimately silence the truths uncovered forever.

  49. @Sunflower – I don’t think “sluts” is helpful language. If we are not in favour of the use of sexual shame to denigrate Assange, I don’t think we should be in favour of the use of sexual shame to denigrate the women in question. This approach is regressive in all its forms, imo.

    @Jemand – excellent replies on media and feminism, thanks. I will come back to them both in due course, tied up atm :)

  50. Apologies for my bad choice of word. Should have been “women”.

  51. Sunflower wrote:

    “Apologies for my bad choice of word. Should have been “women”.”

    Surely it should have been feminist:


  52. technicolour

    11 Sep, 2012 - 6:44 pm

    I see. So we are not allowed to believe that feminism is about equality, because otherwise the universities would have to close down their Womens’ Studies courses. We are urged to believe that the problem lies with feminism in Sweden, not US and UK foreign policy. We are encouraged to treat as rational people who hurl around sexual insults in a case which is political, or nothing. Along the way we’ve had a nice look at someone’s unfortunate experiences with something called ‘feminism’ (no details) and accusations of ‘feminist blogs’ which are like neo-Nazi sites (no links).

    All of which, as Roderick and Mark point out, serves to trivialise and distort something which, at the start of this, seemed reasonably serious.

  53. Craig,

    Great article!

    One important factual inaccuracy though… the original police report states that there were in fact TWO condoms analysed from the homes of two different people, one had DNA and the other didn’t:

    a) There was a complete condom from the home of someone referred to in the report as “MA2” which had (as you say) no DNA, and

    b) There was a condom tip from the home of SOMEONE ELSE who is referred to as “MA1” in the report. This condom tip DID have male DNA on it, and it matched the male DNA from a vaginal swab taken from MA1. This condom tip was stated to have been found under the part of the bed where Assange had been adjusting the condom, and had been cut off with a knife or scissors.

    So presumably MA1 is Anna Ardin (condom bit with DNA), and MA2 is Sofia Wilen (DNA-less condom.)

    This raises a contradiction between Anna Ardin’s statement that she had heard him (Assange) tearing the condom, and the lab analysis which states that it’d been cut with something sharp (knife or scissors) – which would presumably have sounded quite different to tearing.

    Not to mention, how do you exactly “tear” a condom, so as to neatly remove just the tip? They are phenomenally strong.

    So… is she (Ardin) saying Assange carried a set of condom-snipping scissors to his love-making activities, just in case? Or did there just happen to be one handy in the bedroom??? Or was this (as I strongly suspect) a plant?

    The length of time between the complaint being made and this condom tip being “found” (12 days later I believe) would have given plenty of time to fabricate and plant evidence, if this were the case.

    Plus, Anna Ardin is known to be a liar, as she lied to eg Donald Bostrom about not having slept with Assange, when she in fact already had. (At least, according to Donald Bostrom, who seems to be an impartial witness.) And Ardin’s testimony changes over time, which makes her doubly-suspect.

    See http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/ for an excellent summary of the evidence.

    We also have to wonder why MA2 (Sofia Wilen) provided an unused condom to the police for analysis… if she were an unwilling complainant and didn’t want to press charges, and just wanted Assange to take an HIV test, this would back that assertion up.

    Keep up the good work!


    Full lab report on broken condom: (With thanks to Komodo)

  54. @Tech
    You’re gonna just lurve the comments on the next page ref: “no-tits-Knightly”

  55. @JimmyGiro Sorry, I didn’t want to use the f-word. So I tried a less abusive one, obviously that was too much as well.

  56. Craig has omitted another interesting (and in my view incriminating) fact about Miss AA. Apart from the fact that she acted as ‘sexual liaison officer’ for a Swedish university (and would have therefore known that you can’t go to the police to request someone to take an STD test), several months before meeting Assange, she had posted a blog on the internet called: ‘Seven steps for revenge against an unfaithful lover.’

    She subsequently tried to delete this blog – but the cache was retrieved by those who know how. This woman’s behaviour is very strange.

  57. It is really depressing to read this post and see that really common and understandable behaviour by someone who claims to have been a survivor of rape is being used to brand her a liar. This is profoundly unhelpful to other survivors of rape to see such scorn poured on this woman because the case concerns a powerful man and has been seized upon by state interests to use for political persecution.

    Maybe, right, AA didnt warn Sophia because to do so would force her to confront directly what had happened to her. For some rape survivors, especially those whose experiences dont match the stereotypical but statistically rare rape by an aggressive stranger trope, coming to terms with havibg their agency taken away and being abused in this way takes time.

    It is also not uncommon for survivors to stay close to their attackers as they try to convince themselves that everything is OK, that their attacker would never do that etc.

    Look at this article written by a rape survivor recounting her experiences and mindset and you will see exactly this type of behaviour and her rationale: http://herbsandhags.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/how-i-became-rape-victim.html?m=1

    Are we to assume that she is also lying? That she is only concerned with ruining a man’s life?

    Beyond all this, the obvious reason why AA didnt warn Sophia is that she will have known, as most survivors of rape come to realise, that if she claimed that a powerful and respected man such as Assange had raped her she would face aggressive and humiliating scrunity and examination of her character, her lifestyle and every decision she made in her relationship with Assange.

    And what do you know? She was right.

  58. Have we got exact times for the Wilen and Ardin police statements?

    It seems obvious that after Ardin took Wilen across town to meet Krans, it was Wilen who talked to Krans first, in Ardin’s presence. Was Ardin involved in the conversation at all? What a shame that the police broke the internationally well-known rule on interviewing witnesses who allege rape, and (what a coincidence!) they also didn’t manage to record the interview either, so there is no record of Ardin’s role in the interview.

    And then – oh dear, after all that trouble – Wilen refuses to sign the statement that Ardin’s friend Krans asks her to sign.

    Was it at that point that Ardin, wondering what on earth she’s going to say to her CIA case officer, decides to make her own statement accusing Assange of assault against herself?

  59. Yes, Albanov, her blog was down for a while. It is up now and cleaned up.


    I notice among the blogs she visits, this is not one of them. Well, not yet.

  60. Skipjack,

    Except that Anna Ardin was not an impressionable 18 year old like the alleged victim you link to, but a mature woman with a history of campaigning on and writing on feminist issues, including the question of “white men” considering they had the right to define consent (on which she had previous internet correspondence with Irmeli Krans), and publishing detailed schemes for legal action as sexual revenge.

    Actually I think your thesis, that female victims are easily controlled and dominated by powerful men into not even realising they were raped, is gross sexual stereotyping and demeaning to women. Not to mention tendentious post-hoc rationalisation, in this instance.

    I am also sorry to say, Skipjack, that I do not necessarily completely believe every nuance of the story you link to. For those who keep saying Assange must face trial, to quote as irrefutable evidence alleged facts which have never been put before any jury, is somewhat strange. The story reads to me too perfectly calculated to advance precisely the point you are making, and it is without reserve stated by its author to be put forward in favour of that argument. But again, even if precisely true, I would again state that what is claimed to have been the psychology of a young woman some decades ago, is not the psychology of a modern, rather older woman in Sweden politically active on precisely these frminist sexual issues.

  61. And Skipjack, it’s all right for you to point out that many genuine rape victims behave irrationally, but the police are supposed to follow procedures which are designed partly with the aim of ensuring that enough proper evidence is gathered, where rape really has occurred, for the rapist to be brought to justice – and you can say it’s common for this and common for that, but why were so many rules broken which practically any police officer with responsibility for interviewing alleged rape victims should have known like the back of their hand?

    Ardin’s record looks very very CIA. That explains her actions. Bodstrom, Borgstrom, and Bildt are all CIA as well.

    You talk about some rapes not matching the stereotypical case of rape by a stranger, which is a fair point, but why then use the word “survivor” in the present context – a word which calls up images of people being in fear for their lives or believing they are in danger of being gravely physically injured, which nobody is alleging applies to either of these cases?

  62. Thanks Albanov I had forgotten about the blog entry. For those interested here are those steps:

    7 Steps to Legal Revenge by AA

    Step 1: Consider very carefully if you really must take revenge. It is almost always better to forgive than to avenge . . .

    Step 2: Think about why you want revenge. You need to be clear about who to take revenge on, as well as why. Revenge is never directed against only one person, but also the actions of the person.

    Step 3: The principle of proportionality. Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature. A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you. For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.

    Step 4: Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures

    for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him.
    Use your imagination!

    Step 5: Figure out how you can systematically take revenge. Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion.

    Step 6: Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed. The ideal, of course, is a revenge as strong as possible but this requires a lot of hard work and effort for it to turn out exactly as you want it to.

    Step 7: Get to work.

    And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer.

    Well, revenge is personal and in this case animus. The strange part is this lady has escalated her revenge to societal and invoked justice on weak evidence. Here lies the rub and why the prosecutor is silent. There is no judicial case yet Julian’s reputation has been destroyed already.

  63. Zooming out of the JA story a little bit, I find myself slightly haunted by the last para of the post (“Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.”).

    Note that “haunted” does not mean I disagree with it – just that it makes me think. If we distrust the courts even of our supposedly liberal democratic regimes – and I agree that after Guantanamo, Birmingham Six, possibly Lockerbie (I know too little about that case) et al. it’s very much arguable that too many mistakes happened in our courts – what is our alternative?

    I.e. if someone is accused of something (and again, this is really not about Assange now), but we believe the courts will not give him a fair trial, what do we do? It’s not really possible to just “do nothing”, because then every murderer, fraudster, thief etc. would just be walking free forever. Yes, in theory there’s the possibility of democratic justice – the thing where your entire village/neighborhood assembles to judge you. Unfortunately, if you have a quick look at Switzerland, you’ll find that direct democracy can be pretty nasty as well (minaret ban…) – my personal guess is that “direct democratic justice” would just lead to hanging burglars and torture of kidnappers, but perhaps I’m too pessimistic.


  64. @ Michael

    “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against. We’re after power and we mean it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.

    [Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged]

  65. Michael,

    I think we can trust our courts and our governmental institutions most of the time. It is the belief that the government is always benign which is crazed.

  66. @Skipjack

    Beyond all this, the obvious reason why AA didnt warn Sophia is that she will have known, as most survivors of rape come to realise, that if she claimed that a powerful and respected man such as Assange had raped her she would face aggressive and humiliating scrunity and examination of her character, her lifestyle and every decision she made in her relationship with Assange.

    And what do you know? She was right.

    No, she wasn’t. If this were logically true, the same thing would have happened to Sofia Wilen, which it hasn’t. The problem with AA is that her story is so obviously made up, including the claim of the torn condom tip, which turns out in fact to have been cut with a knife or scissors, all (supposedly) in the heat of a sexual interlude. And left lying there, waiting to be found by police a full 12 days later. A story which is, frankly, all but totally unbelievable.

    Have you read the article I posted earlier at http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/ which details the inconsistencies in her various testimonies at different times, and conversations with her friends? (This article also, incidentally, gives a good account of Sofia Wilen as her statements are internally consistent and don’t change over time.)

    I mean, are you defending AA for the sole reason she is a woman making an allegation of rape? Is no such person ever to be criticised? Even if they are making a false allegation? And, how is one to decide if it’s likely true or false?

    If you take the position that it should be left to a judge and/or jury (never mind for the moment that Sweden doesn’t even have juries), then that’s dodging the question, as courts are also made up of human beings – so how are they supposed to judge the merits or otherwise of the case?

    Or are we, as members of the public, just supposed to put up and shut up?

    Of course, it goes without saying that women have been oppressed for centuries (millenia) by men, and that rape has been part of this process, and women are only in recent decades receiving the support they need to come forward and identify and prosecute their assailants.

    I don’t think this discussion is about this at all – but about what seems to be a clear miscarriage of justice.

  67. Craig

    Your summary of Ardin’s case is both perceptive and accurate.

    I had reached a similar conclusion, only in my case I spent half the night creating a spray diagram charting all the iconsistencies in Ardin’s acount of her relationship with Assange. When spread out on the floor the finished chart covers most of the carpet. That’s how silly Ardin’s account is!

    Still, I got there in the end (though I had to use of lot of A3 paper in order to do it). :-)

  68. @JimmyGiro

    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

    -John Rogers

  69. Since a partial lie is still a lie, then partial trust can not be trusted.

  70. Craig, what an excellent question!

    Mark, o. m. g. (Are there past lovers of AA who can testify to the aftermath of their affairs? It sounds like these are the scripts she loves to write and play in and has a history of.)

    Here’s my followup question, though — could Sofia countersue Anna in Sweden for … I don’t know what you call it, reckless endangerment, or material support, or conspiracy or complicity in her “rape”?

    It sounds to me like at the moment of truth when Anna could have warned Sofia but didn’t, Anna could have been calculating that she would get more sexual revenge satisfaction potential against Julian by using Sofia against him, that in fact it’s a kind of calculus she engages in and is proud of her prowess in, see Mark’s 7-step list. Step 4!

    Step 4: Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him. Use your imagination!

    Not saying Sofia even needs to be able to prove anything conclusively or win a verdict to win the case — as Craig says, the accusation is its own reward. Maybe the best way for Sofia not to let herself be socially raped (what’s the best way to say it?) by Anna is for her to put Anna on the defensive? Maybe if Sofia can’t withdraw the charges by not signing the police statement, maybe she can enlarge upon them by including Anna as a defendant?

    Maybe maybe maybe … ???

    P.S. What kind of feminist lets another woman be raped? Me on the jury wants to know. And if I was me on the grand jury, would I have the chance to authorize charges against Anna?

  71. JimmyGiro: and your conclusion from this is?

    Craig: okay, fair. And I guess as a card-carrying member and supporter of several NGOs which spend most of their time and money on campaigning against governments, I’ve hardly ever thought that the government is “always benign”. My philosophical problem however really starts in those instances where we don’t trust the government:

    1) Where do I draw the line? That is, if I believe that the (Swedish/British) government are making up fake charges against Assange for ulterior motives, and if I believe that our court system is not able to protect Assange from this, why should I believe that the government AND the judiciary will be more truthful in the case of John Doe from down the road, who was also accused of rape? Should I now mistrust the government on principle? And no, I can’t make a case-by-case decision because I don’t have the resources to read through all case files for all current criminal trials (in the way that you guys are reading through the Swedish JA case files) – and no newspaper will do that for me. 98% of the criminal trials in this country never even get more than a one-liner in the newspapers, if that

    2) Again my question from above: Let’s say that we have a case where we established that gov’t and “establishment” (incl. judiciary) might have ulterior motives. Let’s say that Jane Smith is accused of murdering someone but at the same time we know that she is a former MI5 operative who (we suspect) may know too much about our government’s secret programs. So now we face a dilemma. We consider the UK courts to be biased and unfit. At the same time, can we really just say “Let her walk free, we figured out that the case against her is too shady”? In that case we just replaced “trial by court” by “trial by vox populi”, or at least that part of the vox populi who bothered to give a view on a blog etc. – we’ll probably never hear from the silent majority, not even if we did a referendum in every such case. Seriously, what would be the way forward?

  72. @Technicolour
    11 Sep, 2012 – 6:44 pm

    For your information, and the benefit of others, my statement to Jon was a brief explanation, not a rambling essay or dissertation like so many other posts here. I didn’t post links or provide any further details because none is required. I am not debating anyone here, least of all some rabid feminist.

    However, I will expand on one point I alluded to earlier. Feminists use rape as a propaganda weapon against all men. It is central to their identity as innocent targets of perpetual male aggression and to the casting of all males as a natural enemy in their ideological universe. And for this crime, they seek a special status for victims that is never afforded to victims of other crimes, including murder. Interestingly, feminists do not see rape as a criminal manifestation that combines the instense male sex drive with psychopathic violence. Rather, they see it as just one form of male expression of power and control over women that pervades their universe. 

    I’m not going to selectively post links that others could, justifiably, claim were chosen simply because they support my comments. Instead, I encourage readers to google the subject matter, read what’s out there and discern for themselves the accuracy of my observations.

    The relevance of my comments relates ultimately to the motives of those who wish to destroy Wikileaks and a new found awareness that ordinary people can participate in the exposure of major crimes by our governments and private institutions. 

  73. Michael,

    Absolutely the right questions, and the answers are not easy, and I think have to be developed ad hoc. Only advice I have is, where you do achieve certainty, fight with every fibre of your being.

  74. technicolour

    11 Sep, 2012 - 9:39 pm

    The thesis that some people stay close to their aggressor in order to make it seem ‘ok’ is proven: both women and men can stay in abusive relationships/marriages for years, not just days. Age is not, I think, relevant: what one person will do at one age not only differs between people but between situations. Nor is abstract knowledge necessarily experience. I can also think of another reason why one woman would not warn another: they thought that it, whatever it was, was their fault; that they had somehow ‘deserved’ it; that it was a singular event, not a pattern.

    To return to Assange: nothing has been shown to suggest that his behaviour is a pattern. But the case, if there is a case, does not surely depend on the nature of some of the attempted defences: these women were ‘sluts’, or they were effectively incapable of being raped – or sexually pestered, even. The case, if there is a case, should depend on forensic evidence and the evidence of both parties, and other witnesses. There is enough evidence that the US want to extradite Assange, and enough background on the attacks on whistleblowers, for it to be in the public interest that this case is heard in public, before a jury: I agree with Craig. However, it seems that this is not an option. What, then, is the next stage?

  75. technicolour

    11 Sep, 2012 - 9:42 pm

    Which leads me to wonder, can Assange counter-sue?

  76. Rhisiart Gwilym

    11 Sep, 2012 - 9:43 pm

    Skipjack, these descriptions of the distress of genuine rape victims are true, of course. But there’s definitely a fit-up going on to try to destroy JA, and — if possible — to get him into the US gulag archipelago concentration camps. The two Swedish women, like anyone who may have suffered rape, deserve proper investigation and justice. JA deserves the same. Are any of them at all likely to get their deserts, looking at the huge media screechfest that’s erupted around them? And looking also at the obvious fact that criminal elements within the US, English and Swedish power-establishments are trying to render and disappear JA, and are quite willing to use the two Swedish women as expendable pawns in the process.

    Commitment to intelligent and sensitive justice for vulnerable women in rape cases is excellent and essential. But so too is commitment to intelligent realism about black, criminal realpolitik. Which of course doesn’t give a damn about justice, democracy, the rule of law….

  77. @Jemand, on a media that is biased in favour of social justice. I think I pretty much agree completely with your position – yes, ownership. I suggested law to lock in democratic accountability earlier, but equally a co-operative ownership model might do the trick.

    Focussing on “truth, knowledge and accountability” – they would be good too. My approach was that if you can get people to care about strangers/humanity, in a deep sense, then wanting those other things in a media/political/economic system will become second nature. I wonder too about how what we are has been replaced by what we have, and hence reversing that trend might get people to connect a bit more. But, ultimately, we sound like we’re after precisely the same thing here – great!

  78. technicolour

    11 Sep, 2012 - 9:55 pm

    Jemand: “Feminists use rape as a propaganda weapon against all men”

    Jon is a self-proclaimed feminist (hope you don’t mind if I repeat that, Jon?) Do you think he uses ‘rape as a propaganda against all men’?

    There has been this argument at length before, on a thread with Jimmygiro, in fact. He too failed to provide any backup for his extraordinary statements. The fact that a minority of very disturbed and abused women may have gone down this route does not make every feminist a man-hater or rape-cryer, any more than the sick men who rape make every man a sick rapist.

    Surely that should be clear?

  79. It might be instructive for some to appreciate the significance of Mr. Murray’s term: “useful idiots”, in regards to this case and to the subversion tactics deployed by the KGB in the west.

    I’m convinced that feminism is a subversive evil, deliberately deployed to destroy the family and other aspects of our culture. Originally funded by Moscow [second wave feminism], it now is being deployed by our own State for precisely the same ends. The old soviet union used feminism to destroy Britain’s resolve to fight in NATO: c.f. Greenham common.

    Our State continues the use of feminism to destroy our culture, so that the bureaucracy can take over without requiring democratic imput: c.f. dumbing down of schools, filled with feminist teachers, that use Ritalin on boys; advocacy of gay-marriage to devalue heterosexual family culture; the rise of the feminist dominated social services, that wilfully kidnap children from their heterosexual parents on the slightest pretext of ‘abuse’, only to foster them to same sex couples if they can, or dump them in state care, noted for its real child abuse. The feminist laws that favour employing women over men, is a means to destroy the culture of independent men, making them drastically less likely to marry and support a family. And once they have destroyed the family and hence the culture, the peoples capability to think for themselves is diminished, and the State assumes absolute control over all aspects of life.

    The ‘useful idiot’ term applies here to feminists, as they need to believe they are doing what they are doing for some ‘greater good’, such as ‘equality’; even though misandry has nothing to do with fairness or justice. Once the feminists have destroyed the family and men’s financial independence, then the feminists themselves will be cut loose from the Nomenklatura, and dumped among the men to share their slavery.

    For a one hour lecture from the ‘horses mouth’ regarding subversion, and why the Trojan Mare feminists are going to get dumped, once used, see the seven short clips by Yuri Bezmenov, of which this link is the first:


  80. Skipjack: thank you for that link, I found it extremely moving and compelling in its honesty too. I agree that “the case concerns a powerful man and has been seized upon by state interests to use for political persecution”, and that this is no reason to resort to stereotypic tropes to discredit the women involved. I don’t see that Craig was doing that: he is questioning the apparent testimony of one of the people involved, and he is not his commentators (me included).

  81. Jemand, on feminism:

    The idea that one side seeks only equality is a bit too hopeful.

    Well, I’d start by saying there aren’t just two sides to feminism. Choose at random a set of views on (a) the rape issues raised by the Assange case, (b) the impact of the sex industry on women, (c) the impact of the fashion industry on women, (d) whether feminism can be defined and shaped by progressive people of all genders, (e) how to increase the number of successful rape prosecutions (etc) – and you have one particular strand.

    I hear you when you say you’ve come across feminists of a certain stripe, but I think it is important not to tar all feminists with the same brush. Naomi Wolf is a tireless campaigner for women’s rights, but broadly comes out in favour of Assange – a decision which comes from balancing complex, competing legal and civil rights. I don’t get the impression – having read articles from her before – that she is “militant”. Ditto plenty of other feminists (of both genders).

    That would imply that feminism would eventually become irrelevant and society would dismantle feminist infrastructure and slowly forget the culture that grows around it. Can you ever imagine the day that universities close down their Women’s Studies courses?

    To answer that point, let me first say this: I moderately agree with positive discrimination used as a tool to fix ancient wrongs, and if there is a small rebalancing (say, to the tune of 5%) in favour of women, black people, people of minority sexuality, older people etc, then that’s the price we pay for having permitted the injustice in the first place.

    With that in mind, do I imagine that positive colour discrimination would be shut down when racial equality is obtained? Yes, I do – and I see attempts to balance gender discrimination (either in academic studies, or in women shortlists etc) in the same way.

    Incidentally, a friend of liberal feminist views recently said to me that, in the UK at least, the term “Gender Studies” is now preferred rather than “Women’s Studies”. She felt it was a good development, since it reflected a more nuanced thinking:

    * Men can be feminists
    * Men are affected by changing the position/power of women in society
    * Feminism needs to be inclusive, especially since all the other anti-discrimination movements “reached across the divide” years ago

    In summary, I am sorry your experience of feminism has thus far been poor, but we are out there! Perhaps we don’t shout about how moderate we are enough 😉

    By the way – @Technicolour has put forward views on feminism on this blog before, and they are certainly not rabid. I think you mistook her post for the angry brigade you mention, but if you were to engage/discuss, you’ll find that’s not the case.

  82. @Jon, I bring a question over from the last thread, you asked,

    “Aside from the predictable establishment/neoconservative perspectives, I wonder whether the bias in the Swedish media is due in some part to national pride?”

    Yes definitely,

    * The necon/lib big media and newspapers corporations have the same issue as i guess around the world
    * The public service and left leaning media channels and blogs has been outraged about the rape accusations
    * and absolutley everyone has been completly around the twist in regard to the percived challange to the Swedish national prestige.

    Maybe just for the sake of curiosity’s, a recent investigation (Asp 2011, University of Gothenburg) into the political affiliations of working journalist in Sweden, showed that 72% have sympathies with “left” side in Swedish politics, either the social democrats, 16%, the communist party, 14%, or the green party, 42%.

    In regard to public service, this ratio is even higher, above 80%, and public service i.e. Swedish Television and Swedish Radio still has a dominant postion in the Swedish media landscape.

  83. @technicolour – ah, our posts cross in the ether!

    That’s totally fine, yes – encouraging liberal feminist thinking in men, and challenging certain strands of feminism to accept it, is something that I find very interesting at the moment.

  84. Jeez, Jon, it’s not just tokenism. Anything – common sense too – will tell you that including all parts of society equally in stuff is a good thing, for society, for the environment, for children, for all those rich white men too. If we’re just talking women, these surveys tell you:

    “The stock prices of small and mid-size companies with at least one female board member have performed 17 percent better over the past six years than those without one, the survey found. The difference is even wider at large companies, where female-friendly boards perform 26 percent better.


    Simply put, more women leaders is correlated with higher levels of philanthropy as well as increases in other CSR areas, such as environmental CSR

    Read more: http://thegrindstone.com/career-management/study-shows-putting-more-women-in-charge-at-companies-is-better-for-society-and-earth-too-602/#ixzz26CO119Lq

    Sure there are doubtless equal surveys about the benefits of including dead people too – who could make a bigger mess of our economy and our environment than the current shedload? But the point is, this is not about suggesting a ‘takeover’; it is about just including more voices: 41 percent of companies globally have no women on their boards. Women still earn less than men in 90 percent of job types:


    And so on. What on earth is this about?

  85. Craig: “I think we can trust our courts and our governmental institutions most of the time. It is the belief that the government is always benign which is crazed.”

    Jon: “I suggested law to lock in democratic accountability earlier, but equally a co-operative ownership model might do the trick.”

    If you do not trust the Government then why trust the state it engenders or the law it imposes?

    Shoplifting is a crime but cheating parliamentary expense is against the spirit of an agreement. Fiddling your dole gets you disapprobation and a criminal record. Fiddling LIBOR gets you a promotion and an estate in the Bahamas.

    Small crimes are penalised but large crimes are, well, not crimes.

  86. Hi Tech:

    Jeez, Jon, it’s not just tokenism.

    I am pretty sure we’re in agreement, but I am not sure what I said that prompted that response. I want full opportunity for equality for everyone, across each of the discrimination divides.

    Anything – common sense too – will tell you that including all parts of society equally in stuff is a good thing

    Yep :)

  87. Jon, it was this bit: “I moderately agree with positive discrimination used as a tool to fix ancient wrongs, and if there is a small rebalancing (say, to the tune of 5%) in favour of women, black people, people of minority sexuality, older people etc, then that’s the price we pay for having permitted the injustice in the first place”.

    what I think I’m saying is that it’s ‘not the price we have to pay’, but the value society could be adding, and is currently discarding, at the cost of its own well-being.

  88. I dont know how well known this is, but when the issue of Assange broke out in Aug 2010, he was actual on the verge of being contracted as a columnist for our biggest, and left leaning tabloid, Aftonbladet.

    And the initial reactions and articles in all media after the story broke, were to my mind very correct, cautious and objective in treating the matter, at least in our big national morning newspapers, Dagens Nyheter (DN) and Svenska Dagbladet (SVD).

    But already on the 26 of August 2010, “Expressen”, the opposite right leaning tabloid, had a fiercily indignant editorial that I think really changed the tone of voice. Some selected excerps, (my translation)

    ‘Which girls will dare to report? Foul young men and women in the blogosphere represents an acute threat aginst gender equality.’

    ‘At the same time as the super leaker is bewailed and hailed something horrifically is happening’

    The author then reprints some comments she has come across on the internet…

    ‘ ‘On reasonable grounds suspected to have sprayed in the pussy!’ one bloggers laugh, and continues that ‘you do not engage the state just because you have had a bad sexual experiance.’

    ‘In reality only a few percent of alla reported rape allegations to prosecution, and the numbers that don’t register complaints – the unreported cases – are belived to be large.’

    ‘Net bullying will probably cause the the number of unreported cases to increase’

    This touches on so many of the really highly charged political buttons in the Swedish gender and sexual political landscape, and was to my mind nothing but a sounding rallying cry for all the gender equality forces in Sweden.

    This really marked the case, and also set the tone, or finally placed the case in the mind of many journalists and observers i believe, and it was from now on, if not soner, firmly seen as case in the fight for gender equality.

  89. I too am a feminist!

    Like many things, it comes down to defining a word. If you define feminism as “women who accuse all men of rape” then that’s not really me. But should you use “someone who likes a strong, free-thinking wench” then count me in.

    Jon, perhaps we should get together and have a big girly night in. I’ll wash up. Do you like to discuss Marx by any chance?

  90. Jon, ignore Phil – won’t do the washing up or Marx but will discuss Raymond Williams & pea soup. It’s your choice…

    Phil, serious, right. Why would anyone define feminism, given its fairly recent history – struggle for votes, equal pay, property rights, right not be raped in marriage etc – as ‘women who accuse all men of rape’?

  91. @technicolour – thanks, I’m with you.

    I should have explained why positive discrimination might be considered in itself a negative, and it’s why I think it can be useful but isn’t always the right solution. Whatever rebalancing mechanism is used to correct old discriminations, there will always be a section of people who take a reactionary line against it, in most cases because they feel that a fresh injustice has been perpetrated against them.

    Ultimately if positive discrimination works i.e. helps tip the balance of justice across gender/race/sexuality divides, then yes, that’s an advantage, I completely agree. But I do try to sympathise with people who get caught up in this process, since anyone around today didn’t cause the discriminatory imbalance in the first place :)

  92. Lastbluebell: very interesting; have been reading Stieg Larrson’s journalism; and noted what he said about the increasing right wing slant of Expressen. So it is as if in the UK the Daily Mail had run a hate piece: but the difference is that Swedish people are not laughing at Expressen as they are used to doing here at the Mail? And the other papers were scared off as a result? Is that right?

  93. Jon, I don’t think it’s about ‘positive discrimination’ but reality. And if the current system can’t accommodate reality then it will expire. I would prefer it not to, as I don’t want anyone to die, since life is always better, and I certainly selfishly don’t want it to take the rest of us with it…

  94. @Technicolour

    Not sure if I fully understand what you are asking but I guess I was unsuccessfully parodying “all men are potential rapists”. I just had to wjkipedia Raymond Williams but I will wash up.

    I tend to see positive discrimination as a patronising gift. But that’s just the council estate talking now.

  95. anyway, this is so interesting, but have to go to bed! up with the (non gender specific) chickens..

  96. phil, no, it was funny!

  97. “I tend to see positive discrimination as a patronising gift. But that’s just the council estate talking now.”

    yep and hurrah.

    good night all. sweet dreams, what a lovely few people to come across.

  98. @Technicolor, yes something like that, if I understand you correctly, (and I don’t have so much experiance reading the daily mail to be honest but I think I understand what you mean).

    If you notice someone you know buying one of the big tabloids in Sweden, (Expressen or Aftonbladet) many will be a little embarrassed, “oh I just buy it for the sports section you know…”, but we do continue to buy them, and read them (alot), and my subjective feeling is that we still take them much more seriously and trust them more then you do in England.

    But the crucial point is the issue, and all the insinuations and connections made, sexual/rape/gender/bullying/internet hate. The current climate in Sweden is such that I believe that when it was well made public like that, the other news media could not stand aside without risking to lose credibility, or be accused trying to hide/supress or downplay victims and potential abuse of the women because it was a famous person, or because he was an “idol” of the “left” etc.

    It is a very highly charged and extremly sensitive issue in Sweden.

  99. Lastbluebell

    12 Sep, 2012 - 1:00 am


    A thought just hit me, literally, but one way to maybe visualize it is if you picture a small rural village or town in the 16th centy, and someone suddenly turns around, shouts and points, a witch a witch…

    Maybe not always so important who shouted first, but that someone did…

  100. Michael, 8:07 pm
    “Unfortunately, if you have a quick look at Switzerland, you’ll find that direct democracy can be pretty nasty as well (minaret ban…) – my personal guess is that “direct democratic justice” would just lead to hanging burglars and torture of kidnappers, but perhaps I’m too pessimistic.


    My thought is this – why was the outcome of that particular referendum “nasty”? I know very little of the arguments put forward by For and Against campaigners – a process that is integral to referenda in Switzerland. Do you know more?

    ‘Nother thought – if this is the worst example of the effects of DD, then I’m all for it. The other kind, indirect, ‘representative’ democracy or ours – has a track record of delivering death to millions of innocents. Which one do you prefer?

    I think you are pessimistic. The Swiss have had DD for over 150 years. Plenty of time to find it main faults I would think. The other important aspect not to lose sight of is the legal constraints on the media in CH to present both sides of the argument in advance of referenda.

1 2 3 20

Leave a Reply

Basic formatting: <strong>Bold</strong>   <em>Italics</em>  <blockquote>Indented/quoted</blockquote>  <a href="http://example.com/link">Link text</a>

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud