Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy'
170 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Sue Kedgley, on the other hand, is a “mealy-mouthed old hag” (Kerri Woodham) for suggesting that Key’s comments are ‘unbecoming of a PM’. Unbecoming. How dare she. Woodham also says, “If ever there was a time to say nothing, this was it.” WTF?
Okay, firstly, I don’t think Key’s comment about someone being ‘hot’ is, in and of itself, particularly offensive. I have friends who use that phrase about people they find attractive (and not just male friends).
However, I agree it could be seen as “un-prime ministerial”, and that Woodham’s objection to Kedgley was fatuous.
I think Dyan got this exactly right on another thread. In context, Key was in this instance, “pandering to boofheads” as she said.
-
sally jones, in reply to
Assange however, is yet to be tried and as much as it appears he committed an offence(s), he’s not yet guilty and I think that matters.
I call sexual contact without a person's consent 'violence' ("behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt" OED), but I get the importance of these distinctions too. The woman who was 'approached' for sex while asleep had made it abundantly clear she didn't want sex without a (working) condom, fearing AIDS, pregnancy, Assange failed to respect her wishes. As I understand it, that much has already been established and that much alone comes under my definition of unlawful sexual contact.
But pinned down? Unless your mouth is also held shut, you can surely say yes or no. And you can struggle to show dissent.
I presumed 'pinned down' implied a struggle on the woman's part not to be pinned, rather than consensual 'pinning' for the fun (?) of it. Why else complain? But again, as ever in these cases where there are no apparent physical injuries and the man denies harm, we, much like the courts, essentially have to decide who to believe. Mostly the courts and the public go in favour of the defendant. If not in the Assange case, from Sweden's appalling track record for rape convictions, it may well be 'political' rather than evidence and justice based. This is undoubtedly wrong but like I said, the lack of hard evidence (injury) almost invariably works strongly in the man's favour. I believe the chief prosecutor in the case has already been slammed as a "malicious radical feminist with a bias against men." That kind of thing ought to help too, and don't the defence know it.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I presumed ‘pinned down’ implied a struggle on the woman’s part not to be pinned, rather than consensual ‘pinning’ for the fun (?) of it.
If both parties consider it fun, it’s fun, it doesn’t matter what you or I think. I don’t think finding physical restriction erotically satisfying is even that rare.
Perhaps Assange, who self-mythologised himself as “dangerous” in that OK Cupid profile thought he was being wild and mysterious. Perhaps the stream of wikigroupies produced a familiarity that led to contempt. Maybe he’s just a sexual creep.
The molestation charge seems to relate to him (allegedly) taking his cock out and rubbing it against Miss A when she declined further sexual encounters later in the week he stayed with her. Eeew. Not cool, dude.
The condom thing with the second woman seems clear-cut in terms of consent. I don’t know how her admission that she consented to him continuing affects things, but, wow, what a creep. Allegedly.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
I’m not entirely sure if that couldn’t be taken to mean “violent sex” rather than “sexual violence”. Do you get the distinction?
Yes, but in this case, given the wording "Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent" I take it to refer to something unwelcome by the complainant.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
I think everyone could be telling what they regarded as the truth here and it still might not be obvious whether what happened was rape.
Yep, and as I’ve said before, even if Assange is eventually tried in Sweden, and found not guilty, we should not conclude that the women involved are necessarily being untruthful or malicious.
I think what’s really out of order is the bald-faced lies Assange’s lawyers have told about the case, and the implicit encouragement to vilify the women.
Agreed. And this will be true regardless of the result of any trial.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
The woman whos ‘approached’ for sex while asleep had made it abundantly clear she didn’t want sex without a (working) condom, fearing AIDS, pregnancy, Assange failed to respect her wishes. As I understand it, that much has already been established …
I’m not sure that it has been established, though. That was my point: Assange has denied wrongdoing, and the details about this denial aren’t clear. In other words, we know the specifics of their claims, but not a lot about the specifics of any response from Assange. Until we hear more about exactly why he says these claims against him are false, we could grant him a little benefit of the doubt, surely?
So to be clear: I think it is wrong to come to firm conclusions about Assange’s guilt or innocence in respect of these allegations at this time. But talking around the issues raised, that’s fine.
-
B Jones, in reply to
But we haven’t really heard his version of events yet,
You mean apart from the bit where his lawyers alleged the complainants were in the pay of the CIA?
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
No, I meant 'his' as in Assange himself, responding to the specific claims about his actions, such as whether he tried to fuck a sleeping woman.
You mean apart from the bit where his lawyers alleged the complainants were in the pay of the CIA?
Sorry, B, I guess I wasn't clear enough when I said I agreed with:
...what’s really out of order is the bald-faced lies Assange’s lawyers have told about the case,
-
B Jones, in reply to
Fair enough, you hadn't gotten to that bit when I started responding. But it's quite possible we won't hear from the man himself, only his lawyers, In NZ, defendants don't have to take the stand and very often don't - that's how the legal presumption of innocence works. It's the job of the defence lawyers to tear down the witnesses for the prosecution, which is where the time-honoured "nuts or sluts" thing comes in.
I don't know if they have that rule in Sweden, but I did read that rape trials aren't open there so we may not get the blow by blow trial reporting we're used to.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Fair enough, you hadn’t gotten to that bit when I started responding.
It occurred to me afterwards that overlapping responses may have been the problem. Sorry to be unnecessarily sarcastic.
I don't know much about Sweden's legal system, but our one certainly seems to me to be less than perfectly suited to sexual assault cases. One problem is that 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a huge hurdle in all so-called 'date rape' situations, where word against word almost inevitably leads to some doubt and an acquittal. I can't think of anything that can be done about this, as I support benefit of the doubt for the accused. I do wonder if there aren't some things that could be done about what the defence can do in terms of tearing down the reputation of the complainant, though.
-
There's work underway on just that issue.
-
Watching on line internationally.
Media 7 playback on demand works for me today, but I don't know if that is because TVNZ have fixed things, or just that I am in a different country (works in Singapore, not in Saudi).
And thanks to Simon GRigg - I am now subscribing to iTunes podcast which has magically overcome any international rights issues.
-
Spoke too soon. Can access Chapter 1 of last week's episode "on demand", but not chapter 2. Full show is on iTunes.
AND the versions of series 6 episode 1 on iTunes has more content than the version on TV on Demand
What a stupid bloody mess.
"One day we'll look back on this and it'll seem funny" - Rosalita, by the Boss
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I think what’s really out of order is the bald-faced lies Assange’s lawyers have told about the case, and the implicit encouragement to vilify the women.
Um, yes, and it's rather disturbing to see a very smart and respected man like Geoffrey Robinson accusing the prosecutor of "anti-male bias" on grounds that could most generously be described as weak.
In caustic evidence on the first day of the two-day hearing, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, a former appeal court judge, told Belmarsh magistrates court that Sweden's chief prosecutor, Marianne Ny, who is seeking the WikiLeaks founder's extradition, "has a rather biased view against men". "I can't understand her attitude here. It looks malicious," she said.
Geoffrey Robertson QC, acting for Assange, asked if it was her view that Ny wanted "to get [Assange] into her clutches and then arrest him no matter what?"
"Yes" said Sundberg-Weitman. "It might be her attitude to have the man arrested and maybe let him suffer for a few weeks to have him softer [for interrogation]."
Such was the hostility towards Assange in Sweden that "most people take it for granted that he's raped two women", she said. The country is seeking Assange's extradition in relation to allegations of rape, sexual assault and sexual molestation made by two women in August.
He denies all the allegations and has not been charged.
Under cross-examination by Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish government, however, Sundberg-Weitman admitted she had no personal knowledge of the conduct of the prosecutor in the case, basing her views instead on what she had been told.
She also acknowledged that while she believed the warrant to have been disproportionate, a Swedish district court and the appeal court, considering evidence from Assange's Swedish lawyer Björn Hurtig, had judged it both proportionate and legal. "I must say I am very concerned about the state of the rule of law in Sweden," she said in response. "It has been decaying since the mid-1970s."
I guess by that standard, Robertson is everything from a degenerate pornographer to an apologist for terrorism given the people he's represented over the last forty odd years, 'cause, you know, that's what I've been told.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
There’s work underway on just that issue.
Good to see.
From B Jones’ link:
Other taskforce proposals include giving judges the ability to direct juries … that “beyond reasonable doubt” does not mean “no doubt” the accused is guilty.
Hmm, I’d definitely say most of the other suggestions made should be seriously considered, bit I’m not so sure about that one. My understanding (and Graeme Edgeler or some other lawyer will correct me if I’m wrong) is that the exact interpretation of “beyond reasonable doubt” is left to the jury. Regardless, it would seem to me that on those occasions that the judge did make a point to say that '"beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt"', it could well come across to the jury as a hint: “hey, you and me, we all know this guy’s guilty. Just sayin’ …”
-
Sally, I don't think we disagree greatly but possibly our point of difference is that, for the moment at least, I don't want to fix on a view based only on the reported allegations. I think Russell's said it best, it is possible all parties are speaking honestly about their experiences. If that's the case, it really is a matter for the court to finally determine.
-
Don Christie, in reply to
Gio
The latest Down Under Feminists’ Carnival has a very useful round up to feminist responses to various kinds of rape apology in the Assange case.
I read the post on Gordon Campbell's Scoop article and wonder whether the poster actually read Gordon's piece. http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/01/06/gordon-campbell-reviews-the-general-response-to-wikileaks/
Just as Assange’s personal behaviour has no bearing on the validity of what his organisation has revealed, the value of the Wikileaks revelations should equally have no bearing on the outcome of the complaints against him.
The "rape apologist" label applied to Gordon Campbell was appalling, IMO .
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
The “rape apologist” label applied to Gordon Campbell was appalling, IMO .
For the comment you quote? Indeed.
-
Jonathan Milne, in reply to
I enjoyed your review and the show tonight, Russell, particularly Toby Manhire's cool and detached assessment of The Guardian's relationship with Julian Assange.
One note: You and Danyl discussed why the publication of the NZ cables seemed to have "dried up". I'm happy to point out that the Herald on Sunday published all the classified Embassy Wellington cables online on the night of December 18/19, along with a number of news stories. These stories and cables were pored over by anyone interested, including pretty much every New Zealand journalist with decent experience in covering diplomatic issues.
It is true that the Star-Times did not publish any further articles by Nicky Hager after the Herald on Sunday obtained and published the classified cables in their entirety. But it was only Nicky's analysis that was denied to the New Zealand public - the cables themselves were available, and so too analysis by other journalists and commentators.
Jonathan Milne
Herald on Sunday -
PLeased to report that I watched the full show, online, in SIngapore an hour after the show.
I think Toby got it spot on - "He's done amazing things, incredibly brave, occasional unusual flourishes"
btw, JA worked out that he needed the professional journalist some time ago - here he is in April 2010 talking about why Wikileaks found they needed to move away from crowdsourcing analysis:
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/julian-assange-in-berkeley/
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
The “rape apologist” label applied to Gordon Campbell was appalling, IMO .
I don’t need to retail my position, but “appalling” and “rape apologist” was my reaction to this condescending head pat from Gordon. (“Privilege douche bingo” also comes to mind.)
Personally, I do find it depressing that so much energy has been spent on Assange’s actions in bed and so relatively little on the morality exposed in the Wikileaks cables, which continues to validate the persecution, torture and death of hundreds of thousands of people. That doesn’t mean that one lacks compassion for the two complainants, or that anyone is giving Assange license to be a sexual predator. It means that there are revelations in Wikileaks than matter as much – or more – as what we’ve heard so far in the course of the soap opera swirling around Assange. Still, if some people prefer to focus on the Assange soap opera – because it rings a bell about injustices elsewhere – then that’s their prerogative. {emphasis not in original}
Gee, thanks for the permission to give a shit about rape and rape culture Gordo. Of course, it might be possible us trivial, man-hating, panty-sniffing, don’t give a shit about torture and illegal wars types can think about two things at once.
Personally, I’m more depressed by an otherwise intelligent man who needs to get his head out of his arse before the tan line becomes permanent.
BTW, Gordon, one “morality exposed in the Wikileaks cables” I followed fairly closely was the details of how the Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from co-operating with the Murphy Commission of Investigation.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It is true that the Star-Times did not publish any further articles by Nicky Hager after the Herald on Sunday obtained and published the classified cables in their entirety. But it was only Nicky’s analysis that was denied to the New Zealand public – the cables themselves were available, and so too analysis by other journalists and commentators.
Sure -- but I think there's a case for saying that Hager was particularly well-placed to write this sort of story. And the fact that he had in fact written those analyses and they were yanked from the SST because David Kemeys got spooked by you guys is ... remarkable.
Mind you, the SST's legal threat again Brian Edwards yesterday suggests a predisposition for stupid decisions.
-
Meanwhile, Daniel Domscheit Berg's book and interviews have taken things to a whole other place:
In an excerpt of Domscheit-Berg’s upcoming book, Inside WikiLeaks, that was leaked to the document-publishing site Cryptome, an English-language version of several pages states that he and one “architect” of WikiLeaks’ submissions platform took control of WikiLeaks’ system for submitting leaks away from Assange–along with at least some portion of the leaked material that WikiLeaks had obtained–to ensure the security of the site’s sources.
The excerpt also criticizes Assange’s character, his attitude towards women, and his handling of several matters related to the release of the Apache helicopter video, titled “Collateral Murder,” showing the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq in April of last year. Specifically, the excerpt states that Assange lied to the New Yorker about decrypting the video clip and that he refused to reimburse WikiLeaks’ staffers, including Icelandic spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson, who worked on the project and flew to Iraq to meet with the victims’ families.
But far more crucial for WikiLeaks’ secret-spilling mission is a passage that begins, “Children shouldn’t play with guns. That was our argument for removing the submissions platform from Julian’s control.”
That portion of the excerpt states that at the time Domscheit-Berg and others left Wikileaks in September of last year, its submissions system had security flaws that convinced Domscheit-Berg and the site’s “architect” to take control of the submissions system until WikiLeaks could ensure the security of the leaks’ sources.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
PLeased to report that I watched the full show, online, in SIngapore an hour after the show.
Excellent.
And I can confirm that you were able to do solely because your earlier complaint was drawn to the attention of the appropriate people.
You squeaky wheel, you :-)
-
Really good Media 7 last night.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.