Wikileaks

[Seventh Pup]

Thank you Min +10.

[Old Nan]

Gee, I love it when progressive guys try to appropriate feminist analogies while refusing to let their hero even get tried for a rape he's been accused of.

One day you'll come to realize that leftists don't actually give a damn about feminism. As they used to say, a woman's place in the movement is on her back.

[Sariel]

Gee, I love it when progressive guys try to appropriate feminist analogies while refusing to let their hero even get tried for a rape he's been accused of.

Where did Morgan talk about the rape charges or how Assange should not be extradited to Sweden? I must've overlooked that part of his rant.

[MinDonner]

Where did Morgan talk about the rape charges or how Assange should not be extradited to Sweden? I must've overlooked that part of his rant.

He didn't. But given the way that Assange's arrest has turned into an orgy of victim-blaming and rape-apologism, largely from guys on the left, trying to play the "but think of the poor abused wimminz!" card is in extremely questionable taste.

[Liffguard]

Apparently Assange and his lawyers are angry that police documents concerning his rape case were leaked to the media (specifically The Guardian). Principles of law aside, this is deeply funny to me.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Liffguard,

There is a rather deep irony to that little twist.

[Lyanna Stark]

Where did Morgan talk about the rape charges or how Assange should not be extradited to Sweden? I must've overlooked that part of his rant.

Technically, they are not rape changes actually. They are of a lower level, more translatable as "sexual abuse", or some such. The accusations themselves are not the problem either, it's that the Swedish justice system has never before used this lower level of accusation to extradite anyone. THAT is what makes the case really, really suspect. The women have all the right in the world to bring up their case. The weirdness is not their fault, it's the justice system in Sweden that is going mental.

While I don't agree with cheapening feminist argument, and I also don't 100% agree with everything Mr Morgan wrote, I don't think the wife beating in itself was the point here: what he is trying to describe is someone abusing their powers and when they get rightly shamed, it's suddenly the whistleblower's fault. Another allegory could easily have been used, but the wifebeating one is pretty good as it's very easy to understand that beating up your wife is a shameful, low and wrong thing to do.

Apparently Assange and his lawyers are angry that police documents concerning his rape case were leaked to the media (specifically The Guardian). Principles of law aside, this is deeply funny to me.

Indeed. Although they do have a point as the leaking is also, from a Swedish perspective, not only unusual, but unheard of. It's seems that the Swedish justice system's handling of this case has ranged from poor to outright apalling, which is the problem here whether or not Assange et al are upset or not. You'd think a high profile case like this would be treated extra carefully, but instead they are wailing around like blind stampeeding manatees on crack.

[Lyanna Stark]

He didn't. But given the way that Assange's arrest has turned into an orgy of victim-blaming and rape-apologism, largely from guys on the left, trying to play the "but think of the poor abused wimminz!" card is in extremely questionable taste.

I disagree. There is a large public debate in Sweden triggered by this exact thing, encouraging victims of rape and sexual abuse to come forward. It also centres on defining what rape is and what consent is. While you will always find rape apologists without having to work very hard (they tend to be really vocal) I think this has spawned something mractually useful: a debate on consent and that people need to talk about these things.

This is not to say I feel the women where in the wrong for accusing Assange. What's been going wrong here is the justice system's handling of the case. Unfortunately, a lot of people are giving the women flak, while the real culprit here is the authorities.

[MinDonner]

Maybe in Sweden. Elsewhere on the internet, things are not so rosy, what with the names of the accusers being leaked all over Twitter and political pundits going out of their way to trivialise the issue and slander the women involved, to the point of inventing crimes like "sex by surprise" and claiming that this is all just a fuss about a broken condom instead of an actual assault. I just think that in the circumstances, supporters of Wikileaks have no business using the emotive appeal of abused women to bolster their case, no matter how useful it may be to them as a metaphor.

Cos really, "accusations of date rape taken seriously for a change", how is that not a good thing?

[Lyanna Stark]

Cos really, "accusations of date rape taken seriously for a change", how is that not a good thing?

Because in the way it has been done by the authorities, it actually makes the claims by these women LESS valid. Due to their messing up of this case, with it being high profile, treating it with more care should have been the way forward. Instead they mess up, use their accusations as leverage to get Assange extradited and all hell breaks lose.

The women gain absolutely nothing from this, and instead you have loads of people getting into a mindset where they are apologetic to date rape. This is a BAD thing.

Again, not the women's fault, but the authorities'. They botched is because they were too keen to lay their hands on Assange. Which, as we can see, affects the women since now they are getting the flak.

I guess what I am trying to say is: while I agree that date rape needs to be taken seriously, the authorities clearly aren't treating this as taking date rape seriously due to the totally botched handling of the case. In this case the focus has been 100% on the perpetrator, while it seems the victims nobody cares about, least of all the justice system who just treats them as handy excuses for extradition.

Edit for badz grammaz and spellungz.

[MinDonner]

I guess what I am trying to say is: while I agree that date rape needs to be taken seriously, the authorities clearly aren't treating this as taking date rape seriously due to the totally botched handling of the case. In this case the focus has been 100% on the perpetrator, while it seems the victims nobody cares about, least of all the justice system who just treats them as handy excuses for extradition.

Edit for badz grammaz and spellungz.

This is all true. But it doesn't really excuse the people - almost all supporters of Wikileaks - who have been happily seizing onto the authorities' procedural irregularities to try and pre-emptively tar and feather the two accusers. I guess all I'm saying is that the pro-Wikileaks crowd has no particular claim to feminist cred right now and so is being a bit bloody cheeky in trying to use our rhetoric. Maybe this is the factional equivalent of "some of my best friends are..." :unsure:

[Yoadm]

Apparently Assange and his lawyers are angry that police documents concerning his rape case were leaked to the media (specifically The Guardian). Principles of law aside, this is deeply funny to me.

But, according to Assange, leaked documents harm no one.

[L’Age d’or]

Maybe in Sweden. Elsewhere on the internet, things are not so rosy, what with the names of the accusers being leaked all over Twitter and political pundits going out of their way to trivialise the issue and slander the women involved, to the point of inventing crimes like "sex by surprise" and claiming that this is all just a fuss about a broken condom instead of an actual assault. I just think that in the circumstances, supporters of Wikileaks have no business using the emotive appeal of abused women to bolster their case, no matter how useful it may be to them as a metaphor.

Cos really, "accusations of date rape taken seriously for a change", how is that not a good thing?

Assange stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks after the case brought into attention of Stockholm DA, the DA reviewed the case and the evidence and rejected the case saying there is not enough evidence or any substance to this. The attorneys obviously were disappointed so they took it to another DA in Gothenburg, the DA reviewed the case and rejected it saying they didnt have a case. Assange left Sweden 5 weeks later after notifying the Swedish government and they gave him permission to leave.

So as you can see its not about the charges but Wikileaks. Assange is not accused of rape but all the news agencies use the term knowing its not true. It has never been about Assange being guilty of the charges casue if it was Im sure two major Swedish DAs wouldnt dismiss the case.

[Happy Ent]

This is all true. But it doesn't really excuse the people - almost all supporters of Wikileaks - who have been happily seizing onto the authorities' procedural irregularities to try and pre-emptively tar and feather the two accusers.

But he parenthetical remark, to you mean “—almost all of which are supporters of Wikileaks—” or “—which constitute almost all Wikileaks supporters—”?

I think both claims are patently false. I may read different media than you, but I have actually been surprised that I have seen very little of the opinions you deride. A notable exception are some American paleoconservative blogs, which certainly don’t support Wikileaks.

(Myself, I have been having a ball about this, because I find it endlessly entertaining to see people squirm when their buttons are pushed wrongly, and they can’t fall back on coalitional routines. From that perspective, the forced choice between instinctively follow any accusation made by feminists rape victims, or instinctively follow any software freedom fighter, or anybody who make the US State department angry, is, I think healthy. We should not instinctively follow anything.)

[L’Age d’or]

He is crushing everyone. He publishes everything, not only info exposing supposed corruption but information that puts people's lives at risk, that risks very positive policies world wide just because some of them have to remain confidential to protect specific people or programs. I would call him chaotic neutral at the very best.

Turn off your TV

[Happy Ent]

But, according to Assange, leaked documents harm no one.

I understand why this is funny, and agree to some extent.

But let us not turn things on their head.

The way I understand the Good Society, individuals have a valid desire for privacy. Neither the state (Sweden) nor corporations (Google) should have access to our data beyond our will. This privacy is currently under strong attack from information technology. I think we would do well thinking about how this privacy can be protected.

Similarly, states and corporations have a desire for privacy, and just like for individuals, this desire is currently undermined by the astonishing possibilities of information technology. However—and this distinction is vital—states have no moral right for privacy in my understanding of the Good Society. On the contrary. Democracy thrives on an imagined system of checks and balances, and an illusion of government transparency is an essential part of democracy.

So it’s not symmetric at all. Individuals should be opaque, states transparent. There’s nothing ironic or contradictory about an individual who fights for both these important ingredients of the open society.

[MinDonner]

But he parenthetical remark, to you mean “—almost all of which are supporters of Wikileaks—” or “—which constitute almost all Wikileaks supporters—”?

The former.

I think both claims are patently false. I may read different media than you, but I have actually been surprised that I have seen very little of the opinions you deride. A notable exception are some American paleoconservative blogs, which certainly don’t support Wikileaks.

Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann are the main big-name pundits that I have seen pushing the issue, Michael Moore going so far as to post Assange's bail and stating that we "must never ever believe" this accusation, apparently because it comes from The Man, rather than from, you know, the actual women. Neither of these gentlemen are notably right-wing.

(Myself, I have been having a ball about this, because I find it endlessly entertaining to see people squirm when their buttons are pushed wrongly, and they can’t fall back on coalitional routines. From that perspective, the forced choice between instinctively follow any accusation made by feminists rape victims, or instinctively follow any software freedom fighter, or anybody who make the US State department angry, is, I think healthy. We should not instinctively follow anything.)

Well, I'm glad you find it so amusing. Myself, I am more concerned at the continued trivialisation of rape accusations, the effect that this is likely to have on any future victims of powerful men (or men with powerful enemies) tempted to go to the authorities, now knowing that they are likely to have their names smeared across the internet, get publicly slandered by respected journalists, have their case turned into a political football etc etc. And this is true whether or not Assange is guilty. Nowhere have I automatically assumed his guilt. But I certainly have assumed that rape accusations need to be taken seriously, and I can't see how that is such a bad "instinct" to have.

[Yoadm]

Turn off your TV

Just because I disagree with the notion that everything has to be made public, regardless of who it hurts, does not make me either stupid or a fan of fox news.

[Lyanna Stark]

This is all true. But it doesn't really excuse the people - almost all supporters of Wikileaks - who have been happily seizing onto the authorities' procedural irregularities to try and pre-emptively tar and feather the two accusers. I guess all I'm saying is that the pro-Wikileaks crowd has no particular claim to feminist cred right now and so is being a bit bloody cheeky in trying to use our rhetoric. Maybe this is the factional equivalent of "some of my best friends are..." :unsure:

I'm not really a Wikileaks supporter as such, but I am definitely not against them. It seems to me there are lots of loud, shrill noises everywhere with people taking sides very easily, without actually looking at the situation unfolding.

I also agree with you that pro-wikileak supporters who are more Assange fans really are noisily defending him. On the other hand, you also have the noisy crowd who thinks he is a tratior and should possibly be executed. I think he is neither a saint nor a devil, but someone with his own agenda which I can sometimes agree with, sometimes not.

On the whole, I think the Wikileaks were needed for the same reasons as Richard K Morgan in his blog excerpt linked upthread. On the other hand, I understand that it can make difficult negotiations harder for some time (as Hereward exemplified a little while ago).

Thirdly, I think the Swedish authorities are working for somebody now, as their behaviour has been erratic, stupid and totally outrageous. I don't think we need to be rocket scientist to add 1+1 = something is making the Swedish authorities bonkers.

Also, Swedish neutrality has been exposed as being a thing of the past by Wikileaks. Assume Sweden is in the US's and NATO's back pocket, as it were.

As HE pointed out above, it's interesting to see people bending over backwards to excuse their PoV.

Similarly, states and corporations have a desire for privacy, and just like for individuals, this desire is currently undermined by the astonishing possibilities of information technology. However—and this distinction is vital—states have no moral right for privacy in my understanding of the Good Society. On the contrary. Democracy thrives on an imagined system of checks and balances, and an illusion of government transparency is an essential part of democracy.

So it’s not symmetric at all. Individuals should be opaque, states transparent. There’s nothing ironic or contradictory about an individual who fights for both these important ingredients of the open society.

Thanks HE, you've put my thoughts in writing far better than I could. :)

I was also taught in school that as a citizen of a democratic country, it is my duty to critisise the Government and the powers that be in order to be a good citizen. I guess the powers that be find that sort of thinking better in theory than in practise. :P

[Yoadm]

I understand why this is funny, and agree to some extent.

But let us not turn things on their head.

The way I understand the Good Society, individuals have a valid desire for privacy. Neither the state (Sweden) nor corporations (Google) should have access to our data beyond our will. This privacy is currently under strong attack from information technology. I think we would do well thinking about how this privacy can be protected.

Similarly, states and corporations have a desire for privacy, and just like for individuals, this desire is currently undermined by the astonishing possibilities of information technology. However—and this distinction is vital—states have no moral right for privacy in my understanding of the Good Society. On the contrary. Democracy thrives on an imagined system of checks and balances, and an illusion of government transparency is an essential part of democracy.

So it’s not symmetric at all. Individuals should be opaque, states transparent. There’s nothing ironic or contradictory about an individual who fights for both these important ingredients of the open society.

It is symmetric for a very specific reason: Organizations are made up of individuals, and exposing everything, regardless of if it is good or bad can (and does) hurt individuals, not only cooperations or groups. Exposing what every individual says, just because he holds a government job, again, regardless of WHAT he actually says is not a fight for justice, its a fight for anarchy. Im not even going to go into incidents where private, individual people working or cooperating with NATO, are exposed, and are in imminant danger. Had Julian exposed specific incidents he sees as injustice, instead of everything and anything, I would have respected him much more. Right now, he is an overhyped vandalist.