‘Real Rape’? Julian Assange’s Sexual Assault Allegations
On August 20, 2010, two Swedish women brought accusations of sexual assault against Julian Assange, the founder of whistle-blowing website Wikileaks. These accusations have had global repercussions, sparking widespread scepticism of the criminal justice system and igniting debate about the legitimacy of Assange’s prosecution. Assange’s actions, the response of the press, and the behaviour of the accusers themselves have led many feminists to question the global influence of this individual.
Prominent feminist commentator Naomi Wolf asks why it is that on this one occasion of rape (normally an under-reported crime) the perpetrator has received such levels of global attention and investigation. She holds reservations as to the validity of the claims, citing them as “ambiguous and corrupt allegations” which fail to take the charge of rape seriously. Others, such as Jacklyn Friedman, identify both the incident and the views of Wolf herself as minimising the crime of rape and thereby discouraging other women from reporting it.
The debate has also entered the mainstream forum. The string of high-profile accusations, including most recently that of former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, have resulted in well-known American commentators such as Glenn Beck, Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann voicing their opinions. Problematically, such international scrutiny inevitably takes hold upon the actual prosecution itself.
Details of the Accusations
Julian Assange travelled to Sweden on August 11, 2010. It was during this visit that he allegedly raped two women, as detailed in police reports leaked to the Guardian on December 17 last year.
In relation to the first accuser, Miss A, with whom Assange was residing at the relevant time, it is alleged that following dinner one night Assange returned to her apartment and began to undress her rapidly, snapping her necklace. Although she tried to dress herself, Miss A realised that her attempts were in vain and allowed Assange to have sex with her. However, once she realised that he was not wearing a condom, she asked him to stop. Despite originally objecting, Assange eventually put on a condom, but according to Miss A, he deliberately damaged it.
Following this incident, Assange stayed in Miss A’s bed for the rest of the week. However, Miss A informed her friends that the sex between them had been violent and that he refused to leave her apartment. When confronted with these allegations Assange appeared shocked, and denied that he had tampered with the condom.
When he was at Miss A’s conference, Assange met Miss W. A few days later she invited him back to her apartment, where they started to have consensual sex. Miss W asked Assange to stop when she realised he wasn’t wearing a condom. However, after Assange agreed to wear protection, the pair proceeded to have sex multiple times throughout the night.
In the morning, Miss W left the apartment to buy breakfast. She went back to sleep on her return, and woke to find Assange having sex with her. He was not wearing a condom, and according to the police report, “she couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time” to wear one.
Assange again denied the allegations, stating in an interview with the BBC that “this has been a very successful smear campaign”. On August 20, the two women made a joint statement to Swedish police, and an arrest warrant was issued for Assange in November 2010.
‘Real Rape’ and the Media
Jacklyn Friedman is well-known for her outspoken support of rape victims, and is herself a victim of sexual abuse. She believes that the prosecution of Assange has been politically motivated, but asserts that the charges themselves are not. Unlike Naomi Wolf, Friedman believes that these allegations need to be taken seriously. Otherwise we, the public, engage in a demonisation of victims of sexual assault, due to the international stature of the accused.
Rape is already one of the most under-reported crimes in the world, a fact that Friedman attributes to the way that sexual abuse is portrayed in the media. Too often, the blame for such incidents falls onto the victims, as their reputations and personal lives are dragged into the public spotlight for judgment. This occurs particularly when the accused is a well-known and influential private actor, and serves to discourage other victims from reporting instances of rape.
Friedman’s concept of ‘real rape’ is central to this. The notion of ‘real rape’ concerns the public preconception of what the crime of rape should look like. Essentially, it ‘should’ involve an innocent, sober virgin being violently attacked by a large stranger, who also threatens her with a weapon.
This was not the picture with which the public was presented in the Assange case. Here, the women were not threatened, and the perpetrator was known to them. The media therefore engaged in victim-blaming, perpetuating the myth of ‘real rape’.
Glenn Beck of Fox News in the U.S. stated of the case, “To me, this doesn’t really fit the profile of someone who has been sexually assaulted.” He then asserted, in a sarcastic tone, “woman number two [Miss W] is so upset by this ‘rape’ that she decides to go to breakfast with Assange”. The inaccuracy of this statement aside, Beck demonstrates how dismissive the media can be of allegations which do not fit with the ‘real rape’ myth.
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC compounded this myth when he interviewed Michael Moore on December 14. Both of these men rejected the allegations as farcical before even considering the facts, and asserted that the women must be involved in a conspiracy because of their previous relations with Assange.
What is alarming is Freidman’s declaration that this discourse in the media is “literally creating more rape in the world”. Not only does it make women less likely to report instances of rape, but it also reduces the likelihood of prosecution as the perception of what constitutes rape becomes blurred even within the criminal justice system.
“A Miscarriage of Justice”
Naomi Wolf sees the charges brought against Assange as “ambiguous and corrupt”, serving to undermine legitimate claims by women who have been raped. Wolf states, “as a feminist, I am distraught about this miscarriage of justice”.
Wolf bases this claim on her assessment of the Assange case as an example of multiple instances of consent. Miss A allowed Assange to have sex with her even though she was concerned about the broken condom; Miss W chose not to say ‘no’ to Assange, even though she didn’t want to have sex with him.
Wolf asserts that these instances of consent are reflective of a society and a justice system that do not treat women like moral adults who are capable of saying no. Wolf accuses Friedman of disrespect for women, through his failure to acknowledge that both Miss A and Miss W had ample opportunity to tell Assange to stop.
Most importantly, it is cases like this which cause rape to be taken less seriously within society. Instead, it is politicised, and has been used in this case to victimise a controversial public figure. According to Wolf, this further discourages women from reporting sexual abuse.
Perhaps Wolf’s argument will be given more credence when the full details emerge of the alleged sexual assault claims made against Strauss-Kahn, who was recently reported to have assaulted a maid who entered his Sofitel hotel suite.
However, Wolf does provide evidence for her claims. In her much-publicised satirical address to the Huffington Post on December 7, Wolf asks why there is suddenly a global manhunt to “prosecute men who act like narcissistic jerks to the women they are dating”. She jokingly compliments Interpol for tracking down men who send text messages during dinner, or who fail to notice that their partner has had a haircut.
The point Wolf makes here is an important one. Her scepticism of Assange’s persecution is used to demonstrate the level of political motivation behind these allegations.
Wolf also points to the Swedish justice system’s previous treatment of sexual assault and rape victims, with some interesting results. A report released by Amnesty International in 2008 concluded that “rapists get impunity” in Sweden, finding that the Swedes are dismissive of rape and engage in victim-blaming more than other countries. In 2007, only 5-10 per cent of rapes were reported in Sweden. In fact, according to Amnesty International, a woman who has been raped in Sweden is 10 times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than to have her case legally prosecuted.
Interestingly, Amnesty International’s report Case Closed also found that women who were on a date with the perpetrator, or who were drunk at the time of the assault, found it particularly difficult to pursue prosecution. The report found that these women “have problems fulfilling the stereotypical role of ‘ideal victim’”, which echoes Freidman’s ‘real rape’ hypothesis.
The allegations against Assange reveal the complexity of sexual abuse and its prosecution in an international setting. Both Naomi Wolf and Jacklyn Friedman agree that Julian Assange should be taken to court, and that there have been political motives behind the ferocity of his persecution. However, the level of disagreement surrounding the actual allegations reflects a deeper confusion about the legitimacy of the victims and their right to seek legal redress.
Significantly, this case highlights the politicisation of rape, which is particularly problematic for future victims. The fact that the world media immediately turns to conspiracy theories reflects Friedman’s concept of ‘real rape’, but also suggests that current legislation does not provide sufficient protection for victims. Instead, it allows for incredibly influential international actors to take hold of accusations and manipulate them for their own purposes.
Clare Power is in her final year of a Bachelor of Economic and Social Sciences majoring in Government and International Relations and Political Economy.
