Last Sunday I awoke to news that police had surrounded the Ecuador Embassy feeling – in the words of poet and IT contributor James Byrne – ‘sick to the balls’.
William Hague’s tweeted decree was that England would not grant Julian Assange ‘safe passage’ to Ecuador. England, as we know it, will only grant Assange safe passage to Sweden so that Sweden in turn can grant Assange safe passage to the U.S.A.
Again, in spectacular style and on the international stage, the Tories have shown their true colours. ‘Little Ecuador’ is a phrase that pops up in the newspapers; but it is misleading. How about ‘Little England’? Ecuador is willing to stand upto the combined might of the U.K. and the U.S.A. in the name of freedom. Latin America is still capable of a left-wing behaviour that Anglo-Saxony abandoned decades ago. It is joyful to witness the South American nations lining up to denounce the U.K. for its machinations, and even making threats. Conservatives have been here before and have outraged South America before. They claim they cannot override a European Arrest Warrant for Assange issued on behalf of Sweden, yet in a previous incarnation they blithely ignored a Spanish arrest warrant to allow Pinochet safe passage to Chile. Today’s Tories pride themselves on defying Europe, but not in this case. Hague is playing Pontias Pilate with Assange. ‘It’s more than my jobsworth…’ The Tories are thus refusing safe passage to a revolutionary hero, though they happily granted it to an evil dictator. In the eyes of Anglo-Saxony, however, Pinochet is a revolutionary hero for defeating the left in Chile, and Assange is… Satan.
It’s hard to think of another white Ango-Saxon protestant who faces such a high level of demonisation. Currie Jean has looked at manifold and various angles of the international smear. http://www.helium.com/debates/431848-is-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-the-subject-of-a-smear-campaign/side_by_side
Undoubtedly, the same corporate media who profited by publishing Wikileaks material are biting the hand that fed them, even as they sense their own incomptence, if not obsolescense.
The question begs: what’s in it for England? The U.S.A. will not extradite Americans to Britain in return, via anywhere. We can only imagine that any country who assists America’s powers-that-be in the satisfying of its indomitable will is rewarded discreetly and unofficially. The poodle will have its dog biscuit. It’s surprising that a supine U.K. hasn’t discussed the possiblity of a B.O.G.O.F deal with Gary McKinnon thrown in.
America wishes to apprehend its ‘Batman villain’. It regards Assange as a traitor even though he’s not an American citizen and therefore is innocent of treason. Assange, they subliminally feel, is a traitor to Anglo-Saxony. A ‘secret indictment’ has already been prepared using the new National Defence Authorisation Act (N.D.A.A). See this interview with another famous whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2IX8qBf-e4&feature=autoplay&list=PL50BDB9BCCFAF09CA&playnext=1
How frustrated the U.S. must be by the slow-moving and liberally cautious nature of British justice, by the unpredictable nature of Swedish justice which failed to disallow Assange’s ‘safe passage’ to London, and now by those pipe-blowing, poncho-wearing, Spanish-speaking Indians who dare to defy the Superpower’s masterplan by offering Assange an ‘El Condor Passage’ to South America. Then again, he’s lost his freedom already. Since he woke up to find ‘Assange/Rape’ as the number one google search of all time, Assange has been under effective house arrest in England, including ten days solitary confinement chez Her Majesty, more comfortably a friend’s secluded mansion in Norfolk, and now the basement of the Ecuadorean Embassy at 3 Hans Crescent, Knightsbridge, London Sw1, where only an airbed cushions him from what must be a living hell. The slow grind progresses and gives the Pentagon plenty of time to prepare the gallows.
Lefty-liberal reaction in the west is rabidly divided and is all to do with the controversial nature of the charges against the Australian dissenter. His fellow-countryman and maverick, John Pilger, believes the rape allegations are ‘concocted charges’. He is probably Assange’s most illustrious and intelligent defender. The less travelled and more politically correct Owen Jones believes the charges are too serious not to be tried in a court of law. Inevitably, many males side with Assange, many females side with his alleged victims; but there are plenty of notable exceptions, like Jones. Amazingly, Women Against Rape have sided with Assange, believing that he is the victim of a powerful conspiracy. Writer Naomi Foyle, interestingly, was more sympathetic to Assange until she read his own statement seeming to admit having sex with one of the women as she slept. One would almost like the case to go to court just to observe the logic – or otherwise – that ensued.
‘Rape’ is such an emotive word that reason often fails in its presence. Is ‘rape’ the same as ‘date-rape’? The modern consensus is that all rapes are rape, but why – if so – do we have such a term as date-rape? (Sensitive readers, please note: these are questions, not statements). All we know for sure is 1) that Assange is the most wanted man in the Western world, and that 2) he had consensual sex with two Swedish women, followed by – it’s alleged – unconsensual sex.
There are two issues seemingly at stake. One is the right of a major dissident not to be persecuted by a coalition of oppressive regimes. The other is the right of two women to bring their alleged attacker to justice. However, we must in all conscience ask: are the British and American governments really concerned with either of these issues, or with the human rights of these three individuals whose private lives have become so sensationally public? Does William Hague really care about the two women? Does the Tory government really care about the two women? Do the American authorities really care about the two women? The answer is not. Women Against Rape don’t think so. Naomis Wolf and Klein don’t think so either. The action of the British and American governments seem to be all about the incarceration of a man who has done more than anyone in the modern era to make the international ruling-classes look stupid, and more than that, to expose their evils more verifiably than ever. Has any alleged date-rapist ever been so doggedly pursued by a triumvirate of nation-states?
Only Sweden may care about the women’s fate, but Swedish law can be bizarre. In another case, a man got away with having sex with a sleeping woman because she hadn’t been able to say ‘no’. But even if there were no difficulties about what does or does not constitute rape, fine principles are irrelevant when the situation is rigged. George Galloway does not believe the stories of either woman and claims the accusations are a ‘set-up’. This kind of thing has been seen before. Mordechai Vanunu leaked secrets of Israel’s nuclear arsenal to the British press and was honeytrapped by a Mossad agent. A hero to the anti-nuclear movement, he spent 18 years in prison. There are men and women willing to do such work, and the CIA can magic up any kind of ‘reality’ it wants. Assange’s two women are still officially anonymous in this part of the world though one of them has been named on British TV. They should be completely anonymous, but the Craig Murray-named woman gives interviews regularly in newspapers and television all over the world. Detractors allege the two accusers have dodgy political connections and that they both received payments from the U.S.A. days before making their claims.
The same named, nameless woman worked in Cuba with Las Damas de Blanco (The Ladies in White), a U.S. funded anti-Castro group chaired by Carlos Alberto Montaner who is connected to the CIA. Las Damas also counts another CIA associate, Luis Posada Carriles, as a supporter. She is also perceived, by Assange and others, as a ‘Christian radical feminist’ who wrote a misandrist article called Seven Steps to Legal Revenge. This is par for the course, though. What is damning about her allegation is that she was seen in Assange’s company at various social occasions after the alleged incident and even threw a party in Assange’s honour. What rape victim has ever thrown a party in honour of her rapist? During this party she ostentatiously texted to friends that she was hanging out with the ‘smartest, coolest people in the world. It’s amazing!’
This photo and article indicates the approach Assange’s legal team and witnesses for the defence will be taking, should the rape allegations become charges and trial commence: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193641/Julian-Assange-rape-claim-Is-photo-clear-him.html
That two women are making allegations is even more damaging for Assange, though supporters dismiss this as the CIA upping the ante. If Mossad can throw one honeytrap at Vanunu, the CIA can throw two at Assange. What I am writing – as with most commentators – is only an opinion column, and anyway one cannot research the secret world until decades after the event; but my overwhelming belief is that the two accusers are not the only people behind these charges.
A Facebook page may or may not be dedicated to their campaign.
Naomi Wolf does not believe the women either and in her own 23 years experience working wth rape victims was astonished at the ‘multiple consent’ she noticed in their statements to police. She had never seen such a high incidence of ‘multiple consent’ in the statements of any rape victims. She also claims the case has been interfered with at the highest level:
If you want proof that the case is corrupted, try this: the leaked police documents, in Swedish. We should not be able to see them: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48110314/Facsimile-from-Forsvarsadvokaterna-23-11-10Sokbar
Not believing the accusations, I do not believe the trial should go ahead. A politcally motivated and interfered with trial will probably not produce a trustworthy outcome. Assange supporters would reject a guilty verdict. If it came, he would serve a short sentence and in theory be free to enjoy the intellectual freedoms of Sweden that attracted him there in the first place. He is not avoiding the trial. Assange’s legal team see the ‘honeytrap’ as having led to a ‘holding charge’. They claim that once he is safely back in Karl Rove’s Sweden he will be extradited to America. The rape and sexual molestation charges may even be dropped, so that Assange can enjoy American hospitality all the sooner.
Those who are against Assange and for the two women need to ask themselves honestly if they are not being fooled by U.S. skullduggery. And when will we ever see the perpetatrators of such dirty tricks facing the trials they deserve?
Australia is the other Anglo-Saxon nation to exude the special hypocrisies of the democratic way. It has failed to do anything to protect its most famous son. In his own words: ‘It was not Britain or my home country, Australia, that stood up to protect me from persecution, but a courageous, independent Latin-American nation’. Assange’s biological father was called John Shipton, his mother was a Hawkins; he too is Anglo-Saxon, as well as a ‘sixth generation Australian.’
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard called Wikileaks’ publishing of diplomatic cables “a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do” even though her own attorney general was investigating the legality of WikiLeaks’ actions at the time, and hadn’t yet reached a conclusion.
I side with that other Australian dissenter, John Pilger. I side with Galloway, with Craig Murray, with Women Against Rape, with Naomi Wolf, in their differently nuanced interpretations of the mystery. Political correctness can be challenged from the left. I refuse the subterfuge. It is far more disturbing to witness the scourging of a modern day culture hero than to contemplate the sufferings of honeytraps. Shills are ten a penny in the annals of history, and it is not only the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis that deploy them. It would be nice to add that Assange’s women must also be presumed innocent until proven guilty – but they are not on trial. We may not know the truth until some freedom of information request decades from now reveals how they were ‘recruited’ or ‘run’ or ‘turned’ or ‘got at’. They may even be unwitting collaborators, duped by sinister forces.
It is not only Western capitalism we are dealing with here; we’re also dealing with Christendom, where – in the words of another poet, Harry Fainlight, – ‘the government religion is the execution of the rebel leader.’ Who really wants to be part of the manipulated mob that voted for Christ’s crucifixion? Admittedly, Assange is a bit of a creepy Jesus, but he’s all we’ve got, for now.
The continuing presence of the London Met, and better-dressed friends, outside the Ecuadorian Embassy is a slur on Britain’s reputation as a nation who harbours refugees from persecution and injustice.