The BBC repeatedly named Nafissatou Diallo, the alleged rape victim of Dominique Strauss Kahn, while the criminal investigation into the alleged rape was still in progress. Yet they have a policy that Anna Ardin, the accuser of Julian Assange, must not be named – or investigated.
Why the contradiction?
Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin had both gone public and given statements to the media in support of their allegations.
From the New York Times, 25 August 2010:
Anna Ardin, 31, has told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that the complaints were “not orchestrated by the Pentagon” but prompted by “a man who has a twisted attitude toward women and a problem taking no for an answer.”
There was no legal barrier to my mentioniong Anna Ardin last night; the case is no longer sub judice in the UK and there is no expectation of any legal proceedings here. Those are precisely the grounds on which the BBC mentioned Diallo very often. I did not see Oliver Kamm, Charles Crawford, Harry Cole, Charles Murray or any of the other far right commenters trolling about my “disgrace” last night, make a single protest at the naming of Diallo on scores of occasions by the BBC. Why their sudden new-found concern in the case of Assange?
Why the difference? Why is Ardin protected from scrutiny in the entire British mainstream media when Diallo was not, in precisely the same legal circumstances? Has Ardin been D-noticed in the UK when she is reported widely everywhere else in the world?
Anybody who still believes that the Assange allegations are a genuine criminal proceeding following due process, should think very hard indeed.
The point you make between Diallo and Ardin is a very good observation of duplicity in the media. But as I’ve just mentioned in my blog the truth is alien to the media these days.
Obviously, attacking America and the West – lining up behind silly crackpots and haters like you, Pilger, Galloway and Tariq Ali, while they do so – is a massive political objective of the left. So guarding this woman’s identity then becomes much more important – as soon as she is named BY THE BBC, thousands of anti-Western left-wingers who take their security for granted (e.g. YOU) will start trying to attack her.
An “argument” which applies with absolutely equal force to Assange, of course. But no-one’s attacking him at all, are they? Pardon?
“Anna Ardin, 31, has told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that the complaints were “not orchestrated by the Pentagon” but prompted by “a man who has a twisted attitude toward women and a problem taking no for an answer.””
.
I am thinking we can all read about that in any forthcoming book she may write. I wonder that if she does will she be donating all her royalties earned to a rape crisis centre ?.
Komodo –
An “argument” which applies with absolutely equal force to Assange, of course. But no-one’s attacking him at all, are they? Pardon?
No it doesn’t apply with equal force at all.
A)Assange promoted his own name and was a public figure prior to publishing thousands of classified US documents.
B)He published thousands of stolen and classified US government documents, with no guiding motivation other than disclosure for the sake of it. This is CLEARLY NOT EQUIVALENT to making a claim to being a victim of rape.
C)Of course he is going to be attacked for the actions he took (not that were taken against him, he chose to publish these stolen docs, not like claiming to be raped at all). Are you really that naive to think that governments and diplomatic services can afford to have their private classified correspondence published for all to see? Do you not understand why this might be considered criminal? If he was not Western, I think he probably would have been assasinated by now – certainly if he was Russian or had done that to Russia.
One of the worst aspects of this farce has been the collusion between JA and Ecuador to debase the Political Asylum System. Allowing a common criminal to claim PA is a gross insult to the many people around the world who are actually in danger of political repression on a daily basis.
Apologies to John Goss if he posted it here, but this looks pretty comprehensive:
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
Some of us need to ask ourselves if, should a well loved and cuddly Lib Dem MP have been the central figure in a similar scenario in the UK, how many seconds the CPS would have paused before breaking into gales of laughter and tearing up the charge sheet.
why will assange not allow himself to be questioned for the charges of rape and is he being sought for rendition by the united states.
If the rape charges were dropped then what would his situation be?
Yeah, CE, unlike the UK threatening to break the Vienna Convention on the status of embassies.
@Will K – by your admission, you disapprove of Wikileaks. That’s not really the question here, but from this view you have reversed-engineered another view, which is that Assange should suffer for an unrelated reason. As I keep having to say, it is quite possible to disapprove of Wikileaks whilst being concerned about the evident covert machinations to have Assange extradited to the US.
@CE – I should be interested, genuinely, in your answers to my questions.
Completely disagree CE – Ecuador are only showing the asylum system for what it has become, which is just a tool for the west to try and take the moral high-ground. They are playing us at our own game.
Agreed Komodo. Not the right move by the UK gov, but does not excuse Ecuador and JA’s behaviour either.
Press Freedom Index.
Sweden = 12th
Ecuador = 104th
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index
CE, Assange is under threat of being treated like Bradley Manning, who has been in solitary confinement for over 800 days, and is shackled for his brief exercise periods, etc. etc.
“Allowing a common criminal to claim PA is a gross insult to the many people around the world who are actually in danger of political repression on a daily basis.”
Are you a common cunt ?
Assange has repeatedly stated that he will consent to be questioned
27 September. After lingering in Sweden for five weeks, Julian
Assange departs for Germany and then England, with Ms. Ny’s
consent. On the same day, she issues a secret warrant for his arrest
(see “Abuse of Office by Prosecutor Ny” on page 31).
When Julian Assange departs from Sweden:
• He has still not been interviewed by prosecutor Ny, despite
repeated attempts to arrange a mutually agreeable time.
• He has not been provided with a precise description of the
alleged behaviour which Ms. Ny regards as criminal.
• He has not been provided with any information about the case
in his own language, as required by a European treaty to which
Sweden is a party.
Here’s his lawyer:
I have [since] been in fairly continuous
dialogue with the prosecutor’s office, offering
that Mr. Assange would voluntarily
undergo interrogation in any number of
ways from London. I said that he could
answer police questions by telephone, by
video link (at his own expense), by Skype
or by attending at Scotland Yard’s interview
suite or at the Swedish embassy in London
or by providing an answer on affidavit to
written questions.… I have never been
given a sensible reason by the prosecutor
for rejecting [these alternatives].…
I have read suggestions that Ms. Ny has
made in the press that it would be contrary
to Swedish law to interview him abroad.
This is wrong, because there is no such law.
And please READ the above .pdf link.
Clark,
No he isn’t.
It would be easier for the US to extradite JA from the UK than Sweden.
This is an untruth put forward by JA and his cheerleaders to expand the myth of JA and Wikileaks.
Alright JimmyGiro, not helpful. Let’s have a debate here, not an insulting match.
Komodo, indeed. Hopefully that will help make clear, in the understanding of opponents of Wikileaks, that Assange himself is not on the run from sexual misconduct allegations. He has given the Swedes plenty of time to speak with him, and they’ve responded with secrecy and awkwardness for a great deal longer than the world’s public is aware of.
I don’t think that’s clear at all, CE. I am tending towards the view that his own legal advice is saying the opposite, and – as far as I can tell – they are only acting in the interests of their client, as they should.
CE, Assange had to remain physically free in order claim political asylum by presenting himself at a country or an embassy; he could not have done that from custody.
Anna Ardin is a key part of the conspiracy to torpedo Wikileaks and guarantee impunity for crimes past, current and future.
In order to protect itself the Empire seeks full spectrum dominance. Control of the media and sources of news and information are of cardinal importance.
Wikileaks presented a real threat to a system which has been based on crude lies since the beginning of the Cold War in 1948.
As Assange showed truth is a very powerful weapon; the clouds of lies surrounding the imperial wars were easily dissipated, and the credibility of the US government, and its sordid satrapies, was dramatically reduced by the publication of Wikileaked information.
To defend Wikileaks from, characteristically, a campaign of lies and misinformation the truth has to be told. And the truth is that Anna Ardin is not the victim of rape but an asset of the most evil institutions, in an Empire more criminal and dangerous than any other in history, bent on suppressing the truth and subjecting its citizens to rule by lies and liars.
Not to identify Ardin’s role in this conspiracy would be to mislead the people and to assist their enemies.
Jay: Assange is not charged with rape, or for that matter manslaughter.
Additionally, Hague would be courting domestic electoral disaster if the US pulled him directly from here on what would have to be a trumped-up charge. The Swedes have history for being accommodating, and in any case the EAW would have to be dealt with before another state pushed its snout in.
Re. “common criminal”, CE…while we’re promoting the human rights of some rather promiscuous young ladies, whatever happened to the good old Little England principle of “innocent until proven guilty”?
What Murray and his coalition of disdain have failed to justify is why Mr Assange is not prepared to face due process in Sweden. Sweden is a country with an open, fair and just legal system. If the allegations are a sting, as Murray and co believe, Assange will be found innocent.
Presumably Murray, Galloway and Co would advise against all travel to Sweden on the basis of the corrupt nature of its legal system.
JW, Assange could not risk surrendering his physical freedom, due to the threat of a US case and extradition.
Will K,
“Nasafitou Diallo concerned the DSK case – the BBC could name her as their was no serious indication that the British left would start hounding her to check the genuiness of her accusations. French politics are not an over-riding concern of the British left.”
I think you’re misreading a growing global consciousness of moral interest in stories that now don’t adhere to localised geopolitical spheres of influence as they once did.The internet has driven this change and global awareness.
“Christine Assange”
.
http://www.news.com.au/world/ecuador-to-announce-assange-asylum-britain-threat-to-raid-embassy/story-fndir2ev-1226451503293
JW,
“What Murray and his coalition of disdain have failed to justify is why Mr Assange is not prepared to face due process in Sweden. Sweden is a country with an open, fair and just legal system.If the allegations are a sting, as Murray and co believe, Assange will be found innocent.
Presumably Murray, Galloway and Co would advise against all travel to Sweden on the basis of the corrupt nature of its legal system.”
Sorry but you’re either being deliberately selective by riffing on a singular dimension of the case whilst eschewing appreciation of the multiple interwoven dynamics or are just missing the whole point entirely.
The essence of this case is that the Swedish system may not be reliable or trustworthy at all due to US pressure upon it,thereby wholly endangering Assange’s chances of a fair trial.
Also fun:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/lawyer-for-assange-accusers-has.html
Another Swedish prosecution under Bodstrom’s aegis. Note the prosecutor’s change of mind. Note the lack of transparency. Note the connection to US companies:
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/08/peter-brokep-sunde-railro.html
I once had a great dinner party with CE and begged CE to stay over at my place. CE is one of the coolest!
I’ve looked over the comments section again and I now feel that CE has raped me.
I feel like CE is the greatest ever; lets have a “crayfish party” for CE.
Now that the “crayfish party” is over will anyone come with me to the police and assist me in filling a rape complaint against CE?
I’m sure that if we do not act now, or until after the next “crayfish party” in CE’s honor, CE is bound to rape again!
Think of the children please!
CE is a potential RAPIST!!!!
I can anticipate the potential of CE’s rapey comments even now.
So the entire Swedish Justice System is proven as unreliable and untrustworthy, purely for having the cheek to investigate claims of rape against JA?
You’re tying yourself in knots here, merely to defend to the indefensible.
“I have always stood for justice and freedom.” (Except in Sweden)
I wouldn’t worry about it. Never mind the politics and the censorship, the Newsnight guy comes across as a patriarchal jerk, the kind of man who still looks down on women as the weaker sex. It is this kind of patriarchalism that has been routinely abused by women’s groups (who give a really bad name to feminism) so as to advance their angry anti-men and anti-father campaigns. They need money for those campaigns, and so high profile cases like this quite naturally will be jumped on by them.
Glenn Greenwald on Twitter:
Strange mystery: if extradition to Sweden has nothing to do with US, why does the WashPost want sanctions on Ecuador? is.gd/wU68kO
Link goes to dailykos.com/story/2012/08/21/1122440/-WaPo-s-Tacit-Threat-to-Ecuador-for-Granting-Assange-Asylum