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.
CE, what evidence do you see that Assange is avoiding the Swedish proceedings rather than US extradition? All the evidence of Assange’s behaviour points the other way, does it not?
Smeggypants, when Andrew Marr took over the desk of Neal Ascherson on the Observer the quality of journalism sank from superb to mediocre.
O/T Can somebody please translate this. It is, I think, in Uzbek and appears to be about Gulnara Karimova, so might be interesting.
Sokh Anklav Гулнора опа сиз яна “Кипригимни бўяб, лабларимга бироз ялтир-юлтир қўйишга бир хотин сифатида ҳақим борми?” депсиз…
жуда хакингиз борда ким сизни буяшларингизга гап килди???хохлаганча буямайсизми?аммо далада ишлаётган минглаб миллионлаб узбек опажонларимиздан олиб гапирсак ундай макияж дунёда йук десангиз хам булади,сиз куйинг анави “COCO CHANEL-mademoiselle”ларни, сиз бир даладаги аёлларимизни олдига бориб макияжларига назар солинг…
Эсимда бор бир марта далага бориб,кушни аёл кизларимиз билан далани кок уртасида сухбат килиб колгандим,сухбат килиб утирган пайтимда елкамни кулим тегмайдигон жойини пашша тишлаб колди,роса кашлагим келиб тут дарахтига югираман десам,кушнимиз Эгам акани кизи тохтаб туринг мен кашлаб куйяман деб,бир кашлаб куйдилар,шилиб олгандай булди, эъ опа бул…ди буууулди Гулнора опа деб зурга тухтатдим,кейин нима билан кашладингиз деб сурасам, “эй мана ука кулимни курмаяпсизми? “деб кулларини курсатдилар,ёрилиб ёрилиб шувокдай каттик булиб колган, аммо худди Узбекистон чегараларига сим тортган симларингиздай куллари каттик шувокдай булган, мана сизга узбекона буяшлар…” l’oreal professionnel” savon créme билан роса 3 йил ювсалар кейин у куллари силлик булиб колиши мумкин,чунки далада умрбод тупрок ушаб пахта улгур деб жон куйдириб юрган миллат мехнаткаш опа сингилларимиз хам кам эмас..,уша опалар хам буйягиси келади ба умед дунёга келганку ахир…ёки улар учинчи сорт одам деб хиосбланганмисиз? Уларни буяишини ким уйлайди? Нима учун Европа далаларида бир дона аёл кишини курмайсиз? шохи борми Европа аёлларида? бизни аёларимиз качонгача далада кулларини ёрилтириб юрадилар? качонгача майда чуйда гаплар билан бир бирмизни камситиб юрамиз? Нима учун кишлок хужаликни замонавий техникалардан ишлашни жойига, бечора аёлларимиз етакни белга байлаб тинмайдилар? Майли айтайлик СССРда Москва мажбурлаб ота онамизни пахта ерларидан чикмайдигон килган десак,нимага халигача уша ахвол?халигача нимага кишлок хужалик ишлари аксарият узбек аёллидан ажрамаган??
Европага келгансиз макага кузиз тушган булса махсус апаратлар сув сепиб туради, унака кетмонни олиб сув хайдаб келай деган европалик аёлни умризда курмайсиз хам,бизда эса кечалари ухламасдан кетмонни елкага куйиб сув хайдаб юрадигон аёлларимиз ачиб ётибти…Нимага хана хунна нарсаларга кизикасизу хакикиы узбекона хаётимизни узгартиришга кизикмайсиз? сиз лакиённый музани кийволиб дала сахроларга сафар килиб озгина улар билан сухбатлар утказиб ута даражада керакли уларга кишлок хужаликка доир нарсалар билан таъминлашга жуда хма курбингиз етади ва сизни фойдангиз хам жуда яхшику ахир..
Фармацевтика ва Медицинани ривожлантиринг!!! Агар эътибор берган булсангиз аптекачиларимиз бозоркумга ухшаб колган,находки дори дармонларни хам олиб сотарлик килиб куйган булсангиз? устига пул куйиб “российскийда ака” бу дори деб сотишади махтаб???? Кайси давлатда фармацевт ишчиси махтаб дорини сотганини кургансиз? Фармацевт махтаб эмас рекомендация ва кандай истеъмол килиш кераклигини айтмасдан Россиядан келган дорисини махтаб сотмокда бунга нима деб жавоб берасиз???
Духтирхоналар эса бундан баттар,эхе хатто дехкончиликимиз девзира гуручгача главный врачга олиб бориб кейин апендицитни олиб ташаймиз… шу нарсаларга Всеобщая Медицинская Страховка чип карталарни ташкилаб хар бир фукарони кулига “carte VITAL” ни яхши биласиз шунака килиб беришга курбингиз етадику ахир!!!
Сиз бундай керакли нарсаларга эътибор бермасдан кераксиз нарсаларга вактингизни кетганингиздан ачинаман холос…Агар шундай хаётга зарур нарсаларни килганизда балким сизга бутун узбек халки кушиб ашула айтиб мазза килиб юрган булардик,хали хам кеч эмас,тахтдан кетмагансиз шу мен айтган камчиликларни чукур уйлаб курсангиз булади деган максадда ёзияпман холос,майли ишларизга омад клей ккотиб колди кафелимни боса колай…
Яхши кунларда куришайлик танкидимни тугри кабул киласиз деб умиддаман,Илойим аёлларимизни куллари ёрилмасин,силлик булсин дойим.. орзу умидларига етиб тинмай макияжчилар булсинлар,пахта далаларда эса тинмай махсус апаратлар ишласин! аптекаларда бозоркумга ухшаган аптекачи эмас,хакикий фармацевт специалистлар ишласин,духтриларимиз девзирани ойликларига сотиб олсинлар ва хоказо … Омин Аблоху Акбар!!!Йигитпирим кулласин Ва Баракатух суф!! суф !!
“Why the contradiction?”
One is white, one is black. Is it possible that they are being treated differently for that reason? There are other examples of what you might term indirect racism in the MSM. Eg Sometimes I read MSM stories about crimes and the person who was caught, and the colour of skin is mentioned if it is black, but not white.
“CE is concern trolling and has no real argument, just outrage. You keep asking it for supporting docs, and it moves on to the talking point.”
Ben, this is exactly what I am talking about. It’s all about getting on high-horses and ignoring all the counter-arguments.
I am not even saying that Assange is innocent. I just want people to look at the circumstances of the case and try to put themselves in Assange’s shoes. Why is this so difficult?
I see that my comment was placed in moderation for the first time. I trust I am not considered some sort of threat to the debate.
@VivaEcuador – no. We have a spam filter here, and it does occasionally catch real comments. Please be patient, every genuine contribution will be released!
VivaEcuador, the queueing system is automatic, and triggered by links and key words. Us moderators just release those comments; we don’t block them.
Clark/Jon:
Thanks guys! Actually, I’d rather be considered a danger than spam -)
Just watched Newsnight on Iplayer – with AA’s name blanked out. Craig should not be upset about his performance. Under the circumstances he did extremely well, and asking viewers to do their own online research, was extremely sensible as was giving a list of whistleblowers (including himself) who have been immediately smeared with sexual and other allegations following their revelations. I had no problem hearing what Craig was saying despite the bluster and overtalking.
Well done,
Tony
“I am not even saying that Assange is innocent.”
It is pretty clear to me he is innocent of criminal charges. Guilty maybe, of having casual sex with some unsuited admirers, oh what a fiend.
It’s very disappointing that the British press can’t produce something like the Four Corners doc.
On a related topic; “The Riots, In Their Own Words”, was another example of the BBC’s selective memory. No mention of Birmingham or the balls-up of the trial of those accused of the murder of 3 young men. This is another example of shoddy policing adding to well-established tensions. At least the Brum Mail has a vote:
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2012/08/20/birmingham-riots-thousands-back-calls-for-murder-retrial-97319-31656629/
Assange is guilty of ‘tickling the tail of the Dragon’, Ecuador. It’s the Cardinal sin for the governed who fail to swallow the flounder, whole.
Sexual misconduct is the fav manner for the Ruling Class to maintain their Order. If I blame Assange for anything, it’s Human Weakness.
Hey, I feel quite important. Either I’ve worried some powers that be, or something I don’t know about is preventing it, but when I search Google for my blog link to today’s post I cannot find it.
http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/breaking-news.html
I would appreciate it if others would try please.
“It is pretty clear to me he is innocent of criminal charges. Guilty maybe, of having casual sex with some unsuited admirers, oh what a fiend.”
Not according to the two victims, you remember them, two innocent women(presuming they’re not CIA agents)? Two women, who according to them, instructed him to use a condom, which he ignored. What a guy.
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml
N_ Do you mean this Margaret Hodge nee Oppenheimer?
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5434-sue-akers-arresting-phone-hackers-but-she-never-arrested-child-abusers-in-islington-in-the-1990s
Also on Wikipedia Child Abuse Controversy {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hodge}
CE, honestly, Read your link – http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml
”
STOCKHOLM/LONDON (Rixstep) — Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin arrived at the Klara police station in downtown Stockholm on Friday afternoon 20 August 2010. There are varying stories even from the girls themselves about what they were up to.
Thanks to a breach of office by prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, the bizarre story was a world sensation only a few hours later.
The chief claimant broke down when she heard her former lover was arrested in absentia and hunted on the streets of Stockholm. It’s not known if she ever completed her interrogation, had it read back, or approved it.
Chief prosecutor Eva Finné dismissed all allegations but one (and rescinded the arrest warrant) eight minutes short of twenty four hours later. The final allegation was to disappear sometime the following week. …
“
CE, are you referring to the Testimony of Sofia Wilén?
http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml
I really suggest you read that page. Wilén did not want Assange charged, and refused to sign the statement. She only wanted to make Assange to submit to an HIV test (which he later agreed he would, when he could schedule it). The evidence you’ve linked to also records that the police tried, unsuccessfully, to modify Wilén’s statement.
@CE:
I have read your link and the testimony of close friends of the 2 girls. What emerges is a confused picture. I don’t believe what happened is rape but I accept the girls may have been initially reluctant to complain about JA for the “greater good” of a cause that they admired.
But this still does not answer the questions about the grand jury, the Statfor emails, or Craig’s information from his contact within the FCO? Why are the American so interested in seeing Assange go to Sweden?
@Mary – yes, that’s the one. She is only the person I saw by the embassy today if she has changed her hairstyle back towards how it used to be, though! 🙂
Craig’s appearance on Newsnight was a put-up job from the start. The debate was carefully framed so that Craig immediately had to distance himself from Galloway’s (rather unhinged) diatribe, which was shown at the end of the report and then immediately returned to at the start of the debate. By putting Galloway’s version to Craig as if that represented his altogether more reasoned views, based, as they have been, on legal perspectives and a more detailed analysis of the allegations than has been attempted by almost any member of the establishment media (or George Galloway), he was immediately cast as a defender of rape.
The report itself was full of carefully crafted propaganda, focusing in on Che T-shirts outside the Embassy and spurious claims about Assange having “allied” himself with the Ecuadorian government and its human rights record. It’s subtle with the BBC, finely honed from decades of experience and warrants special attention. The substantial air-time given to Padre Reidy was to give ample opportunity for him to paint Assange as an ego-maniac. That he may be, but again it is playing the man and not the ball. The inclusion of Joan Smith was clearly designed to wrong-foot Craig by introducing a division of leftist opinion. Joan Smith was there to continually hammer home the idea that left-wingers have betrayed a left-wing cause and she returned to it time and again (“But my problem with this is how insulting it is that all these men – and it is mainly men – on the left are queuing up to cast aspersions on these women who are making very serious allegations of sexual wrong-doing”). I should think Craig was prepared to be put up against a genuine opponent of Wikileaks and not an establishment leftist shill there to re-route the debate down classic identity politics lines so favoured by the establishment left.
Craig was quickly shut up after he attempted to list examples of charges of a non-whistleblowing nature being brought against whistle-blowers shortly after the act of whistle-blowing, including those made against himself, at which point Esler had to shout him down with the usual “that’s a very clear point”. Then came the moment that Craig “named the victim” and the righteous indignation poured forth. This gave Esler and Smith the opportunity to present Craig as beyond the pale (“You see how little respect this man has for women who’ve made serious allegations?”). Esler then treated Craig like an errant schoolboy, waving his script at him, but anyone with half a shred of integrity can see that Craig is an honourable, decent, principled fellow who drew the worst out of the BBC that night. Esler asked Craig to “make a point” and he duly did, making the point that the woman had attended a party with Assange the day after the alleged rape, having turned down somebody else, and Esler immediately retorted: “I’m sure that’s all very interesting…”. An absolute disgrace from start to finish. Well done, Craig. I’m sure most people can see it for what it was.
And well observed Giles.
Excellent summary Giles.
Thank-you Giles for your clear insight. I have to admit crucifying myself that evening (and night) for failing to preempt the inevitable ruse.
@Giles – I didn’t watch the prog, so many thanks for this summary.
@Craig – arghh! I was going to respond to your statement that “Yet (the BBC) have a policy that Anna Ardin, the accuser of Julian Assange, must not be named – or investigated; by saying “either that, or they wanted to stitch you up”. If they had such a policy for honest reasons, they could have told you beforehand.
But that was before I learnt that they actually put George Galloway on the same programme, and tried to put it to you that you were saying the same as him!
What on earth did Galloway think he was doing? Surely he can’t be so thick? He looks very much like a man with a “false bottom” (двойное дно) as they say in Russia.
Some people posting here are demonstrating incredible naivete.
It seems they have not heard the expressions “justice is blind” and “the law is an ass.
Throw political agendas into the mix, and there is absolutely no possibility that Assange would get a fair trial in Sweden.
Only someone who knows nothing about law would have faith in the law.
That is the reason that he should fear having to go there. He would be tried, condemned as a rapist, Wikileaks and several other human rights ventures would be shut down because of their association with a rapist, and the powerful countries would go on waging wars and exploiting little guys like Equador.
I’m not going to be popular with this post here, but still, I do like to counter what tends to go as orthodoxy here.
1) I supported and support the disclosures made by Assange and Wikileaks. I absolutely agree they were in the public interest. I was disappointed when he suddenly decided to release the entire files without the intended anonymizations, but over all I think his actions were correct.
2) That does not make him an infallible saint. As much as we like Assange for what he did with WL, let’s please keep that apart from what he might do in his spare time. Someone can be a hero to wider society while being a misogynist “at home”. Someone can even be a hero and a petty or not so petty criminal. People are not just “good or bad”.
3) I don’t know whether he has committed rape or not. He should be presumed innocent until found guilty but he should NOT be deemed “innocent per se” and thus exempt from trial in a rule of law-abiding country.
4) Rape or sexual molestation is one of the most difficult crimes for people to bring to attention. Read some accounts from rape victims, read some studies which were made about this: Most people who were raped, especially if by someone they knew or thought to know well, don’t just wake up the next morning, walk straight to the police, tell everything and the whole truth. That’s not how the psychology of genuine rape victims works and the sooner we accept this the better.
From my limited experience in research on sexual violence, nothing of what I’ve read so far makes me believe these women could not be genuine rape victims. If you discover that someone whom you’ve met, whom you’ve liked even, whom you even had consensual sex with, in the end turns out to be someone who molests you or who forces you to unprotected sex, that will be a very disturbing discovery. You may think that it’s “your own fault” or something like that, you will in any case not walk straight to the police. The fact that they only went there together, and perhaps even needed encouragement from police to make a charge, is completely normal in rape cases.
5) If you hear hoofbeat, think of horses, not of zebras. What is more likely:
a) Julian Assange, whom most of us here (except Craig) don’t know (well) in person may be a misogynist guy and even a sexual predator.
b) The CIA set up a trap in a Scandinavian country, using someone whom the media and some Assange supporters keep describing as a ‘left-wing feminist’. Now, think about this for a moment: how many ‘left-wing feminists’ you know are ardent CIA fans? If you were a left-wing feminist and the CIA would approach you, would you say “Oh yeah, I’ll fake a rape incident, do incredible damage to the cause of all genuine rape victims, get a man into prison innocently, and all this just to further the cause of the neo-imperialist USA”? REALLY? For me, this story has very little credibility indeed.
My conclusion: JA should be treated just like everyone else against whom accusations of a crime are made: he should receive a fair trial in Sweden, his human rights should be guaranteed etc. But it doesn’t mean that he gets to choose how he is interrogated (Have you ever tried telling the British police / CPS “Oh yeah, you can talk to me on the phone for one hour, and then I’ll just hang up and that’ll be it, chaps…”?) and he doesn’t get special privileges for being a “hero”. The one and the other have, de iure and de facto, nothing to do with each other.
This got longer than it should so I’ll stop here. Just some food for thought.
Two women, who according to them, instructed him to use a condom, which he ignored. What a guy.
Yeah the fucking dildo did not operate as per the dial setting.
These are the kind of women who are at the roots of convenience homosexuality, any self respecting man would rather make love to himself, and or his own gender to get away from the harridans of this sort.
Instructed! fucking instructed! It says it all, it is a fucking power trip for these women and not a shag mate.
Sweden indeed is the Wallenbergs private playing field, with these kinds of rape laws every man in Sweden is a criminal awaiting his turn in jail.
Michael:
Forget the popularity. As fas as I am concerned, you are raising important issues,
My question is simple: In your opinion, is it possible that Assange is guilty of “legal” rape and being set up for extradition to the United States?
Well said Michael.
Disgusting post from Fedup, is that sort of stuff allowed on here?
Every woman has a right to protect herself from disease and infection.