Julian Assange: A Misogyny Round Up.

I shouldn’t have to do this, but I thought with all of the nonsense, abuse and spite which is being flung around in defence of Julian Assange, it seemed best to do a misogyny round up, of sorts.

If readers know of any good commentary, intelligent, not full of slippery obfuscation or Assange apologists please let me know inthesoupagain@gmail.com or comment below.

Assange’s abuse of the refugee system is highlighted at the Legal Feminist blog:

“However, on the particular subject of Assange’s asylum claim, I’m staggered that it succeeded. Had it been made by a (non rich, non white, non celebrity) in the UK it would almost certainly not have done.

When a person applies for asylum they must show that there is a ‘real risk’ that they will face persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a social group. Assange had said he feared the death penalty in America. However, America has not asked for him, despite the fact that he was more easily extraditable from the UK than he would have been from Sweden. I can’t imagine how he would show that Sweden would hand him over, in contravention of the ECHR to which they are a signatory, to face the death penalty. I don’t even think that he can show the Swedish case is persecutory, unless Sweden is the most incompetent agent of persecution in the world; the prospects of a conviction for rape are just too low. If they’d wanted to lock him up they’d have taken a leaf out of certain other countries’ books and charged him with a hugely complex fraud, bolstered with faked figures.

I think this makes a mockery of the Refugee Convention. There are refugees in the UK who genuinely need asylum and can’t get it, because they can’t prove their cases to the requisite standard. Still, let’s hope this wave of pro-asylum-seeker feeling translates into more sympathetic consideration of others’ claims.”

Cath Elliott on Assange, and feminism’s so-called male allies:

“That’s the narrative that suggests that Assange’s two accusers are part of some CIA inspired honey-trap and that the great man himself is the only victim here – a victim of some dark and covert plot. It’s also a narrative that says, yet again, that women who accuse men of rape are not to be believed, and that the rights of important men doing important work should trump a woman’s right to justice.

Declaring a man to be innocent of rape and other crimes of sexual violence, purely on the grounds that he’s been engaged in important work that many of us would like to see continued, while discounting women’s testimonies and women’s concerns in the process, is just the same old same old, men protecting men protecting men. What a shame then that in any other context so many of those men would be declaring themselves our comrades and feminist allies.”

For those still in denial, the Guardian covered Assange’s actions last year:

“”AA tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and try to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”

The Atlantic Wire examined Assange’s view of Sweden:

“”Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.” and “”I fell into a hornets’ nest of revolutionary feminism.”

Feministing commented in 2010:

“Not ok, dude. If you think it’s fine to penetrate a woman when she’s asleep, without a condom when she’s explicitly stated that she has not agreed to unprotected sex, respond with a line as god awful as that, and still claim to be positively baffled by the complaints against you, I really can’t help you.

We don’t know if Assange is guilty of these allegations. But between these quotes, his truly terrible OkCupid profile, and the leaked excerpts from his diaries, I, for one, am ready to definitively conclude that–at the very least–Assange is a huge tool. And supporters of “revolutionary feminism” worldwide should probably boycott having sex with him ever again. “

I suppose Assange couldn’t be more offensive and misogynistic, if he tried. Oh, I forgot Assange has, er, issues with Jews according to Ian Hislop:

“Julian Assange has blamed a number of journalists for a “Jewish” conspiracy against his whistleblowing website, WikiLeaks, according to the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop.

In the latest issue of the satirical magazine, Hislop writes that Assange called him on 16 February to complain about an article on Israel Shamir, a WikiLeaks associate in Russia who has denied the Holocaust and has published a string of antisemitic articles.

“He said that I and Private Eye should be ashamed of ourselves for joining in the international conspiracy to smear WikiLeaks,” Hislop writes. “The piece was an obvious attempt to deprive him and his organisation of Jewish support and donations, he said angrily, and he knew perfectly well who had written it. He then named a Fleet Street hack who had nothing to do with it.”

Hislop adds that Assange went on to claim that Private Eye was “part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom ‘are Jewish'”.

“I pointed out that Rusbridger is not actually Jewish, but Assange insisted that he was ‘sort of Jewish’ because he was related to David Leigh (they are brothers-in-law),” writes Hislop.

“When I doubted whether his Jewish conspiracy would stand up against the facts, Assange suddenly conceded the point. ‘Forget the Jewish thing’.” “

James Ball’s Israel Shamir and Julian Assange’s cult of machismo illustrates how Assange is seemingly at ease in the company of antisemites:

“Shamir has a years-long friendship with Assange, and was privy to the contents of tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables months before WikiLeaks made public the full cache. Such was Shamir’s controversial nature that Assange introduced him to WikiLeaks staffers under a false name. Known for views held by many to be antisemitic, Shamir aroused the suspicion of several WikiLeaks staffers – myself included – when he asked for access to all cable material concerning “the Jews”, a request which was refused.

When questions were asked about Shamir’s involvement with WikiLeaks, given his controversial background and unorthodox requests, we were told in no uncertain terms that Assange would not condone criticism of his friend. Instead, a mealy-mouthed statement distancing WikiLeaks from its freelancers was issued. Still later, when damning evidence emerged that Shamir had handed cables material to the dictator of Belarus – a man he holds in high esteem – to assist his persecution of opposition activists, Assange shamefully refused to investigate. “

Andrew Brown’s background to WikiLeaks and Israel Shamir.

Searchlight on Israel Shamir.

Finally, Why is there so much misogyny online? and Online Misogyny: Can’t Ignore It, Can’t Not Ignore It.

Update 1: This fine contribution by Rhiannon Hedge deserves a wider audience:

“Nevertheless, commentary on Assange’s attempts to avoid being extradited to Sweden centres around whether or not Sweden would allow him to be shipped off to the US and possibly face the death penalty for espionage for his work in a rather famous organisation called Wikileaks. European Court of Human Rights and Swedish law on the extradition of people facing a death penalty or torture is explained here by Swedish foreign ministry spokesperson Anders Joerle. The twittersphere, blogsphere and other platforms for ‘liberal lefties’ have also been abuzz with the assertion that the women accusing Assange of sexual assault are government plants and it’s all a big ploy to get him on US soil, via Sweden.

The real news is that none of this should ever have been such big news. This is the horribly familiar theme and narrative of alleged rape cases that happen everywhere, all the time – this one just made it on to the international stage because of the legend status of the man accused, and his attempt to hide behind international conspiracy theories to avoid normal legal process.

Rapists can be rich, powerful, good looking, charity workers, family men with charming personalities, articulate men with good careers and a close relationship with their mother. And yes, a rapist could be the leader of a movement that redefines media freedom- although of course I accept that he has not been convicted. That’s something that should probably be decided in a Swedish courtroom, not judged or dismissed on the basis of Assange’s ‘freedom warrior’ status. “

Update 2: Tanya Gold’s Have you heard the one about rape? It’s funny now, shows how attitudes to women haven’t really changed much.

23 thoughts on “Julian Assange: A Misogyny Round Up.

  1. Dusty, hells most vocal bitch 19/08/2012 / 19:49

    I think he should held accountable to the charges made by the females, and I am a female, but that doesn’t change the fact that our government has labeled him a terrorist. If that were true, the New York Times and every other news agency that printed wikileaks stuff should be labeled the same. To me, they are two different issues and I fully support holding him accountable for the rape charges.

  2. soupyone 19/08/2012 / 20:07

    That’s all people are asking, for Assange to face his victims.

    For Assange to explain his conduct.

    Incidentally, I do not believe that the British or Swedish Government have labelled him a terrorist, plus the chances of extraditing him to the US via Sweden are lessened. It is far, far easier to extradite someone from UK to US, directly.

  3. Dusty, hells most vocal bitch 19/08/2012 / 20:14

    The Swedes are not immune from extraditing him as as long as we say we won’t kill him..and I think one of the reasons he went to the Ecuadorean Embassy is because he realized the UK could extradite him to the US very easily. It’s an issue fraught with conundrums…you have to admit that.

    I admit fully he is a publicity fuckwit to the fullest, but still, that does not mean our govt wants his ass badly..if for nothing more than another item to fill all the Corporate News cycles. Takes our minds off the real problems we have here at home, at least they hope it would.

    Great blog btw..signed up for email updates on new posts. 😉

  4. soupyone 19/08/2012 / 20:34

    Under Swedish law he could not be extradited for political reasons, or the possibility of inhumane treatment, including capital punishment, etc

    Plus the fact any extradition would require the permission of the British government.

    It would be far easier, given the unequal nature of the extradition treaty in force in Britain, to extradite him directly to America from London, but that’s not being done.

    So it is all smoke and mirrors concerning Sweden, they rank very highly in terms of humane countries, with an independent judiciary,etc and yet Assange supporters would often have us believe that Sweden is akin to Gitmo with bicycles. Not true.

  5. Dusty, hells most vocal bitch 19/08/2012 / 20:59

    Oh I totally agree that Sweden is more humane than we are, but to label him a terrorist is pure bs and yet the biggest Corporate News sites printed all of Wikileaks emails…so why the hell aren’t they also being labeled terrorists..its all political imho.

    Here is what I found about extradition from the UK and Sweden: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#WSJA

    Might go into your spam bin depending on how your blog is set up. 😉

  6. soupyone 19/08/2012 / 21:07

    Two blindingly obvious points:

    1. Sweden is not the US, what applies in the US does not apply in Sweden or Europe.

    2. Information coming from Assange partisans is hardly going to represent the true state of affairs, is it?

    Clearly, cynicism cuts both ways.

    The legal information that I have seen under European Convention on Human Rights, is that he could NOT be extradited for a capital offence or inhumane treatment.

    Secondly, under Swedish law he could not be extradited for a political offence.

    Surely, that covers most things?

  7. cranapia 19/08/2012 / 21:39

    Dusty, hells most vocal bitch:

    OK. I get you’re trying to reframe the discussion much as Assange and his apologists have, but can you cite anything in Swedish legislation, case law or any relevant convention/treaty Sweden is a signatory to that would allow the scenario you’re painting? Then again, we’re talking about people who were quite happy to spread the flat out LIE that in Sweden unprotected consensual sex is legally considered rape.

  8. Dusty, hells most vocal bitch 19/08/2012 / 21:48

    The site I linked to is not an Assange site..it lists the reasons Sweden will and will not extradite. It also gives reasons that the US could use to get their hands on him..personally..I don’t give a rats ass about Assange as he is NOT wikileaks..its a unit unto itself. I wrote about him recently as well..and frankly it got the least amount of comments, so very few people are giving a shit about him which is probably why he is opening his piehole if you think about it. He is a publicity fuckwit as I said before..and needs to face the music when it comes to the charges made by the two females. No one should get away with harrassment or rape of a woman..no one. But look at that fucker from France who managed to get away with molesting the woman in NYC..yet there were women all over the world who had the same story about him being a POS and going after hotel maids. Money..lots and lots of money made the difference in that case, I swear.

  9. soupyone 19/08/2012 / 22:04

    Well, I have found, surprisingly a lot of mystifying misogyny connected with Assange.

    It is as if many treat him like a demi-God, who can do no ill and must always be given the benefit of the doubt, several times over.

    I am afraid I don’t cotton to that type of special pleading.

    Assange assaulted two women, he should answer for that, the rest is his ego and obfuscation.

  10. Dusty, hells most vocal bitch 19/08/2012 / 22:13

    I said he should have to answer for those crimes didn’t I? But I also think there are two different subjects here and I tried to approach both..sorry if I upset you by doing that. I understand what misogyny is, I write about it often and I do not buy into the stories about Sweden and their lack of laws against rape and/or molestation. Its a fucking felony right? If not it sure has hell should be. No, I am not familiar with their laws on this issue..I merely linked to a site that explained extradition from Sweden. I personally believe he is afraid of being extradited..that is my personal view. But he should STILL have to answer in a court of law for what he did to those two women.

  11. soupyone 19/08/2012 / 22:22

    Of course, he is afraid of being extradited, because it will ruin his image and even the most mindless of his culties would think twice about supporting (or giving him money).

    It is all about the “Assange” brand & poor Bradley Manning is rotting in a cell whilst Assange plays the media.

    Assange is a liability to Wikileaks, from the time he decided to work with the antisemite, Israel Shamir.

    The rest is just a matter of time. His ego has destroyed the potential of Wikileaks.

    PS: Might I suggest looking up Sweden, on all UN measures it is a fine, honest and decent country, much higher up the scales than Britain, US or even Canada.

  12. Dusty, hells most vocal bitch 19/08/2012 / 22:28

    Sweden is a great country, treats its citizens far better than we do ours. I think Wikileaks needs to cut themselves loose from Assange..and I have always thought that. But extraditing him as a terrorist to the US is wrong on every level as I said…the NYT, Reuters and others used Wikileaks material and printed it..so they should be considered terrorists too. That’s my only point really….that he ISNT a terrorist..a piece of shit,but not a terrorist.

  13. soupyone 19/08/2012 / 23:00

    “But extraditing him as a terrorist to the US is wrong on every level as I said…”

    But they are NOT.

    It is more likely now, than *if* he had gone to Sweden, but at least now he gets to play the martyr, whilst his victims are forgotten.

    Assange has broken Wikileaks. He’s the one to blame.

  14. rebeccalesses 20/08/2012 / 00:59

    I’d like some proof for the assertion that the US (I assume meaning some part of the US government) has labeled Assange a terrorist – in the form of a link to a direct quotation said by a named individual.
    I’d like to point out that the US has not requested to extradite him from Britain. Sweden has. He’s wanted for questioning on rape charges, not about publicizing classified information from the US. Try to focus on that fact, and the whole discussion can calm down.

  15. Dusty, hells most vocal bitch 20/08/2012 / 12:19

    All I did was bring up the other side of the coin here and never once did I disagree that Assange is a cretin misogynist.
    Biden has called him a terrorist. So has the asshole GOP turds by the handful..starting with Mitch baby. Google it.
    Emails hacked from the Stratfor security firm reveal that a sealed indictment against the WikiLeaks founder was issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia last year.

  16. soupyone 20/08/2012 / 12:28


    I have read the article in particular the bit: “WikiLeaks supporters point out that Assange has not been charged with any offense”

    Could you answer a question for me, can Assange supporters actually read?

    I find it hard to understand how such supporters, who presumably have been following these events the years, haven’t actually read the documents?

    If they had they would know that you get arrested and then you get charged.

    The sequence in Swedish criminal law is plainly outlined in the Assange judgement, it appears many Assange supporters haven’t even taken the troubled to read.

    And if you haven’t read the facts, then the analysis that follows will surely be faulty?

    So Dusty, do Assange supporters read?

  17. Dusty, hells most vocal bitch 20/08/2012 / 12:42

    I am not an Assange supporter, I am a wikileaks supporter.. I consider that different. So I would have no idea how to answer your sarcastic remark. I won’t bother you on your blog again as you don’t seem to hold my opinions in any regard other than bullshit being written by an Assange suppporter.

  18. soupyone 20/08/2012 / 13:17


    Twas genuine, if an annoyed question. I have exchanged messages with some highly intelligent Assange supporters (a human rights activist and a journalist) and neither of them had taken the elementary precaution of reading the relevant documents.

    So they spouted off nonsense which had already been dealt with.

    I noticed similar ignorance amongst Michael Moore and his friends.

    Surely, North Americans would be better served by not following Mitt Romney’s example and making an effort to read about Europe, its laws, these differences, etc before commenting?

    I know most Europeans try to familiarise themselves with American law, before commenting, but I’m not sure that many North American Assange supporters can be troubled to do that, the other way around.

  19. Paul 20/08/2012 / 18:23

    Aside from whether or not he is guilty, does anyone not find it odd that a government that has actively pursued repression of the press’ freedom to criticise its country’s president – and which received widespread criticism from the British and US press and politicians for doing so – is harbouring a man who has founded an organisation that dedicates itself to leaking sensitive political documents to the press? And that same government is now (conveniently) accusing the US and UK of undemocratically repressing freedom of speech. Or, for that matter, is it not suspicious that when Assange interviewed Ecuador’s President Correa a few weeks before walking into the Ecuadorian embassy, he agreed with Correa that the press has too much freedom to criticise politicians. Two hypocrites in a marriage of convenience – who needs values when your head’s on the chopping block, eh? Scumbags.

  20. Fingal 22/08/2012 / 22:21

    @Soupyone: “I find it hard to understand how such supporters, who presumably have been following these events the years, haven’t actually read the documents?

    If they had they would know that you get arrested and then you get charged.”

    Come on, you don’t arrest someone first, and then decide what to charge him with. Unless you’re a corrupt police department: “What’s the charge, officer?” “Oh, don’t worry, we’ll think of something!”
    When a warrant is issued for someone’s arrest, charges appear on it. You cannot be arrested on no charge. Sweden has not asked that Assange be extradited to answer *charges* of rape, because they don’t believe they have sufficient evidence to convince a UK court that those charges would be substantial. So they are asking that he be extradited for “questioning.”

    OK, so why can’t they question him in England?

  21. soupyone 22/08/2012 / 22:29


    I shouldn’t have to spell this out, its very clear from the documents, Swiss law is different from British law.

    The Swedes wish to arrest him, then he will be charged. That’s how their system works.

    He is not wanted for questioning, they wish to arrest him as the Court documents made very plain.

    Could I suggest you reread them?

    Please remember that not everyone has an American or British procedure when it comes to arresting and charging people for rape. The Swedes do it slightly differently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s