Assange Accuser May Have Ceased Co-operating

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
"Anna Ardin, one of the two complainants in the rape and sexual assault case against WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, has left Sweden, and may have ceased actively co-operating with the Swedish prosecution service and her own lawyer, sources in Sweden told Crikey today.

The move comes amid a growing campaign by leading Western feminists to question the investigation, and renewed confusion as to whether Sweden has actually issued charges against Assange. Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, and the European group Women Against Rape, have all made statements questioning the nature and purpose of the prosecution.

Ardin, who also goes by the name Bernardin, has moved to the West Bank in the Palestinian Territories, as part of a Christian outreach group, aimed at bringing reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis. She has moved to the small town of Yanoun, which sits close to Israel’s security/sequestration wall. Yanoun is constantly besieged by fundamentalist Jewish settlers, and international groups have frequently stationed themselves there.

Attempts by Crikey to contact Ardin by phone, fax, email and twitter were unsuccessful today.

Ardin’s blog has restarted after a fortnight hiatus, and her twitter feed has restarted after a two-month break. The twitter feed appears to be commenting on her ongoing profile in the media with the latest entry reading: “CIA agent, rabid feminist / Muslim lover, a Christian fundamentalist, frigid & fatally in love with a man, can you be all that at the same time …

The previous tweet appears to extend support to WikiLeaks, after financial agencies withdrew their services, reading “Mastercard, Visa and Paypal — hit it, now!”*

One source from Ardin’s old university of Uppsala reported rumours that she had stopped co-operating with the prosecution service several weeks ago, and that this was part of the reason for the long delay in proceeding with charges — and what still appears to be an absence of charges.

News of Ardin/Bernardin’s departure comes as reports circulate of Ardin’s connection to the right-wing Cuban exile community in Miami, something that Crikey readers learnt of months ago. The reports have helped fuel wilder conspiracy theories about the nature of Ardin’s involvement with WikiLeaks and Assange.

A former politics student who had done internships at Sweden’s DC embassy, Ardin completed her thesis on Cuban political opposition groups, many of whom have involvement — and funding — from the US interests section, the only US diplomatic representation in Cuba. Ardin initially began her research in Havana and left after being advised that her position was no longer safe. She completed the research in Miami.

However, it seems more likely that the Cuban episode is part of the same political nomadism that led her to WikiLeaks. An office holder with the Social Democratic party’s Christian “brotherhood” faction, Ardin is active in a range of causes from Latin America to animal liberation.

Ardin’s move and confusion over her involvement and the real status of the charges against Assange come as the campaign questioning the charges against him has come to include a number of leading feminist activists. Naomi Klein tweeted that:

“R-pe is being used in the #Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up! #wikilieaks”

While in The Huffington Post, Naomi Wolf posted a (quite funny) article asking Interpol to apprehend every date she’s had who turned out to be a narcissistic jerk.

In The Guardian Karin Axelsson of Women Against R-pe questioned why Assange’s case was being pursued more assiduously than cases of r-pe judged more serious (Sweden has three degrees of severity for r-pe charges).

These moves are evidence of the situation your correspondent suggested in Crikey yesterday — that the Assange case is proving to be the final process by which the second-wave feminist coalition formed in the late 1960s splits substantially, with feminists with differing attitude to Western state power finding themselves on different sides of the debate.

Indeed, it puts one in the unusual position of saying that commentators such as Wolf are being too anti-complainant in their construction of the charges as nothing other than a couple of bad dates. It’s a strange world, and getting stranger.

The lawyer for Ardin and Wilen, the two complainants, has hit back at attacks and criticism of his clients, saying that they had been put on trial and effectively assaulted twice. He claimed to be in daily contact with the women, which suggests that he has a better reception to Yanoun than many of its inhabitants have to the outside world.

Even if the case comes to trial, the prospects of conviction look slim. Crikey asked Flinders University s-x crime law expert Dr Mary Heath to go over the charges (which may still be accusations at this stage) as they were relayed in Assange’s extradition bail hearing, and she made the following comments:

“Practically speaking, I would not like the chances of the prosecutor on charge 3 — pressing his erect p-nis into the complainant’s back … legally speaking I would have to suggest the chances of conviction would be slim for any Australian offence where both accused were adults. Proving non consent might be difficult but proving awareness of non consent would be even harder.

“Charges 1 and 2 (holding partner down, and unsafe s-x despite earlier expressed opposition to such) involve contexts where there would be room for defence argument about consent. On charge 1, when is one person ‘holding down’ another person lying beneath them, and when are they simply having consensual s-x in a position involving one person being on top of the other person? Is this force or just rough but consensual (compared to cases I’ve read, the allegation would hardly count as rough).

“On charge 2, prior unwillingness is not enough, the complainant must not be consenting and the accused must be aware of this ‘at the time of int-rcourse’. Did complainant one change her mind? Did Assange believe she changed her mind, and perhaps on reasonable grounds the charge does not disclose?

“On charge 4 (s-x while complainant was sleeping), recent experience in South Australia suggests this also could be difficult to prove if there was any kind of s-xual interaction prior to the complainant falling asleep, which might give the defence a plausible argument that belief in consent was present. I was deeply unimpressed by the level of protection the courts (let alone public attitudes) offered to people who are asleep or unconscious due to drugs/alcohol.

“… The one thing that is clearer, perhaps, is that the charges may turn on withdrawal of consent once a s-xual act had commenced. The law of almost every jurisdiction in Australia would recognise withdrawal of consent after a s-xual act commenced as rendering that s-xual act non consensual (and therefore r-pe). As for proving it … I reiterate what I said about proof previously.”

The Guardian reports that former Crown Prosecution Service extradition expert Raj Joshi said that extradition was unlikely:

“On what we know so far, it is going to be very difficult to extradite. The judge has to be satisfied that the conduct equals an extraditable offence and that there are no legal bars to extradition.

“Assange’s team will argue, how can the conduct equal an extraditable offence if the [Swedish] prosecutor doesn’t think there is enough evidence to charge, and still has not charged.”

This has added to speculation that the Swedish moves, which have coincided with the release of the Cablegate stories, are politically motivated as stalling tactics, allowing Assange to be detained while the US “prepares an extradition/rendition request”, according to Assange’s UK lawyer Mark Stephens.

* I might have that completely wrong. The Swedish is “Mastercard, Visa och paypal — skärp er, nu!” I’m happy to be corrected."

Original Article:

Assange Accuser May Have Ceased Co-operating
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Not to dispute the blogger but did anyone think that maybe the swedes are following their process and maybe nothing will come about the complaints?

I do love the little bit of info that was thrown in - “R-pe is being used in the #Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up! #wikilieaks”

Idiots.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I do love the little bit of info that was thrown in - “R-pe is being used in the #Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up! #wikilieaks”

With respect to "women's freedom in Afghanistan" thing - are you aware of what is being referred to ?
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Maybe, why don't you tell us?
Greg,

I'd have to hunt around online and try and dig it up. Was something I read about at least a year or more ago.

I won't go into to it and try and explain it right now without having something I can refer you to, because my grasp on it isn't good enough to do so.

Suffice it to say, if you thought the "little bit" was merely some offhand comment, that would be incorrect - there is something that is being referred to.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well see I may look at it as the statement that we invaded as the excuse to rescue women as it seems like on the surface - I don't know what they mean and I think it is an idiotic statement to make. Maybe we did invade for that reason but I thought it was to end the regime that did a lot of damage to rights of individuals, not just women.

The last time I looked, a lot of changes that were made by the US and our allies, which seem not what I would classify as an excuse, like Women having the right to actually hold jobs or better yet VOTE.

If we are going to be judged by the hatred of others when we make to do something for other, like helping others achieve what we have, then maybe it would be the prudent thing to remove ourselves completely from the world stage and let things fall apart again.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Greg,

It's now coming back to me a little bit .....

Well see I may look at it as the statement that we invaded as the excuse to rescue women as it seems like on the surface - I don't know what they mean and I think it is an idiotic statement to make.
There were those (some women IIRC) who at one point were going around making a big deal and flapping their gums about how we should be instituting "democratic reforms" and "democratic institutions" .... "women's rights" ..... etc. in Afghanistan.

If I recall correctly, it was various Hollywood twits on the left doing this (although there may well have been some on the right) .... the problem was that they were viewing strictly from their own perspective of what was "right" ..... and they didn't take into account that the culture of the people they wanted to enforce it on was different than their own.

Enforcement of ones own culture and values on another people is not freedom.

Maybe we did invade for that reason but I thought it was to end the regime that did a lot of damage to rights of individuals, not just women.
Hmmmmm .... I thought it was to track down and eliminate Bin Laden and Al Qaeda ....

The last time I looked, a lot of changes that were made by the US and our allies, which seem not what I would classify as an excuse, like Women having the right to actually hold jobs or better yet VOTE.
Yup - the changes were made by the US and/or our allies - not really by the Afghan people - except to the point of having a significant, heavily armed force in their midst that was "suggesting" that they "ought" to do so ....

If we are going to be judged by the hatred of others when we make to do something for other, like helping others achieve what we have, then maybe it would be the prudent thing to remove ourselves completely from the world stage ......
I'm quite sure that's exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world" - George Washington's Farewell Address

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." - Inaugural Pledge of Thomas Jefferson

What we have is available to all - should they choose to adopt it.

Enforcing it at the point of a bayonet or at the end of a rifle barrel is likely to have a different outcome than many are hoping for.
 
Last edited:
Top