Thursday 23 August 2012

The Assange debate leads down a blind alley

I’ve spent a fair bit of the last few days following the debate surrounding WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as he remains holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Over that time I have become increasingly dismayed at the way this has proceeded, and in particular how the British left has been split down the middle over the issue. I have been angry too at how the level of debate has sunk so low. I find it hard to remember an issue that has proved so divisive, and that has driven journalists and writers whose work I otherwise respect to contribute such poor analysis and resort so easily to name-calling—and I’ve been around a bit.

When talking of Assange supporters or critics we clearly need to be aware that each of these broad categories covers a wide range of opinion. Nonetheless his supporters generally have in common the claim that he would be in grave danger if he were to be extradited to the USA on charges relating to WikiLeaks’ activities, and that such an extradition would be the likely outcome of his being returned first to Sweden to face allegations of rape so this must be avoided at all costs. His critics meanwhile have grasped the tendency of some of their opponents to downplay the rape accusations in one way or another and to appeal to the existing laws of Sweden and the UK to prove that he must return to Sweden. This they do with a mixture of complacency and lack of interest in the possibility that the USA may also become involved. Sadly it doesn’t rise much above that.

What has probably angered me most in the debate has been the way two principles have been counter-posed: as if we are being forced by this issue to choose which trumps which—women’s rights or freedom of speech. From where I am though it seems pretty clear. Assange should be protected from the probable attempts by the USA to extradite him. For me there is no doubt that they would like to use him through something akin to a show-trial to demonstrate what happens to those who reveal the truth about their actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. If this were to be allowed to happen it would be a massive blow against the principle of free speech and it must be resisted. Does that mean we should be happy to see him escape the allegations in Sweden? Definitely not. They are very serious and he must be made to answer them, whether that happens by Sweden undertaking to resist US extradition requests or the legal process happening, partially at least, in a third country. Anyone who supports the principles of free speech and women’s rights should unite to ensure that both of these come to pass.

So just why are so many convinced that they are being forced into making this choice? It seems to be the result of three combined factors which together create a poisonous climate in which a proper debate cannot take place.

The first of these is the specific allegations made in Sweden. The sexual nature of these is guaranteed to drive a wedge between campaigners. It has also allowed a climate of misogyny to enter the debate as many of Assange’s defenders try to minimise the seriousness of these and has led in turn to the accusation from many of his critics that pretty much everyone who defends him from possible US intervention, irrespective of the merit of their arguments, is a rape apologist.

The second factor is the personalisation of the issue around Assange himself. The sneering at the balcony appearance and other various judgements on his character have no place in this debate. They are irrelevant. This isn’t centrally about Julian Assange. This is about two central principles. If we get it right in this case the fight for both of those principles could be massively strengthened. Get it wrong—and that’s where we are heading right now—and one, or more likely both, will be weakened.

Finally I have been angered by the way that so much of the so-called debate has been conducted on the basis of existing law. Liberal lawyer David Allen Green has become the spokesperson for this tendency through his recent New Statesman article and this has been dutifully quoted from numerous times to conclude that the existing law can be the only arbiter of what happens. But this misses the crucial point that the law remains in the last resort not a neutral force, standing above politics, but a tool for the maintenance of existing power structures. No-one who has been involved in an industrial dispute can deny this. But this week I have been witnessed otherwise respectable figures on the left stagger up to the insurmountable barrier of the law over whether Swedish police could come to the UK to interview Assange. Or whether Sweden would extradite him anyway. The otherwise brilliant journalist Owen Jones in his article in The Independent, while correctly demanding that Assange stands trial is particularly complacent on these points.

The combination of these three factors has led the British left down a total blind alley, where spiteful name-calling has replaced genuine debate. My plea now is for all who want to see justice served wise up and help see this through to a progressive end. This impasse could be solved if the political will was there and people who want to see justice served for Assange’s alleged victims whilst maintaining the right of freedom of speech stood up together and demanded it.

Comments

Sunday 26 August 2012

Amanda Martin

Each time I read this I am more impressed with it. Maybe it should be you writing in the Guardian. David Alllen Green recently suggested that \\\"the question is whether the risk posed to Assange of being extradited to the US outweighs due process in Sweden.\\\" Who does this cost/ benefit analysis and on what legal basis does David Allen Green suggest this? I ask because surely to take the threat of extradition into account when deciding whether Assange should face \\\"due process\\\" is what his supporters have been advocating all along? I would ask him myself but have been ejected from his Twitter page for insubordination.

Wednesday 5 September 2012

Gill Thorburn

I had been wondering myself how the Left, among whose guiding principles should be to take a critical and sceptical view of 'the law', have suddenly developed this touching level of faith in 'due process'. This coming hot on the heels of huge amounts of them rolling over with delight because a show (the olympic opening ceremony) made some references to the 'struggle' of the people. It was only a show fgs *throws up hands*. Similarly there is an element of 'spectacle' to the Assange case - a show of force by two states, (and one almost certainly waiting their turn in the wings). Oh dear, Left, what's happened to your critical faculties?

Adding comments has now expired for this post.

Recent posts

Wednesday 9 November 2016

It’s President Trump, OMG

Saturday 29 October 2016

An introduction to Progressive Web Apps

Friday 24 June 2016

How the EU Referendum was won

Thursday 16 June 2016

The EU Referendum: why the “bosses’ club” argument fails

Tuesday 14 June 2016

The EU Referendum: a left case to remain

Monday 21 September 2015

Why piggate is not funny

Saturday 5 September 2015

Should the left be worried by Jeremy Corbyn’s foreign policy?

Sunday 30 August 2015

Jeremy Corbyn confuses the left

Tuesday 25 August 2015

Ricoh Arena railway station: farce upon farce

Saturday 15 August 2015

Will Jeremy Corbyn make Blairism extinct?

Friday 19 December 2014

Russell Brand and the spoiled paella

Thursday 4 December 2014

New porn restrictions should worry us all

Friday 19 September 2014

Scotland votes, Cameron quivers

Tuesday 3 December 2013

Spotify bites back

Sunday 24 November 2013

Ed Miliband spins his Desert Island Discs

Thursday 7 November 2013

Russell Brand on revolution

Saturday 2 November 2013

A response to Supporters Direct

Sunday 8 September 2013

Reflections on the Sixfields boycott

Thursday 23 August 2012

The Assange debate leads down a blind alley

Saturday 18 August 2012

The Responsive Manifesto

Sunday 26 February 2012

Why I won’t be buying The Sun on Sunday

Sunday 12 February 2012

Racism in football—how much has changed?