SHOULD FEMINISTS SUPPORT THE EXTRADITION OF JULIAN ASSANGE?

My position in 140 characters is: “Julian Assange’s sexual assault charges for not using a condom in consensual sex shows that laws punishing men empower the state-not women”

FACTS: There is an investigation going on in Sweden concerning statements made by two women who are concerned that Assange, for whatever reason, didn’t use a condom, and they are worried about sexually-transmitted disease. At first, the investigation was dropped because of insufficient evidence, but it has now been reopened.

Although I have heard that the level of the charge is at the lowest level; if, convicted, Assange would not face jail, I have also heard people discussing the charge as “rape”. It is unclear to those of us who don’t know Swedish law, if the use of the term “rape” means what it means in the United States, violent, unconsented sex, and this includes “date rape” and “marital rape”, then it makes sense that Sweden would want to extradite Assange to be interviewed, because this is a serious felony, carrying jail time. On the other hand, if “rape” in Sweden includes initiating sex in the middle of the night with someone you have been intimate with, there is so much room for interpretation, nuances, etc. and the social context of consenting intimacy, that it would seem overkill to extradite someone just to do an interview to determine if in fact criminal conduct occurred. So, a great deal of internet virtual “ink” has probably been spilled needlessly spent already.

The larger issue, and one that seems to be ignored by many of the “ink spillers” is why is Sweden insisting that Julian Assange be forced to come back to Swedish soil? Here, there is wider agreement that the Western powers, especially the United States, are so outraged that Wikileaks has revealed millions of their secrets, that they want Assange back on Swedish soil so that they can get Sweden’s cooperation in returning Assange to the United States to face extremely serious charges of espionage and other crimes against the state that could result in years of prison, possibly being shipped off to Guantanamo, and being exposed to lack of protection that could even result in his death.

So why are feminists even arguing about the precise definition of “rape” in Swedish law or the nuances of male-female consensual sexual relationships (interesting and important as these topics are)? Feminists are trying to achieve gender equality so that women can demand and get a world without extreme hunger and poverty, in which all children have primary education, where disease is eradicated and a sustainable environment with safe drinking water and clean air. (a la Millennium Development Goals for 2015). This means challenging the patriarchal, militaristic model and the capitalistic corporations and governments that perpetuate war, unsustainable use of natural resources, especially fossil fuels. Therefore, as feminists, we welcome the exposure of the secrets of those very institutions that are seeking to maintain the status quo.

And, it means not letting those institutions get their grubby fingers on Assange (they already have Bradley Manning). Assange, if guilty of these charges, and all men who abuse their power in sexual relations, even consensual ones, should be subject to whatever the penalty is in Sweden. He should comply with the Swedish governments requirement of an interview, but only with an ironclad guarantee that returning to Sweden for an interview does not open the door to being extradited to the U.S.

Our feminist movement has to be wary of powerful forces who want us to help them with their agenda which is to continue to rule the world without having to make fundamental changes. They cite women’s rights when they want to invade Afghanistan or Iraq (never mind that they never say a word about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia). They cite pollution and depletion of resources when they want to force unsafe methods of birth control on women rather than changing wasteful consumption patterns, industrial practices or deep-water oil drilling (which might lower their profits), and they want us feminists to work for this in the name of “reproductive rights”. And now, they capitalize on women’s righteous anger against rape and other forms of sexual abuse to have us support their attempts to silence Assange, Wikileaks and all others who would bare their ugly secrets.

We rejoice that almost half of the members of the parliament in Sweden are women. No doubt the Swedish feminists felt that it was a triumph for women to pass a comprehensive law that would encompass not only vile, violent rape, but also would include pernicious, bullying tactics used by ordinary men. But see how their reformist efforts have been subverted? See how focusing on women’s victimization, rather than women’s empowerment, leads to an ironic outcome that a champion of democratic sharing of information, whatever his practices in consensual sex, becomes demonized. I heard a feminist spokesperson refer to Julian Assange as a “powerful white male” in a debate on Democracy Now! as though he was a member of the corporate and governmental elite that we feminists correctly fear and despise.

As feminists, rather than looking to the state to increase its power to criminalize more areas of our life and to increase the state’s ability to oversee, control and punish, shouldn’t we be helping women be more economically self-sufficient, and more empowered to assert their rights in all aspects of their lives, especially in the bedroom.

I especially hope that the American feminist movement will work internationally to condemn U.S. imperialism, the rape of other countries resources to enrich American corporations and the consequent cheapening and degradation of our own society.