Rape and Wikileaks: Strange Bedfellows

I've been meaning to write a post about Julian Assange for a while, but #1 I haven't had the time, and #2, I wasn't sure I had enough information to speak about the whole situation without sounding like an idiot. I've come across a few articles and tweets and Twitter campaigns, even, in the last few days, though, that make me feel like it's finally time to join those that are writing/talking about what all has gone down in support of both the freedom of information and rape accusers. In other words, in support of the truth.

So here's the deal. When the news about Wikileaks first broke, I didn't understand the significance of the story. I mean, I understood that the story was significant, but I couldn't decipher - like most people, I think - whether or not what Wikileaks is doing by releasing government cables was harmful or helpful. I've come to understand that it's helpful, courtesy of Arianna Huffington's insightful post recapping the recent Symposium on WikiLeaks and Internet Freedom at which she spoke. In it she makes three key points:

1. "Too much of the coverage has been meta -- focusing on questions about whether the leaks were justified, while too little has dealt with the details of what has actually been revealed and what those revelations say about the wisdom of our ongoing effort in Afghanistan...."

2. "Nobody, including WikiLeaks, is promoting the idea that government should exist in total transparency, or that, for instance, all government meetings should be live-streamed and cameras placed around the White House like a DC-based spin-off of Big Brother...."

3. "A final aspect of the story is Julian Assange himself. Is he a visionary? Is he an anarchist? Is he a jerk? This is fun speculation, but why does it have an impact on the value of the WikiLeaks revelations?"

Taking into consideration points one and two (and reading the entire article) helped me see the value of Assange as a whistleblower. But to Huffington's third point, I have to say, "jerk" is putting it mildly.

Julian Assange has been accused of rape, something the title of Huffington's post tries to dismiss. "The Media Gets It Wrong on WikiLeaks: It's About Broken Trust, Not Broken Condoms" is her way of "disconflating" the identities of Assange as rapist and rogue. I understand the sentiment, but it's much better expressed by Twitter user FeministHulk:

AS SURVIVOR, HULK DISTURBED BY ASSANGE COVERAGE. HULK GLAD WIKILEAKS EXIST. HULK SMASH RAPE SHAME. AT SAME TIME. - via PopWatch

Granted, it was unclear based on initial media coverage of the incident what exactly Assange was being charged with in Sweden. On December 7, Jezebel published a great post about the generic "sex by surprise" concept, stating that if Assange had sex with a woman without using a condom when he was explicitly asked to use one, that qualifies as rape. (I agree.) That same day, The Guardian revealed that Assange had never been charged with "sex by surprise." His case was never about a broken or missing condom, but rather it was alleged, as Jezebel discussed on December 10, that he "held one woman down using his body weight to sexually assault her and that he raped another woman while she was sleeping."

Huffington wrote her post using the broken condom angle five days later, on December 15.

I expect better from the likes of Arianna Huffington, and feminist bloggers around the web are demanding respect for rape accusers from fellow media celebs Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore. Moore appeared on Olbermann's show on December 14, calling the rape charges against Assange "hooey" and reinforcing the erroneous idea that Assange faced the charge "that his condom broke during consensual sex." Again, it had been made clear a week prior that Assange was in fact being accused of rape, and as I just found out, apparently hasn't been officially charged with anything. The tag #mooreandme is being used on Twitter to urge Olbermann to correct Michael Moore's obfuscation of the truth. Sady Doyle, who started the online protest, has done an excellent job of pointing out that Moore is a professional truth-seeker, so his hypocrisy here is flabbergasting. Which is why I'm writing this post. Because I want to ask:

Why does the truth not matter when it comes to the victimization of women?

Why? Women suffer day in and day out at the hands of men who lie, cheat, manipulate and steal. I've seen it. I've experienced it. How is that okay? Why is it still acceptable? Asking these questions isn't about hating men - it's about loving women. I don't understand. I don't. All over Twitter you see statements like:

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful & powerless is to side w/the powerful, not to be neutral" - Paulo Friere

@KeithOlbermann You failed. By spreading lies and holding women up for public mockery, you contribute to the shaming of victims.

"DO NOT SMEAR PEOPLE WHO REPORT RAPE" is not "ZOMIGOD ASSANGE IS GUILTY!" Really not hard.

Here's the kicker: neither Michael Moore nor Keith Olbermann have come out to correct the misinformation that they both helped spread on December 14. Instead, Olbermann has continued to do harm to Assange's accusers by linking to an article that reveals their identities. Meanwhile, Moore proved this week that he does in fact read The Guardian, but only when it's convenient to him. He didn't read their article about the accusations against Assange, but he was emphatic that they correct a post about - guess what? - a cable published by Wikileaks that had to do with the popularity of his film Sicko in Cuba. (Moore's link to the original Guardian post brings up an error message, but the corrected post, which The Guardian took pains to Tweet at Moore, is here.)

So let me get this straight. What is important to Michael Moore is that people know his film was praised by the Cuban government and beloved by the Cuban people. What is not important to Michael Moore is the safety of two women who were possibly raped by a man who - I will come right out and say it - has the luxury of hiding behind his pseudo-righteousness as a "truth-seeker."

What is the truth here? These three men - Assange, Olbermann and Moore - these supposedly righteous men, speaking out against the abuses of the U.S. government, leaking cables, making documentaries about our shitty healthcare system, speaking truth to power. Let me give you a taste of your own medicine:

None of you give a fuck about women. Fuck all three of you. Fuck you.

That's real truth to power.