You have made some interesting and valid points here. however, the problem is that you have failed to take account of the specific details of the case.
Whilst it is true that all rape allegations deserve attention and the victims deserve to be listened to and, furthermore, legal proceedings can be subjected to all manner of male stereotypes, male chauvinism, etc. from many directions, we must remember here that no official charges have been made and, as yet, no evidence has been presented to Assange’s lawyers, even though many different parties have been given ample opportunity to offer these. moreover, there is no doubt that Assange’s fears of being kidnapped are well-reasoned, given that members of the American press and government have openly expressed a desire to see him dead, legally or otherwise.
For these reasons and more, your attempt to hang an all-encompassing feminist account (nothing wrong with that, per se) on a very specific circumstance, without recourse to any of the specific details is irresponsible and toothless.
Indeed, we may eventually discover that this is why such a smear campaign was chosen, if indeed that is what it is, because rape claims can never be shaken off without bleating misanders such as this writer using the case to paint broad theoretical tarred brushstrokes across all male-kind and, indeed, Julian Assange. here, I preemptively refute any charges of sexism or callousness: in no way do I wish to diminish the suffering or rights of rape victims, but you seem to have forgotten that Assange’s case is a particular one, which deserves individual attention.
However, I wonder how the writer would feel if she were falsely accused of child abuse in an attempt to slander her name, then placed under various types of arrest awaiting extradition without any official charges being made, with all manner of shady shenanigans (such as double-gagging orders, attempts to hold her incomunicado without charges, etc.) being levied. Then, we could use this great injustice committed against her to pontificate about the theoretical rights of theoretical children in theoretical cases until the shit really sticks. Subsequently, anyone objecting to this erroneous way of framing an argument would be accused of undermining every child’s right to being heeded and receiving justice, whereas, in reality, people might tend to defend her because they have actually TAKEN THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. in a similar way, anyone who dares attack one element of Israeli foreign policy is often, unfairly, branded an antisemite. Clearly, this is a perfect analogy of what she has done here to Assange (who never once denied that the women should be heeded, but rather refuted the claims rotundly and with reason in attempt to clear his name from what are, evidently – by lights of the HIGHLY SPECIFIC AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THE WRITER HAS FAILED SPECTACULARLY IN BROACHING – highly questionable). Indeed, this type of smear campaign is not without precedent (eg. Daniel Ellsberg).
I would like to stress, once again, that I believe rape is an abominable crime and ALL women have right to legal counsel, to the pursuit of justice, to support mechanisms in the legal process and in society as a whole. Neverthess, this is entirely consistent with insisting, as I do, that, while your theoretical points about the field of rape are highly valid, they do not begin to show any real understanding of the specific case and, in turn, help to do great damage to a potentially innocent man by tarring him ruthlessly with one brush. Whether this is your intention or not remains moot, since shit sticks once it’s thrown.
One last question: even given the women’s legal and moral rights, if the writer found herself, God-forbid, in an identical situation, would she herself be willing to be extradited on the basis of highly dubious, ill-presented and poorly evidenced claims (NOT even charges, as yet) if she knew that a potential and likely source of these claims was the most powerful government on Earth, some of whose members and affiliates in the press have expressed a strong desire to seem her dead (even “ilegally”, as one Fox News pundit suggested), and who could also easily have her disappeared to one of its many torture camps (eg. Guantanemo) and even more easily from Sweden? it is, indeed, highly hyprocritical that her strong humanitarian convictions towards rape and its victims – themselves no doubt nobly and consistently maintained – should not extend to the SPECIFIC rights of a SPECIFIC person in a SPECIFIC case who runs the very real risk of death, torture and oblivion. The essay is, as such, beneath contempt.