There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:
Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?
On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
- 11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.
- 13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.
- 14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.
Anna tweets at 14.00:
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”
15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.
- 16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.
- 20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
- 21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.
Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.
No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:
Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.
Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.
Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.
She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.
Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it.
I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.
Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear itno jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.
Once every few decades, one can enjoy a rare moment of intellectual delight, when something suspected right during the entire period but that was opposed to mainstream views, is found to be true. Many years ago, I was performing my third rotational research at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Since the establishment is interdisciplinary in nature, despite my belonging to the chemical-physics department, I was working on a biological model. I was trying to define the light-absorption function for a DNA molecule. In the internet era one must clarify this; after all in Bolivia—my actual place of stay—if one knows how to click Google’s search button one is defined as a researcher. Back then, the DNA absorption function wasn’t known. It wasn’t possible to search for it in the literature or in the still university-oriented internet. The model was to be theoretically derived from more basic principles. During my preliminary study of the topic, I found two very perturbing terms, “junk-DNA” and “selfish-genes.”
At their very basic, the terms were disturbing. Even before explaining them, it is pretty obvious that the people coining them had humanized DNA, attributing to molecules characteristics unfit for them. A DNA molecule clearly doesn’t have a soul, thus defining it as “selfish,” is nothing but the wishful thinking of a truly eccentric researcher. Both terms, “selfish gene” and “junk DNA,” are alternative names for non-coding DNA, in other words, DNA that doesn’t encode proteins. This contradicted the known role of the DNA, thus the insulting nicknames. This wasn’t a secondary issue. Up to 80% of human DNA falls within this category; in other species, it may go up to 99% of the total. Yet, since its role wasn’t known, it was defined as “junk,” or even more intriguing, as “selfish.”
In Evolution and 9/11, I analyzed one of the severe logical fallacies used by Richard Dawkins, one of the loudest advocates of the Evolution Theory. This tabloid-oriented scientist was the one to coin the term “selfish-gene.” In another one of his monumental misinterpretations of science, he claimed that all junk-DNA is exclusively engaged in self-preservation, in fact acting as a parasite in the host’s DNA. Thus, these were selfish molecules, selfish DNA. For a long time there was no way of effectively arguing with these claims. Yet, this claim felt wrong. God doesn’t work in wasteful ways. Moreover, it was very clear that the scientists making the outrageous claims were exceeding the limits of the scientific method. Yet, what can one do? Unlike Dawkins and his peers, i understood that “I feel like…” is not a legitimate claim in good science.
Over the years I relegated the issue to one of the most inactive spots in my brain. It was defined as “read only if something new is discovered.” After all, it wasn’t an important topic. Then, on September 2012, a scientific paper on the human genome was published with the cooperation of over 400 scientists. It got wildly quoted by the mainstream media. The research was summarized for the laymen as “Human genome more active than thought.” In fact, what it found was that the junk-DNA was not junk at all. It even wasn’t selfish. It was very active on the regulation of the DNA encoding the proteins. In other words, you can define it as regulating-DNA. Following the publication, I made a very basic search on Mr. Dawkins, and failed to find any comment by him on the issue.
This is not surprising; he may publish a reaction in the following days or months, but this won’t change the fact he got a humbling lesson. Again, he was publicly shown to misunderstand what science is. Science is a simple method, which has systematized the finding of “how” something works. Science answers “how,” religion answers “why.” There is no contradiction between them. At the moment pseudo-scientists cross this borderline, attempting to humanize what is not human, attempting to centralize the human role in the universe as humanists do, they are bound to fail. The point is simple. At the very basis of the scientific method is a humbling statement: “I don’t know.” Drunken on their own vanity, the scientists weren’t humble enough to say: “We don’t know the role of this DNA.” Instead, they made up stories and sold them to science tabloids.
I have no illusions. Most readers of this article are not scientists and are not aware of the method’s details. Yet, let me emphasize a simple lesson that has been exemplified by this lengthy affair and that can make our lives better. Once a day, say “I don’t know.” Straight, without any excuses. Once a day, apologize. I mean a true apology, not in the Western style “If I offended you, I apologize.” Say an honest “I apologize” from the bottom of your heart. Finally, at least once a day, pray to God. Soon afterwards, these little pseudo-scientists infesting our lives with corrupting false-ideas of vanity and humanism will be relegated to their right spot in reality: “read only if something new is discovered.”
HR-35, a resolution passed with Israel sympathizers in mind, aims to assure that campuses that still allow criticism will at least avoid offending such students with speech and information that might reflect negatively on Israel. Since anti-Semitism applies to Israel, not Jews, the measure affects both Jewish and non-Jewish critics of Israel.
This reporter was able to obtain an exclusive leaked draft copy of new guidelines designed to implement the resolution.
Office of Criticism Reduction
Department of Public Correction
TO: All California Institutions of Higher Education
SUBJECT: Guidelines for Making Israel Sympathizers Feel Safe on Campus
On August 28, 2012, the California State Assembly passed HR-35 for the purpose of addressing the scourge of anti-Semitism and the discomfort of supporters of Israel with criticism against that state.
Because of the urgency and severity of this problem, warranting its remedy by the State legislature, this office will give priority to measures designed to abate it on campuses of higher education in California, as follows:
I. All criticism of the state of Israel and its policies and practices is prohibited.
- i. The expulsion, marginalization, death and destruction of the indigenous population of Palestine may not be termed “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” but rather “assisted emigration”.
ii. The refusal to repatriate refugees may not be called a human rights violation, but rather “extended leave without pay”.
iii. Israel may not be described as a “racist” or “apartheid” state, but rather as “welcoming of properly pedigreed persons”.
II. All nonviolent actions and campaigns designed to discourage Israeli violations of human rights and ethnic cleansing are prohibited.
- i. Speakers, films and exhibits may praise and encourage support for Israel’s redemption of the land, but must not refer to the unfortunate persons from whom it has been redeemed or the unpleasant methods by which the redemption has taken place.
ii. Students and faculty may not sponsor nonviolent boycott, divestment or sanction campaigns against Israel. Such nonviolent campaigns are defined as support for terrorism.
III. There may be no criticism of Zionism, i.e. Jewish self-determination, of which the state of Israel, the California State Assembly and this office are only three examples.
- i. Since the realization of Palestinian self-determination and human rights are a threat to Jewish self-determination on Palestinian land, there may be no mention of Palestine or any discussion of Palestinian rights.
ii. Students may not encourage support for groups that Israel attacks, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Jewish Voice for Peace and the Rachel Corrie Foundation.
iii. Israel should not be held to any standard except that by which it judges other nations.
iv. Injustice in Israel should not be addressed until all other injustices everywhere have first been eliminated.
IV. Anything that might make Israel sympathizers feel uneasy on campus is discouraged.
- i. Since some Israel sympathizers may feel uneasy at the presence of Palestinian and Arab students on campus, such students are encouraged to call themselves “Mediterranean” or “Middle Eastern”.
ii. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine should be renamed “Students for Justice in Disputed Territories”, “Students for Justice Somewhere”, or just “Students”.
iii. Arabic numerals are prohibited.
Israel Ben Tzion
Free Speech Reduction Specialist
gives you something to end
and work toward before then
but in this madness
we have abused this
and closed the door in meaningless
our honor and respect to it
has lost interest
for it can bring you great joy
to know that you are just a toy
and make you feel real
with no time to waste this deal
and is free with no appeal
and you could almost say its life
for it’s all in strife
sometimes living could almost feel like this
who’s to say there’s a difference
are we feeling nothingness
then go under
with just a taste
what metamorphosis will take place
do we leave something behind
so that there would be something to find
to live on in mind
would be so kind
don’t be blind
live on without bind
and give to our designed
to play your part
to the end from the start
till the still beating of the heart
In a frantic and unexpectedly hysterical decision made on September 7, the Canadian government suspended all its diplomatic ties with Iran, closed its embassy in Tehran and ordered the Iranian diplomats to leave the Canadian soil in 5 days.
The Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird made an unbelievably offensive statement, calling Iran “the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.” He cited reasons such as the 2011 attack of Iranian students on the British embassy in Tehran, Iran’s support for the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its alleged failure in making confidence with regards to its nuclear program as the basis for breaking off the diplomatic relations with Iran.
Aside from the unconventionality of the Canadian government’s move, Mr. Baird’s statement was an outright and unmistakable insult to the Iranian people and their glorious culture and peaceful civilization.
Nobody can bring up any example of an aggressive action by Iran against the other nations throughout the past century. In the contemporary era, Iran has never invaded nor attacked any country; on the contrary, it was the subject of unjust and imposed wars by imperial powers. In 1941, the Soviet, British and Commonwealth armed forces invaded Iran in an attempt to undermine the Germans’ growing influence in Iran and their dominance over Iran’s vast oil reserves. Some 4 decades later, under the pressure from the United States and its European allies, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Iran and killed more than 500,000 Iranians with the final objective of nipping the newborn Iranian Revolution in the bud. Although both wars failed to realize their objectives, they made the Iranian people feel the bitter taste of subjugation and suppression. So, as a victim of imperialism and warmongering policies of the superpowers, it’s a vapid joke to claim that Iran poses the most significant threat to global peace and security.
But with the unilateral suspension of diplomatic ties between Tehran and Ottawa by the Canadian government, nobody is now happier than the Israeli regime’s officials. “I deeply appreciate the position and conviction that was taken by Prime Minister Harper and the government of Canada,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an interview with CBC radio. “I think everyone in Israel appreciates its forthright stand against a regime that brutalizes its own people, that colludes in the murder of tens of thousands in Syria, that denies the Holocaust and calls for the eradication of the state of Israel while pursuing an illicit program for developing nuclear weapons,” he added.
The Israeli President Shimon Peres, who was awarded the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize for his outstanding role in the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre which resulted in the killing of 6 women, 23 children aged 8-17 and a total of 49 people and expressed his thanksgiving to the Nobel Foundation with his direct involvement in the 1996 Qana massacre in Lebanon also couldn’t hide his happiness at the Canada’s move: “Canada has proven once again that morals come before pragmatism; Canada has demonstrated that policy must reflect principles and values,” he said in a statement. “I thank my colleague Governor-General David Johnston, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the whole nation of Canada for taking a stance based on the highest morals and hope that other nations will see Canada as a moral role model,” Peres continued.
Iranian officials called the Canadian government’s decision motivated by pressure from the Israeli lobby, branding it servitude to the Zionists who want to divert the international attention from the atrocities they’re committing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
“The current government of Canada under the leadership of Mr. Stephen Harper is known for extreme policies in the domain of foreign policy,” said Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast. “The hostile behavior of the current racist government in Canada in reality follows the policies dictated by the Zionists and the British.” And of course the Iranian official is right. The Israeli lobby in Canada is extremely influential and powerful and the Canadian statesmen have been so subservient and obedient to the Israeli regime that one sometimes thinks of Canada as a satellite state of Israel.
Perhaps the deep-rooted and inextricable relationship between Israel and Canada is best described by Yves Engler in his spectacular 2010 book “Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid.” The well-written, well-researched book portrays how the Canadian government helped with the formation of the Israeli state in 1948 and what enormous supports Canada has offered to Israel over the past 64 years.
There are several Israeli and Jewish organizations operating in Canada whose ultimate goal is to secure Israel’s interests in the decisions the Canadian government makes, especially with regards to the foreign policy issues. One of these organizations was Canada-Israel Committee, funded by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), the advocacy arm of United Israel Appeal Canada (UIAC). This group was dissolved in 2011, but its responsibilities were assumed by its parent organization, CIJA. According to the Jewish Federations of Canada website, some $4 million is annually allocated to the Israeli advocacy organizations in Canada. However, Peyton V. Lyon, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the Carleton University revealed that Canada-Israel Committee’s budget prior to its extinction was about $11 million.
The Jewish Federations of Canada encompasses several subsidiary organizations each of which work to promote the Israeli values in the Canadian society, strengthen the diplomatic, economic and cultural ties between Canada and Israel and empower the Jewish community of Canada, especially by taking over the newspapers, TV and radio stations in the country. Some of these organizations each of which receives a remarkable funding include Canada Israel Experience (CIE), Regional Jewish Communities of Ontario (RJCO), Bequest and Endowment Fund and Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC).
According to Zalman Amit, the Emeritus Professor of psychology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canadian Jewish communities donate some $75 million to Israel annually.
It’s demonstrable that Canada’s Middle East policy is highly influenced by the Jewish/Israeli lobby. “Who makes Canada’s Mid-East policy? A ranking of influence by a panel of foreign affairs officials placed the Canadian Jewish Community first at 5.85 compared to 5.40 for each of the Prime Minister and the Department of External Affairs. The Canadian/Arab Community at 1.80 was ranked sixteenth out of the eighteen estimated influence inputs,” says Prof. Peyton V. Lyon whom I quoted earlier in the article.
And the Canadian officials have never been embarrassed to show their unconditional support of Israel. On the 61st anniversary of the creation of Israel, Canadian premier Stephen Harper said, “We count ourselves among Israel’s closest partners. Since its founding in 1948, Canada has supported Israel and its right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. We value this relationship and look forward to continued friendship and collaboration.”
What seems clear is that Israel is now extremely thrilled that Canada has suspended its diplomatic ties with Iran. It sees this move in the context of a broader plan to isolate Iran internationally, and one can hardly doubt that Israel was involved in the decision the Canadian government made out of the blue. However, these attempts to isolate Iran have already failed. On August 31, 120 world countries of the Non-Aligned Movement gathering in Tehran threw weight behind Iran’s nuclear program and expressed their opposition to the unilateral sanctions of the United States and its European allies against Iran. Iran is not a country that can be isolated this easily.