The debate and discussion around Julian Assange's extradition is becoming increasingly polarised and destructive for progressives. People, who would normally share a perspective on the importance of Wikileaks and the vital role that it has played in exposing the machinations of the state, are now at each others throats. Supporters of Assange are being labelled misogynists and those who believe that Miss A and Miss W have a right to have their allegations heard are now feminist extremists.
As somebody who believes that Julian Assange's work in setting up Wikileaks has made him one of the most important political figures of his generation, my instinctive response to the Swedish and UK government's respective positions was cynical. Rather than focusing on the extensive political implications of what Wikileaks has disclosed, Assange had become the story. Following the accusations the discussion was no longer the conduct of our troops in Iraq, it was about condoms and consent. The Swedish and UK governments might claim to be acting in the name of justice - but we all know that their interest in justice was being encouraged by the long reach of the US government and its agencies. Then there are the inconsistencies in the way in which the enquiries are being conducted, that have been so effectively outlined by Naomi Wolf. All of this points to a level of political manipulation that perhaps should no longer surprise us. But this affair is not just about Julian Assange and the threat that he poses to disingenuous governments, it is also about two women who have made statements alleging sexual misconduct and their right to have those allegations heard..
As a supporter of the work of Wikileaks this puts me and others in a difficult position, should we show our loyalty to the cause by rejecting the allegations out of hand as politically motivated? The problem is that in doing so we would be judging the women as liars and worse. This is what many of Julian's supporters have already done, in their eyes he is innocent and Miss A and Miss W are players in an elaborate and carefully planned honey trap. What people need to accept, is that it is possible that Miss A and Miss W are telling the truth. The reality of the situation is that none of us know the facts of the case and non of us are in a position to make an informed judgement about what happened. The truth will only ever be found in court - if the Swedish Authorities believe that he has a case to answer, which at the moment is not certain.
The argument against Julian returning to Sweden is that doing so would put him at risk of extradition to the US and the type of persecution that Bradley Manning is currently enduring. It is undoubtedly this fear that was instrumental in his decision to seek asylum with the Ecuadorians and given the vehemence with which he is viewed in the the US you can understand his motivation. Unfortunately it is a strategy that has all the hallmarks of one that was developed in panic and in the long term it is likely to prove ineffective in protecting Julian from the long arm of the US Agencies on whose doorstep he will be living. What seeking asylum in Ecuador will certainly not do is protect his reputation and his legacy, which is being massively damaged by the lack of clarity and closure.
In the light of the current impasse the rhetoric on the social networks is becoming increasingly vitriolic. More and more people are confusing loyalty to a cause with loyalty to a man and more and more people are conflating loyalty to their gender with justice. Whilst Julian Assange might believe that claiming political asylum is in his best interests, what would really be in his interest would be clarity and closure. Whether innocent or guilty of what Miss A and Miss W have accused him of, the only way forward for Julian lies in Stockholm, where he can either prove his innocence or ask forgiveness.
