One of the women who filed charges against Julian Assange is Anna Ardin. She stood in the elections to the community council for the social democrats and she is a public person who should be examined. So I'll publish her name.
Anna Ardin is christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion on the left political scene. She's previously been in charge of equality issues for the student union of Uppsala University - a job she won an award for. Today she works for the Brotherhood Movement and 'burns for peace and justice... for a just, open society of solidarity'. On her own blog she describes herself:
'A political scientist, communicator, entrepreneur, and freelance writer with special knowledge within faith and politics, gender equality issues, feminism, and Latin America.'
On Saturday 14 August at 14:00 she wrote the following on her Twitter account.
'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'
Early on the morning of Sunday 15 August (02:00) she writes again at Twitter.
'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb'
When Anna Ardin files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets are removed. Why? As far as I can tell, it's not common for victims of crime to delete blogs, clean up their cellphones, and try to get witnesses to attest to things that aren't true. Why is it so important to remove these particular tweets?
If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night towards 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that Anna really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can't divine in the tweets that Anna Ardin thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by Ardin to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match Anna's story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them.
Proof That Anna Ardin Is Hiding the Truth
In the beginning of September, I note that Anna Ardin has two identical 'miniblogs' - one at Twitter and the other at Bloggy.se. It looks as if Anna Ardin's tweets are posted to both blogs at the same time. The tweets that are deleted from Twitter are still visible at annaardin.bloggy.se. Anna missed the fact that she has to delete on each and every blog. Bad luck.
To see if Anna Ardin is really trying to hide her Twitter tweets, I post a comment to Sara Gunnerud's article WikiLeaks Heroes Can Also Do Stupid Things. The article is published at the Rebella blog, a social democratic feminist blog where Anna Ardin contributes and runs the website. In my comment I mention the deleted Twitter tweets. After five days, on 13 September, my comment is reviewed and removed directly. I then post a new comment where I mention that one can read the deleted Tweets at annaardin.bloggy.se. My comment is removed directly. A few hours later the entire Bloggy.se site is taken offline. When Bloggy.se reopens at 04:00 in the morning of 14 September, the tweets deleted from Twitter are also deleted from annaardin.bloggy.se.
But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet as Anna Ardin thinks. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches. If you search for the cached page for annaardin.bloggy.se you can see what it looked like on 19 August. (If the cache disappears, click here.) Then you can compare the page with how annaardin.bloggy.se and twitter.com/annaardin look.
As we can see, Anna Ardin is doing all she can to hide her tweets. Tweets that indicate Julian Assange is actually innocent of at least the charge of 'molestation' that he's been accused of. It looks like Anna Ardin is doing all she can to get Julian Assange convicted. By deleting and denying acquitting circumstances, she's perhaps making herself guilty of false accusation.
Penal Code Chapter 15, 7 § A person who, otherwise than in 6 §, with prosecutors, police or other authority falsely testifies of a criminal act, provides compromising circumstances, or denies acquitting or mitigating circumstances, shall be found guilty, if authority review such a case, of false accusation to imprisonment not exceeding two years or, if the crime is petty, to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months.
The Assange case gets really creepy if we take everything that's happened into account. Anyone wanting to read more can see this article and this article. Julian lives in Anna Ardin's flat from 11 August until 19-20 August. During this time Julian and Anna have sex. Around 18-19 August Anna gets a call from a woman wanting to speak to Julian. When Anna realises that Julian's also had consensual sex with this woman, something happens. The two women who are both christians and are connected to the Brotherhood Movement and were at the seminar at the Brotherhood Movement realise immediately that Julian doesn't have any long term serious intentions with them. They decide after discussing the matter to file complaints against Julian Assange for sexual molestation.
It might seem strange that a christian social democrat feminist would avail herself of legislation to get revenge on a man who is 'unfaithful'. When you read about Anna Ardin's post about revenge, it's no longer strange. It's completely natural. Anna Ardin has for a long time wondered how she can exact revenge on a man who dumps her, is unfaithful. When the other woman turns up, she has the opportunity to do something about her ideas. Anna Ardin plans it all well. She gets another woman to make the actual rape accusation. A case of 'revenge by proxy'. And then she gets help from Claes Borgström who's done all he can to try to get Julian Assange put on trial, frenetically cheered on by the feminist blogs.
But the truth wins out in the end. Anna's perfect 7-Step Programme for Legal Revenge failed. One deletion too few. And the Google cache. Too bad, Anna. The ways of the Lord are truly mysterious.
I'm very surprised that christian feminist 'equality' women can so idolise a WikiLeaks hero that they do all in their power to get him into bed as soon as they have the chance. And then, when they realise he's not as interested in them as they are in him, go to the police and accuse him of rape. This demonstrates an extreme contempt for the women who are real victims of violence and sexual crimes. Their behaviour is unconscionable.
If you're a groupie at heart, why not just try to keep quiet about it? It's nothing you should spread on the net or go to the police to talk about. As things look now, Anna Ardin's carefully planned character assassination and revenge on Julian Assange amounts to nothing more than a suicide bomb on her foot. A bit unlucky for Anna that Google cache keeps track of things like an Internet god. If you're going to delete, then delete good and proper.
All that remains is to see what the preliminary investigation leads to. According to the prosecutors:
'The investigation is well advanced and only a small number of investigative procedures remain to be taken before a decision.'
If the prosecutors conclude that this is a case of false accusation, then hundreds of thousands of men who claim most rape complaints are false will win their argument. This will unfortunately also lead to making it much more difficult to get justice for real victims. That would be a catastrophe.
But something good will come out of this story. We are going to learn that just because you're christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion, it doesn't mean you believe in equal rights for women and men.
Göran Rudling, born in 1951, is the editor of Samtycke Nu/Consensus Now, a site promoting sexual self-determination that uses the motto 'it is a human right to decide for oneself when and with whom we are going to have sex'. Rudling is a frequent contributor to Newsmill where he writes about the need to introduce democratic laws that are based on sexual activities needing to be consensual to not be considered criminal.
