The International Court Jester

On this week's BBC Question Time, the final question was (as far as I can recall) "Julian Assange - hero or villain?". The general consensus among the panel was "villain" though the NUS president and Amir Kahn shrouded their vague approval in some freedom of speech-based rhetoric. While I feel that the Wikileaks disclosures increase international uncertainty and I'm confused by the particular dogma of "freedom of information" that supposedly guides the Wikileaks movement, I think that the portrayal of Assange as a villain based on the Wikileaks revelations alone is misguided.

Firstly, a quick note on the use of language. The "hero or villain" dichotomy seems to have spiraled out of control in relation to the Wikileaks story. The hero-villain rhetoric is most familiar to journalists (three Guardian articles on December 9th described someone as a villain and two as a hero) but the actors within the story aren't shying away from the hero talk. Julian Assange described the source of the leaks as an "unparalleled hero". Those in favour of and in opposition to Wikileaks are keen to smother the detail of the story in a good vs. evil narrative.

There is no question that if the allegations of sexual assault against Assange are true then villain would be a suitable title however, curiously, none of the members of the Question Time panel chose to mention this. The claim made by many of the panel that the Wikileaks disclosures constitute an act of villainy credits Assange with villainous motives. A quick google search throws up this definition - a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel. Assange doesn't seem to be a man "devoted to wickedness" but rather someone bent on pursuing a grudge held (rightly or wrongly) against the American government by the means available to him. Assange is the global equivalent of the disgruntled court jester who has just stumbled upon the royal arsenal. To credit him with villainy is to abstract and distort the motives behind the Wikileaks disclosures into the realm of good vs. evil when, in fact, the vendetta is a deeply personal one. Assange clearly has no regard for the consequences of his actions on the stability of international diplomacy (his answer to "JAnthony" in a recent Guardian Q & A session shows his disdain for well thought-out observations on the topic - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks) and probably has little interest in the impact of the disclosures on the affairs of many of the nations involved.

Villainy is judged, not by the impact of actions, but by the motives from which they originate. Branding Assange as a villain is unhelpful in understanding what lies behind Wikileaks and ultimately the opinion of the president of the NUS and Liam Fox is unlikely to sway those calling for Assange's assassination or Assange himself either way.