It’s unlikely we have heard the end of Julian Assange, to some a hero and martyr for a free press, and to others an unprincipled narcissist. Following a lengthy campaign to prevent him being extradited to the United States, Assange agreed in June 2024 to a deal whereby he pleaded guilty to unlawfully obtaining and disseminating national defence information. It’s contestable whether his admission of guilt was the necessary act of a hero in return for a freedom that is rightly his, or a squalid admission of illegal behaviour to avoid even harsher charges. Julian Borger, the Guardian’s world affairs editor, noted Assange’s plea deal was hardly the victory for the principle of freedom of the press claimed by his supporters (Guardian Weekly, 28 June 2024, p 33). And for humanists, Assange’s actions pose some serious challenges to what might count as humanist principles.

The people who see Assange as a hero almost exclusively have in mind the leaks in 2010 of misdeeds by American servicemen in Iraq. A case can certainly be made that this was in the public interest, and an act for which Assange deserves credit. Although even then he chose not to redact names and other details that could identify individuals. It is what happened after 2010 that throws new light on the laurels of hero and martyr. His behaviour since then suggests his true motivation is not principled resistance to tyranny, as it might once have been, but a narcissistic self-promotion coupled with excessive hatred of the United States.

Things started to go wrong when Assange was charged with rape and sexual molestation in Sweden. While facing these charges, bail was put up for Assange by several people, including Vaughan Smith, a member of Britain’s aristocratic elite, owner of a mansion in Norfolk and valuable property in London. Smith put up the £20,000 bail surety for Assange, only to forfeit £12,000 of it when Assange betrayed his friend by skipping bail and fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy. In breaching bail, Assange committed a criminal offence, for which he eventually served fifty weeks in prison. But in holing up in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years, Assange deemed himself above the law, and the women in Sweden were denied their day in court. Defenders of Assange say the charges were dropped. But they were not dropped, in the sense of being dismissed because unproven. Rather the charges lapsed because Assange had placed himself where he could no longer be pursued. So, if humanism upholds the rights of women to seek justice against those accused of sexually exploiting them, then Assange’s behaviour is a violation of humanist principles.

The other main problem with Assange’s role as hero of free speech is his very selective choice of opponents. There have been no major leaks on Wikileaks from Russian, Saudi or Iranian sources. The leak from Turkey in 2016, shortly after the botched coup against Erdogan, quickly lost whatever lustre it might have had when it transpired that much of the leak was taken from online discussion groups. In particular, data about supposed members of Erdogan’s AK party carried with it the personal details of huge numbers of women in Turkey, leaving many of them dangerously exposed. And when referring to events in Afghanistan, Assange felt moved to call Afghans who supported the government, backed by NATO, ‘collaborators’. In 2011 Assange applied for, and was granted, a Russian visa, possibly with a view to decamping there, as his ally Edward Snowden ended up doing. While having the security of a Russian visa, Assange saw fit to involve himself in New Zealand politics during the kerfuffle over Kim Dotcom. Like Assange, Dotcom was fighting extradition to the United States for espionage offences. Already having convictions for fraud and embezzlement, Dotcom needed all the help he could get. Step up Julian Assange, who videoed into a well-publicised event in September 2014 to speak up for Dotcom, accusing the New Zealand government of Orwellian machinations of control. To accuse the New Zealand government of Orwellian machinations while holding a Russian visa takes some chutzpah.

Assange’s connections with the Kremlin have become better documented over the last decade. It seems clear, for example, that he was involved in Russian collusion to interfere with the 2016 US election, which was won by Donald Trump. Before absconding to the Ecuadorian embassy, Assange had taken up hosting programmes for Russia Today, Vladimir Putin’s propaganda arm in the West. Russia Today had a long history of misinformation, sowing discord and peddling conspiracy theories. Among the visitors he received at the embassy were several with links to the Kremlin, including Nikolay Bogachikhin, head of the London office of Russia Today, who visited twice. Another visitor, while holed up in the embassy, was Andrew Müller-Maguhn, a German activist identified in the Mueller inquiry as a hacker. Müller-Maguhn visited Assange at least 12 times before the US election, including in July 2016 when he spent four hours at the embassy. On the same day, a large hacked document arrived at Wikileaks. Wikileaks’ release of material thought to be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign came to it from Russians who had earlier hacked data from the Democratic Party’s files. Wikileaks release of the material to the public came shortly before the story broke about Trump’s ‘pussy grabbing’ boasts, which helped deflect the damage those revelations might otherwise have caused.

Though safe from the Swedes, Assange’s relations with the Ecuadorian embassy staff quickly soured, prompting them eventually to withdraw his internet access in the embassy. Assange responded by suing the Ecuadorian government for violating his rights and freedoms, while simultaneously benefitting from the security they offered. Neither did Assange’s behaviour in the embassy cover him with glory. Abusing staff, rubbing excrement on walls, installing bugging devices to listen in on embassy staff and engaging in leaks from within the embassy all fall well short of heroic behaviour. Eventually, with the permission of the Ecuadorian authorities, British police were able to enter the embassy and arrest Assange for breach of bail, for which he was given the standard fifty-week sentence.

A leak has to be a last resort, in the face of systematic government or corporate fudging. Leaking material before that threshold has been crossed runs the risk of endangering innocent people along the way. So, does humanism uphold the responsibility to seek out information from all relevant sources and stand by the consequences of what is said? Assuming the answer is yes, then Assange’s behaviour is a violation of humanist principles.

It’s hard to see much of a future for a much-diminished whistleblower. By his own admission, Assange pled guilty to procuring and disclosing classified documents, thus breaching the US Espionage Act. His supporters will see this as a necessary step to escape imprisonment in the United States. His opponents see this as further evidence of Assange believing the rules somehow don’t apply to him. More important, though, is that the world has changed. New encryption technologies make exposés of the Wikileaks type a lot more difficult now. Wikileaks looks dormant at the moment, with few recent postings. More importantly, the world is a significantly more dangerous and unstable place, where the principles of the open society are under threat from autocracies, theocracies and dictatorships. The principles of humanism are not going to be strengthened and extended by colluding with such regimes and undermining confidence in Western democracies. That does not mean, of course, that our systems should not be criticised. Acknowledging problems and faults with our governments remains as important as it’s always been, but not at the expense of ignoring the elephant in the room, the cabal of autocracies that seek to gain the most from our divisions and loss of confidence. Though it’s unlikely we have heard the last of Julian Assange, democracy and humanist principles would be better served if he sat back, enjoyed his ill-gotten retirement, and let others speak.