Activist Accused of Sexually Assaulting a Young Woman at National Animal Rights Gathering : Houston Indymedia

The following alert is being distributed by the Grassroots Animal Rights Conference:
With this posting we seek to provide a way to protect women in the animal advocacy community and show sexual assaulters that they will not find a safe haven in this movement.

A criminal complaint charging sexual abuse has been filed against Christian Vegetarian Association founder and former International Director Nathan Braun.

Nathan's picture is posted at http://www.SexualAssaultWatch.org/NathanBraun

At the Grassroots Animal Rights Conference in New York City last month, in the church where many of the activists were staying, a young woman describes "In the middle of the night, I woke up to him [Nathan Braun] rubbing my vagina, trying to finger me, groping my body..."

In our subsequent investigation, at least three other women that he met at animal rights conferences have come forward and reported unwanted aggressive physical advances by Nathan Braun.

In response to the charges last month, Nathan, a self-described "polygamist," said that he "would not be surprised at all" if he had indeed done what she described, but chalked it up to "sexsomnia." If he did do it, he claimed, he did it while he was asleep. Within days, though, he dropped the sexsomnia defense entirely and now evidently denies the assault completely. Nathan now feels he has become an object of prejudice for being, in his words, "one of the very few young 'handsome'-ish, xian [Christian] alpha males in attendance."

We believe that sexual assaulters should be held accountable for their actions within the movement. The predictable response when someone is held accountable is for that person who is accused of sexual assault to deny the act, to minimize the act, to blame the victim, and to threaten those who hold him accountable. We urge Nathan and any one else in the movement who may have sexually victimized others, to chose a more just response: First, to stop sexually harassing and sexually assaulting women, second, acknowledge what they have done, and third, provide restitution to the assault survivor(s) and meet their demands and that of the community. We say to him and anyone else who acts in ways that violates women's boundaries: "You are responsible for your behavior and we hold you accountable for that behavior." We recommend that anyone with sexual assault complaints against them not be allowed to attend, speak, or table at an animal rights venue until he satisfactorily answers to the accusations.

The Christian Vegetarian Association should be commended for doing the right thing and swiftly disassociating themselves from Nathan once they were informed of the situation.

The Grassroots Animal Rights Conference was proactive in setting forth an explicit zero tolerance policy against sexual harrassment and assault. Sexual assault in the animal advocacy community affects us all. It destroys trust, exploits vulnerable individuals, and bankrupts the claims of a movement that speaks about equality and challenges oppressions. This is harmful to the individual women for whom sexual assault can cause physical, psychological, and spiritual damage, but it is also harmful to the movement. It creates a climate in which some of us cannot feel safe in our activism. Sexual assault should not be the cost of being a woman animal activist.

(a printable version of this alert is available at http://www.sexualassaultwatch.org/nathanbraun/flyer.pdf)

Statement of Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D., Regarding Nathan Braun

The following statement is my own. It should in no way be construed to reflect an official or unofficial response of the Christian Vegetarian Association.

Organizers of the Grassroots Animal Rights Conference have issued a statement regarding an alleged sexual assault by Nathan Braun at the recent GARC conference. As the statement notes, Nathan was the founder and former International Director of the Christian Vegetarian Association. Having worked closely with him for several years, I was surprised by the allegation, and I have sought to determine what really happened. When the allegation first came out, it was clear that Nathan could not serve on the CVA board and could not be a CVA spokesperson until the matter was resolved. Nathan agreed, and he immediately resigned from the CVA board.

I will make three claims:

1) The evidence against Nathan Braun is not compelling.

2) The GARC statement is heavily biased.

3) The public campaign against Nathan Braun has been reprehensible.

1) The evidence against Nathan Braun is not compelling.

In my effort to discern what happened, I initially talked to and later had multiple e-mail correspondences with Dr. Michael Greger. Michael has been helpful, and I am appreciative. I have also talked to Nathan Braun, which has helped clarify certain issues.

From the outset, this has been a classic he said/she said case, without any witnesses or physical evidence. Consequently, as I see it, it is only reasonable to believe Nathan guilty if his story is not credible.

Let’s look at the evidence regarding what Nathan said and did. According to Nathan, he was asleep when the young woman awakened him and asked him several times to sleep next to her to keep her warm. This did not entitle Nathan to touch her genital area, of course, but it is noteworthy that she asked him to sleep at her side. It should raise doubt about the image of Nathan as sexual predator, as discussed below. There was no communication between Nathan and the woman or any actions taken by her during the night to suggest that he was doing anything inappropriate. The next morning, he was told by Michael Greger and Aryenish Birdie that the woman had accused him of inappropriately touching her during the night. (Nathan does not recall the exact words, but he does not remember being informed of the specific accusation, e.g., about touching her “vagina,” until the GARC statement was released.)

I don’t know what Nathan was thinking about at that moment, but his answer was not strategically wise. Evidently, he tried to understand what could have prompted the allegation, and it did not immediately occur to him that the allegation might be an outright fabrication. According to Nathan, he never acknowledged touching her genital area. He said he “would not be surprised at all” that he touched her during the night, since he was sleeping next to her (at her request). Consider the situation: a married (currently separated) man was sleeping in bed next to a woman. It would not be surprising if he touched her private places during the night, as he presumably had done with his wife. If he had been more clever (as sexual offenders generally are), he would have immediately denied the charges. Indeed, that’s what I’d expect most people (innocent or guilty) to do. He may be criticized for failing to think on his feet, but I don’t think his response is evidence for his guilt.

Nathan hypothesizing “sexsomnia,” a condition he had read about. He is very well read on a wide range of topics, and such a response is typical Nathan as I know him – always coming up with theories (sometimes rather far-fetched theories) to try to understand situations. His philosophical bent did not serve him well at this moment, and Michael Greger interpreted his unusual response as not credible. However, a moment’s reflection leads me to a rather obvious consideration: Would a sex offender start talking about “sexsomnia” as an attempt to explain an accusation in which there was no physical evidence? I don’t think so. One would expect a flat denial.

Nathan later made a remark about his being one of the few young, handsome, Christian, alpha males in attendance. Context is important here. This comment was related to how he had been met with quite a bit of hostility, which he attributed to his being openly Christian, heterosexual, and athletic-looking in an environment in which many people seemed to hold the view that human and nonhuman exploitation in our culture is primarily due to "patriarchy," which they attribute to our culture's purported male-domination and Christian influence. Nathan believes that there was prejudice against him, and, further diminishing his popularity, he openly debated certain positions that he considers (descriptively, not pejoratively) radical feminism. Furthermore, he is openly affectionate (but never inappropriately so, in my limited direct contact with him and in the experience of other people I know who have known him). Nathan related to me that, from the outset of the conference, he felt some hostility, which he had rarely experienced previously and which he attributed to his being Christian, masculine, and outgoing.

Michael Greger has addressed most of my questions, but there is an important question he has not answered: Why didn’t the young woman do anything to stop the alleged assault? She was in a room with other people, and she was not physically restrained nor threatened with harm. It would have been easy to stop the alleged assault by asking him to stop or, if necessary, loudly saying, “STOP!” Alternatively, she could have taken his arm or hand, moved it, and told him to leave. However, having done nothing, she proceeded to continue to lie next to him for hours, and it was not until after they had awakened and gone separate ways that she approached GARC organizers with her allegation. (Since, as discussed below, the GARC statement is as prejudicial as possible, I think it’s safe to conclude that there was no force or threat of violence, because this would certainly have been included in the GARC statement.) I find this very strange, and, without an adequate explanation, I have doubts about her story’s credibility. I am very concerned that efforts to avoid traumatizing the alleged victim (or perhaps preconceived notions about Nathan) may have stood in the way of questioning her story. We know that men are sometimes falsely accused of sexual assault, and (if GARC were to take a stand on Nathan’s guilty, as it has) it was incumbent upon GARC organizers to be skeptical.

The GARC statement holds that Nathan changed his story. To the best of my knowledge, he never rejected his theory that he may have accidentally touched her genital area while he slept. However, subsequent to the initial accusation, he came to believe that he probably never touched her genital area or other private parts at all. Recalling aspects of the accuser’s character (discussed below), as well as hostility against him by other feminists at the conference, he now believes that the accusation is false.

On the surface, it appears that the most damning evidence against his credibility is that “at least three other women that he had met at animal rights conferences have come forward and reported unwanted aggressive physical advances by Nathan Braun.” It is strange to say “at least three,” since the GARC people can count. I presume that there are three other women, and the added “at least” was designed to be prejudicial. This collection of “at least” three women is the fruit of a broad effort in which GARC organizers contacted animal rights leaders who know Nathan and asked them if they knew of any allegations of sexual misconduct. Nathan has claimed that his ethical convictions require respectful relations with women at all times. In fact, he has edited The History & Philosophy of Marriage and The Perfect Matrimony, which articulate respectful relations between men and women. Let’s look at the evidence.

Based on the sketchy details Michael Greger has provided me, Nathan believes he knows who the other three women are. Two are almost certainly two women who are partners and who both embrace radical feminism. They talked with Nathan extensively at the GARC conference. They discussed ethical issues related to a broad range of personal and sexual relationships, including heterosexuality, homosexuality, polygamy, polyamory, and promiscuity. They were offended by some of his views, but the conversation on balance was reasonably friendly. As a theoretical question, related to their discussion, he asked the two women what they thought about doing a threesome. This was not a proposition, and he finds it incredible that they might later report that it was. They evidently reported that Nathan put his arm around their shoulders, which was unwanted. Most people would not regard such gregarious, non-sexual activity as putting an arm around one’s shoulder as sexually inappropriate, and Nathan denies any recollection that they seemed to regard his friendly gestures as inappropriate.

Michael also related that a woman reported that Nathan once immobilized her and kissed her. Nathan responded to me that he is not sure what this is about. He thinks it might be a woman in Toronto, with whom he has been friendly but with whom he’s had a somewhat uneven, non-sexual relationship. He wonders if she may be referring to a good-bye kiss, which was quick, not sexual, and not resisted. He was not ultimately interested in a romantic relationship with her, and he wonders whether she has been bitter about this. So here, as best as I can tell, is the rap sheet on Nathan Braun, who the GARC statement attempts to paint as a serial sexual offender.

I know very little about the accuser, so I don’t know much about her credibility. To the best of my knowledge, GARC leaders have not done a thorough investigation of her story and her background. I am not claiming that GARC should have performed such an investigation – this would be the proper activity of police, if the police believed that were reasonable grounds to investigate the matter. However, GARC has worked strenuously (see below) to ruin Nathan’s reputation. It seems to me that, before doing so, it was incumbent upon whoever drafted and disseminated the GARC statement to be skeptical of the accuser’s story, particularly since it’s a “he said/she said” situation.

2) The GARC statement is heavily biased

With no compelling direct evidence against Nathan, it appears that the only way to make Nathan look guilty has been to discredit his character. I already mentioned the “at least three” accusers comment, which suggests more than three without actually saying it. The GARC statement calls him a “self-described ‘polygamist’”. This strikes me as irrelevant to whether or not he is a sexual predator, though evidently the GARC statement hopes that “polygamist” label stigmatizes Nathan and implies out-of-control sexuality. In fact, Nathan states that he is sexually monogamous.

I agree with the GARC statement that sexual assaulters should be held accountable for their actions. However, the GARC statement says, “We urge Nathan and any one else in the movement who may have sexually victimized others to choose a more just response: First, to stop sexually harassing and sexually assaulting women, second, acknowledge what they have done, and third, provide restitution to the assault survivor(s) and meet their demands and that of the community.” Indeed, Nathan should do these things, if indeed he were guilty. But, he maintains his innocence, and the evidence against him is weak at best. They implicitly denounce Nathan for denying his guilt, blaming the “victim,” and threatening “those who hold him accountable,” because this is what sexual offenders evidently do. However, if the presumption of innocence is to mean anything at all, he shouldn't be criticized if he denies guilt, questions the victim’s veracity, and nonviolently threatens (e.g., with a lawsuit) those who, he asserts, have falsely accused him.

3) The public campaign against Nathan Braun has been reprehensible.

The GARC statement refers readers to http://www.sexualassaultwatch.org, which has ONLY ONE person on it – Nathan Braun. The web site even includes a printable PDF poster entitled “Unwanted: Nathan Braun” with a picture of a grinning Nathan Braun and a description of the alleged assault. Meanwhile, the GARC statement has been sent to scores of AR and veg. discussion groups. Someone who goes by “scrodbottom” has, like a spammer, joined scores of animal advocacy discussion lists for the purpose of posting the GARC statement. Is this a smear campaign, or what?

It would have been reasonable for GARC to alert animal protection movement leaders and inform them that the accusation has been made, and leave it at that. We really don’t know what happened, and I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that Nathan poses significantly more or less danger to woman than any other man. Let the necessary people be informed, and then move on. However, I think it is clear that some people really hate Nathan Braun, as the tone and vigor of their campaign far outweighs the evidence against him.

Psychologists have shown that, if you include true statements in an otherwise dubious piece of literature, people will be more inclined to believe the dubious parts. GARC’s final paragraph is filled with obviously true statements about how sexual assault is wrong. The issue is not, as GARC would like to frame it, whether or not sexual assault is tolerable. Of course it is not. It’s really about whether or not Nathan Braun is guilty of sexual assault, and the GARC people stand on much less firm ground there.

General Observations

The GARC press release at http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/05/39941.php mentions a criminal complaint. Anybody can make a criminal complaint against anybody for anything. This does not mean that there are criminal charges or a warrant for his arrest. In fact, even though his location has not been a secret, the NY Police Dept. has not bothered to contact him. Why not? I strongly suspect it's because the case doesn’t even start to approach the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof, even without Nathan's side of the story.

So, Nathan Braun has been all but tried and convicted by GARC leaders who have not, evidently, skeptically evaluated the accuser’s story. Then, they have ruined his reputation with an intense Internet campaign. This is particularly outrageous since it’s a “he said/she said” case without any physical evidence, and I find her story (lacking any effort to stop the alleged assault, despite ample opportunity to do so) bizarre and not credible. I have not interviewed the accuser, and therefore I don’t claim to have all possible evidence. This, as I said earlier, is the proper activity of the police. My opinion at this time, based on my analysis of the evidence I have obtained (primarily but not entirely from Michael Greger and Nathan Braun) is that Nathan is very likely innocent. In the unlikely event that Nathan were arrested and tried, this would probably not resolve the issue. If found not guilty, the high burden of proof required for a guilty verdict is such that many people might continue to be convinced of his guilt, particularly after the GARC campaign to ruin his name.

It has been frustrating for me to see Nathan vilified on many Internet discussion lists, though several people have seen through the smoke and recognized that the “hard” evidence provided by the GARC statement is weak, at best. At Nathan’s request, I initially refrained from speaking out, because (given his assertion that the current charges are spurious) he feared that my statement might embarrass GARC leaders, prompting new, false, more serious allegation(s). If there had been one or more other people with legitimate charges, these people have now had ample opportunity to come forward. Prior to the GARC statement’s publication, GARC representatives contacted animal rights people who knew Nathan, seeking to find evidence of past sexual misconduct, and the GARC statement has been out since late May and circulated to just about everyone intimately or remotely involved in the animal advocacy movement. So, at this point, there would be good reason for skepticism if someone made a new accusation.

I think it should be noted that Nathan has been a dedicated and creative animal advocate. He convinces a large proportion of those he meets to go veg, and he is perhaps the most persuasive veg advocate I know. This neither proves Nathan’s innocence nor does it counterbalance the seriousness of the charge against him. However, we should be aware that an (evidently) decent person is being vilified and humiliated and an effective animal advocate is being run out of the movement. This should not be done without compelling evidence for his guilt.

I would like to see some ideas about what to do next. Does anyone support the idea of having a meeting with the accused, the accusers and the community to try to resolve things? It seems if criminal charges are ultimately not going to be pursued against this guy and yet many will feel he has done something wrong and have a campaign about it, that he and them should be involved in some kind of community forum in place of a state trial.

Yeah, Nick is right, we need a witch hunt, we need a scapegoat. Let's blame the men.

The rush to convict, complete with website, is another growing plague in activism. Gone is the "innocent until proven guilty". You can still have justice for a victim and go thru the process of proving it. Its the best way to establish sound principles against abuse of both kinds, the obvious and the abuse towards the accused.

I do not want to read the whole thing again but the first time I read it I did not get the impression she was sleeping next to him naked. I did a search for the words "nude", "naked", and "clothes" and was only to able to find nude in Locksley's post.

The website that the accusers linked to states the woman was a minor. This may explain the reaction or lack thereof to being molested. Young people are easier to intimidate and less likely to vocalize against agressors. Maybe I am thinking of young children.

I suppose the most grown women would have pushed the guy off and left the room and not continue to sleep beside him.

This will not get me fans but the accusers are painting this like it is almost equivalent to a violent rape. While a guy grabbing your ass is bad, the person whose ass was grabbed should tell them that is wrong right there.

If that dude fondled a girl while she was sleeping then something is wrong with him. The girl, by being complicit and waiting to cause a ruckus after the fact, has something wrong with her too.

I was the "victim" in a statutory rape case at the age of 13. While there is no question that the man's sole aim in the endeavor was to bed down with an underage girl.....I was complicit by talking to him on the phone all that time and going to his home on my own volition.

That kind of thing does not compare to a man doing the same thing to a five year old. I was 13 and had an interest in sex that was normal for my age.

If I was to ask a man to snuggle with me then they might take that as a sign I want sexual physical contact. I should make it clear that I don't want any.

You see this kind of crap in marriages. And yes, there can be rape in marriage. A husband will fondle his wife's parts when she is not in the mood. Then the wife tells him to stop and he does, if he is decent.

If I was like this girl, or stupid women who think you have to give your husband what he wants, then I would not stop my husband.

You shouldn't be so freaking stupid. Camille Paglia goes on and on about date rape and how girls send mixed messages. I think some feminists hate her. Basically she doesn't want women to be infantile.

This being complicit in abuse situations is what leads grotesque wives to look away while their children are being abused. The wife gets painted as a victim as well, although she did not do her duty to protect her children. These women are not mentally retarded or affected grievously by a mental illness that affects their reasoning. They are merely pathetic creatures who do what a man expects.

It must be hippie reasoning. You don't snuggle with people unless the message is clear you don't want to be fondled.

Also there is something wrong with pacifism. If he is that much of a bastard why don't you slap him. Walk away, anything.

Bravo Melinda. Good post.

Well I sse where the bigoted little crapweasels who 'edit' HIMC are back to deleting my posts again. Maybe they think I'm really Karl Rove