You are here: Home » Comment »

Assange shows those on the extreme right and left of politics share the inability to appreciate irony

August 17, 2012 10:02 am

Author:

Tom Copley

Tags:

Share this Article

One of the defining characteristics of those on the extreme right and left of politics is the inability to appreciate irony – and the reaction to Julian Assange’s proposed extradition presents a classic example.

Defending a man who espouses freedom of speech (but is content to claim asylum from a country that has passed sweeping laws to restrict the press) is an irony indeed – but one that’s seemingly lost on the Occupy movement.

As usual the twin slogans of “imperialism” and “colonialism” are being thrown around like political confetti; and, as usual, Occupy’s rhetoric is divorced from reality. The UK is obliged under international law to extradite Assange to Sweden, where he faces allegations of rape. The spectacle of those leaping to the defence of someone evading trial for one of the most serious crimes should be offensive to anyone who believes in truth, justice and the rule of law.

When it comes to the United States there are some on the left who adopt the very same “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” attitude that the US government itself held as a central tenet of its foreign policy during the Cold War; a policy that caused untold misery and bloodshed in Latin America. There’s another irony in there somewhere.

Ecuador has been slammed by Human Rights Watch and Index on Censorship for clamping down on press freedom and freedom of speech. Journalists have been prosecuted under sweeping defamation laws which make it effectively illegal to criticise the president and other public officials. These laws allow for prison sentences of up to three months for those who “offend” public officials and two years for those who “offend” the president. Critical radio and TV stations have been closed down in what critics call “politically motivated” actions, and frightened journalists have fled to (guess where) the US to protect themselves from prison sentences condemned by human rights groups.

But the real icing on the irony cake here – and believe me, comrades, it’s thick, if not delicious – is that the Ecuadorian police regularly misuse anti-terror legislation to clamp down on social protests. Haven’t we heard this very complaint made a little closer to home, by the very same people currently encircling the Ecuadorian embassy?

Let’s be clear; Ecuador’s government is no friend of freedom, democracy or human rights. For anyone on the left to defend it because it dresses itself up as left-wing and anti-American is fundamentally wrong. As for Assange, those who so readily jump to defend the right of a suspected rapist to evade the legal process need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

Tom Copley is a member of the London Assembly. He writes here in a personal capacity.

james

I’d be more sympathetic if Labour had a sense of irony as well. Oh perhaps it does – Labour literature in 2011 in my local area – `no to cuts` Labour in 2012 `will have to be some cuts`
Mr Toad

Ironic also that someone who made his name by trashing the diplomatic privilege of confidentiality should now be… um… using another diplomatic privilege to evade legal accountability.
JS

So, those on the right and left have no sense of irony. Those in the middle (meaning Mr Tom Copley) have no sense of colour as they see everything in black and white in a very imperfect world.
Wmacvean7

I dont think he was accused of rape wasnt it something to do with a condom
- JS
  
  As he has not even been charged we do not know what the accusation is.
  - 000a000
    
    Perhaps Assange should consider stopping running away and dealing with the accusations like anyone else (without celebrity friends) would have to?
    - JS
      
      Which accusations?
      - John Ruddy
        
        The swedish system works differently, the accusation is that he had unprotected sex with a woman without her consent. Seems straighforward enough to me.
        
        He wont get charged until he gets to Sweden.
        
        It would also be easier for the US to extradite him from here than it would from Sweden. The irony is that he is actually safer in Sweden!!!!
      - Mr 0a
        
        It looks to me like the US extradition element is a distraction from the fact that Assange does not want to answer the questions in Sweden.
- John Ruddy
  
  He had sex with a woman without her consent (she did not consent to unprotected sex).
  
  Thats an offence in Sweden and in the UK.
  - JS
    
    That does not tally with what I have read. Which is that it was consensual but unprotected.
    - Mr 0a
      
      This should, of course, be decided by the Swedish authorities and if it gets that far the Swedish courts.
http://twitter.com/Radguy1 Radguy

Truth, justice and the rule of law, yet the UK is willing to raid the embassy?

Ecuador’s policies regarding freedom of the press are quite irrelevant, but they sound to me like they are sick of misinformation from US backed right wing media. One only needs to look at the right wing media’s coverage of the Assange case to understand why governments react to this.

I don’t condone Ecuadorean measures to imprison journos, however, when misinformation is published, there are never counter arguments coupled with these stories. This is effectively the censorship strategy used by corrupt media outlets, exemplified by “The Independent” article by Owen Jones
Exploit

Surely if there’s one country in the world where anyone can get a fair hearing it must be liberal, socially concerned and just Sweden. Why is Assange so unwilling to return to this liberal and enlightened country to clear his name of wrongdoing? The fact he seems to have become a fugitive willing to sup with any passing devil that will harbour him is as odd as it is mysterious.
- http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone
  
  The cause of his unwillingness to return to Sweden is fear of extradition to the USA, leading to possible imprisonment or a death sentence.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
    
    And given American precedents on this topic, quite sensible to be fearful
    - John Ruddy
      
      He would have less to fear in Sweden, as its harder to extradite him to the US from there than from here. Just ask Christoper Tappin who is languishing in the US for selling batteries to the wrong people…
  - Exploit
    
    Ah…
  - geedee0520
    
    Erm – Sweden will not extradite anyone anywhere there is a possibility of a death sentence for the charges involved, Neither will the UK, come to that.
    
    Anyway – he’s jumped bail in the UK & should be tried for that here.
    - http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone
      
      You should pass that information on to the Assange legal team.
    - Davrwhu
      
      Is it not the case that he is only wanted for questioning in Sweden? As I understand no formal charges have been filed. I can’t believe all this fuss, this is Sweden we are talking about not some tinpot dictatorship. Anyone else who was wanted for questioning in connection with allegations of rape and tried to avoid extradition in this manner would be rightly condemned by all justice groups.
      - geedee0520
        
        Yes – he is wanted for questioning in Sweden. As I understand it the accuser makes a statement, the Swedish prosecutor questions the accused and then decides if there is a case to answer and then the accused is arrested and charged. Then there is a trial.
        
        There will, presumably, be a charge of refusing to answer bail in the UK, which I would imagine will lead to a remand in custody in Sweden, assuming a case to answer>
      - http://www.facebook.com/people/Iain-Hill/100000917822376 Iain Hill
        
        Is there not supposedly CIA involvement by the women making the “charges”?
      - Brumanuensis
        
        No, there isn’t.
      - JS
        
        How can you be so certain?
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Well, basic logic mainly. Burden of proof falls on those making allegations, by the way.
      - geedee0520
        
        Evidence, link?
  - John Ruddy
    
    Except, he cant be extradited to the US from Sweden to the US without the consent of Britain. Whereas he can be extradited from here to the US fairly easily.
    
    If the US really wanted him, they’d have applied while he was at large in the UK.
    
    He would actually be safer from the US in Sweden!
    - http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone
      
      Just to clarify, I’m not saying that he can be extradited, just conveying the info as it has been put about in the media, by an Ecuadorian gov. minister and various commentators including Assange supporters.
      
      I’m not privy to the details of the case nor the motivations of the various actors so any view taken by myself on what might happen would be largely guesswork. Of course, the allegations issuing from Sweden are serious and cannot be brushed beneath the carpet.
- JS
  
  You are right – it is odd and mysterious. As all his concerns could be met quite easily with a bit of legal guarantee that is mysterious. Why are some guarantees not made that would take away any excuse he might have? Sweden guarantees not to extradite him but to return him to Britain. If the USA wishes to extradite him then do it through the UK courts.
http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

Nice piece, Tom. I just found a wonderful piece from the Time website – explaining how, while granting asylum to Assange, Ecuador has just given up a genuine political refugee to the quasi-dictatorship of Belarus. The Correa regime stinks, just as the Chávez regime stinks.
- Mr Chippy
  
  Rob, I know your likely response is two wrongs don’t make a right but I am finding a consistency in your comments. You appear to be vocally critical of nations which either stand against or are independent of the US and/or the west in general but less critical of states which on the surface at least are more pliant. Last time we had an exchange you made some comparisons between Israel which you accepted was deficient in some respects but in your view better than many autocratic regimes in the region. Can I ask do you consider that Ecuador and Venezuela despite “stinking” has a better, the same or worse track record on human/democratic rights than say Saudi Arabia? If you believe it is better why do you believe that these countries are subject to more public aprobium from the US than the Saudis? Further a number of Latin American countries had pretty despotic regimes in the past but were supported by the West because they were anti-communist. Do you believe the current regimes in Ecuador and Venezuela are better, the same or worse than what went before? Colin
- DaveCitizen
  
  Lots of ‘regimes’ stink. The question is: what determines whether the British Govt. will fit a nose peg in its dealings with them? Any suggestions Rob?
- Brumanuensis
  
  Regime? Correa is democratically-elected, whatever else you may think of him. Once again, your hatred of people like Chavez and Correa is blinding you to their genuine popularity.
  - http://www.facebook.com/jjfoy Jonathan Foy
    
    The NSDAP were democratically elected in Germany in 1933, and their leader was genuinely popular. Some people may still have considered his a ‘regime’, don’t you think?
    - Brumanuensis
      
      Well, I guess it was only a matter of time before someone Godwinned the thread.
      
      Hitler did not ‘win’ the election, as at its peak the NSDAP won 37% of the vote and a minority of the seats. That was in July 1932. In November, they won even fewer. They were leveraged into power as part of a coalition, of which they were minority members of the cabinet, before proceeding to take control of the government through a combination of luck and street-violence.
      
      So yeah, exactly like Ecuador.
      - http://www.facebook.com/jjfoy Jonathan Foy
        
        “They were leveraged into power as part of a coalition” – so democratically elected, rather like Mr Cameron & Mr Clegg?
        
        I didn’t say that Ecuador was “exactly like” pre-war Germany, nor make any claim close to that; I merely pointed out that being “democratically-elected” and “genuinely popular” does not rule out the eventuality of a regime.
        
        I’m quite sure I could find many other more worrying parallels between Correa and other not-so-nice leaders. Or find plenty of examples of democratically-elected “regimes”. All I did was show up your argument as fatuous.
        
        Maybe you should try reading my post again.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Has Correa destroyed all democratic institutions, murdered his opponents and passed an Enabling Act consolidating all powers in his hands? No. And there is a difference between ‘a regime’ and ‘the eventuality of a regime’.
        
        Until he does, I think loose comparisons with Nazi Germany ought to be avoided.
      - http://www.facebook.com/jjfoy Jonathan Foy
        
        I wasn’t comparing his election, or governance, to the Nazis. I was pointing out that being democratically elected does not mean a government won’t become authoritarian.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        On the election point, the NSDAP were never given an electoral mandate in a free-and-fair election. That is the point of my post.
      - http://www.facebook.com/jjfoy Jonathan Foy
        
        The NSDAP won 230 seats in the July 1932 election; the next largest party won 133. That made them, by quite a substantial margin, the largest party.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Yes, but they were never given a clear majority and their power base was never in the Reichstag. By the time they were appointed to the cabinet, parliamentary democracy had effectively been supplanted by Article 48, meaning their appointment to the government was as a last attempt to stave off the Communist Party, rather than a positive mandate for their programme.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        And by January 1933, the ‘Preussenschlag’ had effectively eviscerated state government in Germany, meaning that the country was already a de facto dictatorship, under Hindenburg and his ‘camarilla’, as Richard J Evans noted in ‘The Coming of the Third Reich’.
      - http://www.facebook.com/jjfoy Jonathan Foy
        
        In 2005 Tony Blair won a clear majority of seats with 35.2% of the vote. It just depends how you count ‘em!
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Well, fair enough Jonathan
        
        I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
      - http://www.facebook.com/jjfoy Jonathan Foy
        
        That depends on the point.. If Correa was democratically elected; the NSDAP weren’t because they only won 37% of the vote; but Tony Blair can get democratically elected with a clear majority on 35.3% of the vote then “democratically elected” doesn’t seem an entirely convincing argument.. which was the only point I was making in the first place
Ab

Tom Copley, how much more biased can you write. By questioning Ecuador’s policies on freedom of speech you are trying to justify that what UK, Sweden and US are doing is right.

If you have any knowledge or sense of proportion, you would understand that UK is not right in invading Ecuador because they sheltered someone who is not charged but merely needed for questioning in Sweden.

it is so obvious that it is US pressure, they used Visa, Mastercard and now they are using UK and Sweden.

Unfortunately both countries are acting as if they are US colony.
- Mickelmas
  
  I’m sorry, but the real ignoramus is you. If you had any understanding of democratic principles you would realise that Ecuador’s government is more dictatorship than democracy (not something that even you could level at liberal democracies like the UK, Sweden and the USA). Furthermore, everybody is behaving properly (legally) except Assange and Ecuador. Read before you rant.
- Mickelmas
  
  I’m sorry, but the real ignoramus is you. If you had any understanding of democratic principles you would realise that Ecuador’s government is more dictatorship than democracy (not something that even you could level at liberal democracies like the UK, Sweden and the USA). Furthermore, everybody is behaving properly (legally) except Assange and Ecuador. Read before you rant.
  - http://twitter.com/Radguy1 Radguy
    
    The president is democratically elected. Is that how you define a dictatorship? I took a look at the human rights watch site and their are a few concerns with Ecuador. Geoffrey Robertson just reported on Al Jazeera that no more journos will be imprisoned for publishing, so we’ll see about that. Most of the other problems date before Correa became president.
    
    Then I had a look at the USA on the human rights watch site which had pages and pages of concerns. A little perspective and a little more paying attention in class Mickelmas.
    - Mickelmas
      
      Forget about organisations that are massively blinkered in favour of a particular political stance and choose to ignore facts that would undermine their position (not unlike Correar’s defence of Assange). Examine the historical facts. Being ‘democratically elected’ does not automatically exclude dictatorships: Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro etc. have all been democratically elected yet, like Correa, have imposed dictatorial governance on their electorate. Ecuador, like a number of other South American governments, have histories of welcoming Fascists from abroad and being obsessed with being anti-USA. The question you have to face is: would you prefer to live in Ecuador or the USA? If your answer is the former, I suggest you seek psycholgical help.
      - Mr Chippy
        
        Mickelmas, I have no time for Assange but this is a weird argument. Someone may prefer to live in the US than a whole range of other countries but that doesn’t necessarily make them dictatorships. Indeed many Brits choose to live in the US which may indicate their preference so on this basis the UK is a dictatorhip? By the way when were Hitler, Hussein and Castro democratically elected? Didn’t the US welcome a whole raft of fascists after the second world war particularly to work on their space programme? Or indeed propped up Hitler sympathisers in Latin America. Or organised the coup which overthrew democratically elected Allende government which was replaced by a dictatorship. Or supported virulently anti-semetic regimes e.g. Saudi Arabia. Or vetoed international action against apartheid South Africa (a pretty racist regime in my view). I fear you may be imbued with the idea that pro-US = democratic, anti-US = dictatorship. If so you need need psychological help. Colin
Chilbaldi

Very well said Tom Copley. This is the first time I have agreed with every word you have written.

Assange is an attention seeking narcissist. In 50 – 100 years time, when our descendants write the history books studying our time, Assange will be characterised as one of the great conmen of the 21st century. Right up there with the greats of c20th such as Frank Abignale and the chap who ‘sold’ the Eiffel Tower.

He has conned thousands into championing his cause. He has positioned it as the man who speaks the truth versus the big bad USA.

In reality he is facing serious sexual assault accusations in Sweden and is running from them like a coward. I wonder why he doesn’t want to face questioning regarding these allegations?

The added irony is, it wouldn’t be any more difficult to extradite him to the USA from here than it would be from Sweden. Also, I wasn’t aware that judges in Sweden did what their Parliament told them to in extradition cases, or that the Swedish government itself was a lapdog for the USA.

He is on the run from serious allegations.
- JS
  
  He does not want to face them because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that it is a front to extradite him to the USA where he may face many years in jail. That is not being a coward – that is self preservation. If it is no more difficult to extradite him from here to the USA then that application should be made here.
  
  The fact that the powers that be make no attempt to separate these issues – which is quite simple legally – shows that something is not right about the situation. Till there is some resolution to separate the two issues I think he has every right to fear that justice will not be done.
  - geedee0520
    
    There is no extradition request of anyone. Therefore the issues are separate.
    
    He also has to face justice for jumping bail.
    - JS
      
      No, they are not separate and that does not make them separate. If Sweden would demarcate the issues they would be separate. That is Sweden can undertake to return him to the UK once justice has been done on the allegations. Or if the USA would serve an extradition order or say they are not interested.
      
      Yes, he has jumped bail. And he has claimed political asylum. And a country has granted him that, so they think he has a case for political persecution.
      
      That Gordian knot can be unravelled if the authorities would be more straightforward and open about their intentions.
      - geedee0520
        
        Here’s a summary of what you’re asking the Swedes to do (from a Lib Con contributor) regarding extradition
        
        ‘First, the Swedish government is
        unable to read extradition requests that don’t yet exist; second,
        because the courts have a say. In other words you are asking the Swedes
        to (a) predict the future and (b) overrule the courts & therefore violate the
        rule of law’
        
        If you asked the USA to say they are not interested in an extradition order against yourself – they could not possibly say that.
        
        Regarding the accusations against him – there is a due process in Sweden which their law says must be followed. It would be followed for you and me – why not Assange?
        
        So – they are separate.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

Whatever I think or don’t think about Assange, I think America are pulling the strings and Sweden their willing helpers with us just behind.

I don’t trust the American demands for extradition and until they sort themselves out (which also means abolishing capital punishment and removal of votes for ex criminals) we should refuse all extraditions
- John Ruddy
  
  Except the US hasnt demanded him from anybody….
- Mickelmas
  
  Crap!
aracataca

This is a fairly outrageous piece. As somebody who has been to Ecuador and has travelled quite widely in Latin America-one thing has to be made unequivocally clear- Ecuador does not (by a long, long, long way) have the worst Human Rights Record in South America. However, if you’re in search of a country that does have a truly appalling Human Rights Record then look no further than Ecuador’s neighbour Colombia which has a government and a political system that is quite literally murderous. If you are a trade unionist in Colombia it’s like getting down on your knees and pleading for a bullet in the head. (I’ve worked with human rights’ missions in Colombia).

Colombia is the most dangerous place on the planet to be a trade unionist and more trade unionists are killed in Colombia than in any other country in the world. Of course none of this prevented the last Labour government or indeed the present government from lavishing copious quantities of military aid on Colombia. Colombia’s president is also wined and dined at great expense in Washington, London and Europe’s capital cities while his fellow citizens (of a social democratic persuasion) are shot in the back of the head at home.

I am not usually roused to anger by articles on LL but this piece is disgraceful. At best it smells of Chauvanism (Ecuador is an extremely poor and until now largely ignored and benighted country) but what makes this article particularly infuriating is that LL readers will discover that Mr Copley will be far less animated and much less forthcoming about the military and political connections between the governments of Europe and the US and the killers in Bogota.
Chavez and Correra may stink I don’t know, but rank hypocrisy stinks even more.
- http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone
  
  “none of this prevented the last Labour government or indeed the present government from lavishing copious quantities of military aid on Colombia. ”
  
  Makes me wonder why I bother remaining a member of the Labour Party – FFS.
  - aracataca
    
    The policy of the last government towards Latin America was incredibly boneheaded especially after 2002 and Bill Rammell was extremely unwilling to act upon complaints about the murder of trade unionists in Colombia. In a sense this is where Copley and Marchant get their prejudices from. For example, they lump Correa and Chavez
    together when Correa has deliberately distanced himself from Chavez in public on numerous occasions. In effect they are saying: ‘They’re all the bleeding same’ when anyone with any knowledge of Latin America knows with certainty that this is precisely what they are not.
    
    Incidentally many of the restrictions on Human Rights in Ecuador (PS I’m not excusing them) were put in place by the Ecuadorian government following a coup attempt by those well known guardians of human rights -namely the senior officers of the Ecuadorian army and police force after Correa tried to rim their sails a bit. – (See record of Ecuadorian military dictatorship of the 1970s and 1980s for reference here).
    
    This government is of course worse-NB the threat to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy-This is like putting up a notice on the door of every British Embassy in Latin America (or the world for that matter) saying ‘we storm embassies-come and storm us.’ It also endangers British diplomatic staff all over the world. I’m not sure that even Bill Rammell our woeful ex-minister for Latin America would have done that.
    - http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone
      
      Thanks for those details. I’m beginning to get the feeling that my return to the LP is temporary.
      
      Labour has destroyed its own community base. The ground force necessary to win elections in circumstances where there is no significant support from the media is gone. And with good reason.
      
      If there is no clear indication of turning over a new leaf by Conference then I’ll take it as a good-bye kiss, up my anchor and use my ‘community time’ to raise money for the RNLI.
Mr Chippy

Tom I have no time for Assange. Perhaps I am being dense but why don’t the Swedes hoist him by his own petard and give an absolute guarantee that following due legal process and provided he is found innocent he will be returned to a country of his own choice? That or publish their evidence against him on WikiLeaks which of course he is bound not to censor.
- 000a000
  
  Firstly, why should they? He has questions to answer and he should not be able to use this to negotiate conditions any more than any other individual who faces the same – and has jumped bail.
  
  Secondly, I suspect Assange and his supporters would just come up with another excuse. There are no charges from the US, Sweden will not send anyone to the US if they face the death penalty, and the process itself is a long one.
  
  One is therefore left with the feeling that Assange does not want to face the rape allegations, read into that what you will.
  - JS
    
    He has questions to answer so why do they not ask them? There have been many offers of an interview that have not been taken up. If they did that and then made the charges it would be a bit less murky what is going on.
    
    Sweden will send someone to the US if they do not face a death penalty. Many years in jail is not so good either.
    
    Maybe you are right and Assange wants to avoid the allegations. ( I do not think they are rape allegations). But even you conflate the issue with the possibility of being extradited to the USA. If the USA wishes to extradite him it should be open and upfront about it and apply through the British courts. It is not justice to confuse the two issues.
    - Mr 0a
      
      They need to be asked under Swedish legal jurisdiction for various reasons, including for any subsequent charges to be fully legitimate should the matter reach court.
      
      In any case why should Assange be granted concessions nobody else would get. Because he’s famous? Because he’s irritated America (big round of applause from the left)?
      
      He has abused our legal system by jumping bail. I hope we can see the back of him and get him over to Sweden where he belongs as soon as possible.
      
      PS no idea why I appear with the father christmas login sometimes and sometimes not, sorry!
- JS
  
  Well, exactly. That is the problem – why is Sweden being so coy and opaque about what they want to do. Why do they not question him here?
  - Mr 0a
    
    Because it is custom to question him under Swedish jurisdiction.
    
    If formal charges are made he hasn’t exactly got a good record of sticking around for a start.
Clem The Gem

I agree Tom, although Ecuador is by no means the worst offender when it comes to preventing free speech, it hardly has a great record does it? At a time when our fundamental human right to say what we think, and report honestly what is happening, is being threatened around the globe, Julian Assange is, at best, a very dodgy advocate. Wikileaks and Assange – giving up names and addresses of dissidents to the Govt. of Belarus. Taking employment with the backers of Putin. Cosying up to censor-loving governments in Central and South America. Personally calling the offices of Private Eye with veiled threats…

It seems that we must be imprisoned by those with literal minds. As to the charges against him in Sweden – well he is innocent until proven guilty in Sweden, but refuses a fair trial in a Liberal Democracy.

Quite simply, he is not an heroic anti-imperialist, nor a crusading journalist speaking truth to power. He is, like the editors of Lonely Planet Guides, simply a businessman, preying on the prejudices of “liberal” sensibilities.

Once again, we see supposed western leftists all but admitting that, outside of their little part of the world, nobody else really deserves life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Universal Human Rights are made a mockery of by idiots waving “Anti-Imperialist” banners, as if only one small section of the Human Race deserves any freedom at all.

http”//clemthegem.wordpress.com
- Brumanuensis
  
  Hear bloody hear, Clem. Nailed it in one.
PaulHalsall

Good on Ecuador. He should be tried for the rape charges, but the fact that Sweden refuses to say that it will not send him to the US seems to reveal some kind of hidden designs.
And Assange could expect no fair treatment in the US – just look at the conditions Bradley Manning is kept in, and the fact that a very small percentage of people are acquitted once they get into the US court system.
Plus, despite some of Assange’s personality issues, Wikileaks is in general a good thing.
- JS
  
  What rape charges?
  
  Other than that good post.
- Mr 0a
  
  Sweden should have to make no special promises or bow down before Assange.
  
  He has questions to answer regarding an alleged rape. He has skipped bail in the UK.
  
  He should be treated exactly like anybody else would in this situation.
  - JS
    
    I am sure he will be treated exactly the same as anybody else who has been in this situation. All we need is a precedent …
000a000

Rape charges can be ignored, minimised and dismissed when it comes to left wing activists it seems.

Assange has jumped bail and he’s therefore a criminal. He should be treated exactly as anyone else and extradited to Sweden.

There is a strange willing blindness amongst his supporters to believe anything bar the fact he has questions to answer.

Justice cannot be put on hold because he is the poster boy of Wikileaks.
- JS
  
  Yet again you make the accusation of rape charges. There are no charges. Even when and if the charges are made I do not think they will include rape.
  
  He has questions to answer but the Swedish authorities are very reluctant to ask them as they could ask them now. Why did they not quetsion him?
  
  I agree justice cannot be put on hold. But it is unjust not to make the accusations clear and the threat of extradition to the USA clear.
  
  You seem to have a strange unwilling blindness to believe that justice is being done when the water is so murky and you can see very little.
  - geedee0520
    
    The accusations are clear according to the Swedish lawyer for the women involved. It’s worth listening to him here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19292323. There is due process under Swedish law to be followed.
    
    There is no extradition request from the USA to either the UK or Sweden so there is no threat other than if, and buts & maybes. Sweden can clearly not respond to hypothetical questions about legal due process.
  - Mr 0a
    
    My error. “Accusations” then.
    
    There are no charges from the US, Sweden has a clear extradition process and policy.
    
    Given this the big question is why Assange still refuses to return to Sweden to answer the questions asked of him. You can infer your own answer from this.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    So pinning someone down and trying to force them to have sex without prophylactics is not a rape allegation?
    - JS
      
      Try reading what I said more carefully. Rape charges. Not rape allegations.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        He won’t be charged until very late in the proceedings. Swedish criminal procedure is not like the UKs.
Limp Richard

I feel really sorry for the innocent people who supported Assange by putting up £240,000 of their own money to secure his bail, who might now lose every penny of that money if he somehow or other manages to skip the country – which, let’s be candid, seems like a laughable impossibility given the scrutiny that the police and security forces have placed him under.

I wonder if Ecuador could extend diplomatic immunity to him in some way?

I can’t see any way Assange could leave Great Britain except as an Ecuadorian diplomat.
Anotherfive

I doubt that Sweden’s use of a European Arrest Warrant before Assange has even been questioned under caution by the Swedish prosecutor about the allegations, let alone charged, should have been given the patina of legality by the UK Judiciary, But, hey, what do I know about UK legal provisions?
Marrk

Could we just knock one thing on the head – Assange is NOT a campaigner for free speech and no one has questioned his right to free speech. He believes I assume it is right to publish the secret papers of Governments – though clearly only Western ones to which he is opposed. If you do that you know perfectly well what is likely to happen – it already has to Assange’s fall guy Bradley Manning. I understand why Assange wants to evade the consequences of his actions – I just don’t see any reason why he should.
- http://twitter.com/Radguy1 Radguy
  
  Are you aware of the Syrian leaks wikileaks have released?
  
  Kind of makes your post sound fallacious.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
  
  I think its absolutely right to uncover government secrecy
  
  Some are very keen to silence those who do it because they have something to hide
Brumanuensis

The Ecuadorean press are not exactly an innocent party, but I agree the irony is rather striking. I admire much of what Wikileaks has done, but Assange is not synonymous with Wikileaks. His own attorney’s description of his actions is effectively a confession of rape. I invite everyone to read the Supreme Court’s ruling on Assange’s appeal for a sober overview of the facts of this case.
- http://twitter.com/Radguy1 Radguy
  
  You really are a dimwit. Assange’s counsel pointing out that the accusations were not crimes under UK law is not an admission of guilt.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    False. Regardless of whether Assange is guilty or not, he is accused of an offence under UK law.
    - http://twitter.com/Radguy1 Radguy
      
      You said that his counsel described his actions. FALSE. They stated the accusations which is NOT an admission that these actions occurred.
      
      Where did I say that he is not accused?
      - Brumanuensis
        
        I was responding to your claim that the accusations were ‘not crimes under UK law’.
      - http://twitter.com/Radguy1 Radguy
        
        But I didn’t make that claim. You words “effectively a confession” imply that Assange’s counsel have stated his side of the story. Let me explain – if I tried to charge you with being a numbskull, you can easily say that being a numbskull is not a crime – would you be admitting that you are a numbskull? Clearly not, despite this being true.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        I’ll just requote what Mr Assange’s attorney, Ben Emmerson, said:
        
        “He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.
        
        In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”
        
        Emmerson then went on to argue that the subsequent consent allegedly offered, rendered the entire encounter consensual. I find that legally dubious, but that’s for a court to decide. However, I was offering an opinion based upon what Mr Assange’s counsel acknowledges as a description of his actions.
Barry Edwards

I’m puzzled. In other cases (e.g. Gary McKinnon) it has been claimed that the UK will almost automatically hand over a suspect to the US so why would the US wait for someone to go from the UK to Sweden before trying to get them extradited?
- John Ruddy
  
  Good point Barry. Which is something those supporting Assange have failed to answer. Why is he resisiting going to Sweden if it would be more difficult for him to be extradited to the US from there?
Brumanuensis

A brief legal note: Assange has not been charged, because under Swedish law he cannot be charged until questioned. For his questioning to be legally admissible, it must be carried out in Sweden.
- JS
  
  Did you just make that up?
  - Brumanuensis
    
    No. That is what I understand of why events have proceeded as they have.
    - JohnSeers
      
      ”It is not clear why Ny missed the opportunity to interview Assange whilst he was still in Sweden, nor why she did not accept Assange’s proposal to be interrogated in England according to rules valid in both Sweden and Britain on Mutual Legal Assistance. There are different means available to that effect, mentioned in the Handbook on International Legal Assistance, published by the Swedish National Prosecutor General. Ny first said that it would not be compatible with Swedish law to interrogate Assange in England, which obviously is not true.”
Pingback: How to resolve the Assange conundrum » 21stCenturyFix.org.uk
Bushflyer

Given the US record in general and what is happening to Bradley Manning Assange has as more right to assylem than a good many that have been let into the country.
Brumanuensis

Let us all consider how Mr Assange’s own lawyer has described Assange’s actions:

“He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”
- Mr 0a
  
  But he’s the Wikileaks guy, it doesn’t count… etc
  - Brumanuensis
    
    Sadly true. I wish people would remember Dr Thomas Fuller’s wise words from 1733: “Be you never so high the law is above you”.
jaime taurosangastre candelas

If the Americans were intelligent, and they wanted Assange (which the first seems dubious on past record, and the second unknowable based on no charges yet produced), they would keep very quiet, allow him to be extradited to Sweden to face the questioning, and do nothing more for the present time. Assange either gets convicted in Sweden, or let free depending on the questioning and any future Jury’s decision.

Then he goes somewhere, either on being released from any Swedish court or on serving his Swedish sentence.

And then the Americans hunt him down through the world with their CIA squad, using the same solution the Israelis did for Adolph Eichman. They find him, capture him and bring him to the USA.

If Assange does somehow make it to Ecuador from Britain, well it is probably easier for the CIA squad to get him there than in the UK, Sweden or Australia, and does not risk irritating so many allies with legal process and forced rendition. Ecuador and the USA are not allies, so it is of little consequence if the Ecuadorean government becomes upset.

Either way, I do not see Mr Assange getting away very easily, unless he wishes to voluntarily incarcerate himself in Ecuadorean territory in a small flat in London forever, and if he does, well the Americans may even think that itself is a good outcome. His days of globe-trotting and irritating the Americans appear to have already ended, with merely the “punishment” yet to occur.
- derek
  
  I reckon with the mention of Adolph Eichman Jaime, you’ve raise the bar to a height Assange will never clear.
  - jaime taurosangastre candelas
    
    Not being a lawyer, I would not know how difficult his various options from 6 months ago may have appeared to him. From the perspective of common sense (itself not sometimes respected by any countries’ laws, which follow their own path), he appears by his own actions to have relentlessly selected the more stupid of two binary choices at every juncture.
    
    And now he is trapped in a small flat in London with some probably very uncomfortable Ecuadoreans who do not really want him there, thought by most reasonable people to have something sordid and illegal to run away from***, to have run out of friends (even his own nation wants nothing to do with him), to have traded any journalistic integrity he might have had for supporting Correa’s doomed attempt to embarrass the Americans, and to have invited upon himself a lifetime of looking over his shoulder.
    
    He is therefore a perfect candidate for attracting the unwavering support of some (small) number of powerless left wingers who will try to portray him as some form of martyr, which will do him literally no practical good at all, and merely harden everyone else’s opinion that he had what was coming to him, and walked into a trap of his own stupidity.
    
    *** If you really are innocent, who on earth walks away from some perfectly legal questioning about allegations of rape issued by a country that is probably among the most respected liberal democracy in the world? Something not right there.
    - derek
      
      Speculation as this given time can be as adverse as the leading questions which seem so what deferred but your “trapped” point seem all to real, however you do always try and use a negative to push a positive against those on the left? that seems somewhat a question for your own mind and maybe something you’ll address at a later cross roads in your own life experience.
    - Brumanuensis
      
      I think the publication of the Afghan War Logs and Iraq War Logs, as well as many of the leaked cables from 2010, represents a public service of great importance. It wasn’t all Assange’s work, but he did play a part, for whatever reason.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Iain-Hill/100000917822376 Iain Hill

Ask the US for a public declaration that it will not seek to extradite Assange. Are we too scared/subservient to do so?

If it gives it, he can be extradited to Sweden (although the “charges” will then without doubt evaporate).

If it refuses, we should not extradite him to Sweden, since he will then be further extradited to a country which has threatened him with the death penalty for causing its government embarrassment (nothing more).
- Brumanuensis
  
  So Sweden is more likely to extradite than the UK. Gary McKinnon’s family might beg to differ.
- geedee0520
  
  No country will ever give a declaration that it will not seek to extradite a potential criminal. You are asking them to predict the future, and there is also the minor point that extraditions are subject to the courts of law as anyone else (apart from JA, obviously)
  
  The UK Supreme court has determined he should be extradited and there are accusations to answer in Sweden in line with their judicial process, which requires the accused to be interviewed in Sweden. ( None of which applies to JA, obviously)
  
  Sweden will not extradite anyone facing charges which carry the death penalty, and there has been no request from the USA to do so, which is subject to a ruling by the courts in Sweden. (But JA says this is wrong etc, so it must be)
  
  The USA has not threatened him with the death penalty, a couple of idiot politicians have.
  
  No wonder the Swedes are pissed with you guys.
Pingback: Ecuador is as no friend of freedom and Assange is no friend of justice | Tom Copley AM
Plato

Bloody well said.
DUDE

I am not one to say that rape is isn’t a serious offence. However the amount of police around the embassy should be a large indicator that this is not about rape. Sweden will be a short stop on his way to the U.S. where the crimes committed against him will make rape look like a walk in the park.
- aracataca
  
  Yes. Why are there so many police there? A rape investigation is usually accorded spartan manpower resources. What do they imagine might happen? Good point Dude.
  - 000a000
    
    Most of them are there because of the large number of people and journalists in central London close to a main road.
http://www.facebook.com/LeeJamesBrown01 Lee Brown

Rob Marchant’s assertion above that Ecuador’s granting of
asylum to Assange wasn’t genuinely about persecution as Ecuador was also
extraditing somebody to Belarus was totally false.

See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ecuador-protects-belarus-refugee-aliaksandr-barankov-8091700.html

He had previously been given asylum
by the government. An appeal was in the courts. The courts have now decided. Thats
all.

Rob seems to be consistently prepared to circulate
misleading information on Latina America. Perhaps never was this more embarrassing
for him as the time at Christmas when he claimed Argentina had banned iphones and
it turned out that this was just a story circulating as part of their
equivalent of April fools day.
George

This opinion piece completely misses the point. Assange is at the Ecuadorian embassy because it is one place where he cannot be touched by the USA. It’s a irony certainly, but to suggest that Assange therefore supports every action of the Ecuadorian government (which has turned around the economic lives of many of its citizens by the by – how were they doing under the previous USA-supported privileged elite regimes? Look it up for yourself, particularly you Mickelmas as you appear to have next to no knowledge of what has happened in Ecuador) is a TOTAL NONSENSE. We know the USA has a grand jury convened to go into action as soon as Assange is made available by a compliant nation. Sweden is one such nation and as HR lawyer Geoffrey Robertson said – they have an appalling record of rendition.

Latest

Featured Unison Conference 2013
Why the government are keen to use trade unions as a scapegoat

By Ben Kind

“Mike Bassett did a better job as bloody England manager than David Cameron has as Prime Minister” Ricky Tomlinson tells me as he pauses for photos with union members at UNISON’s annual conference in Liverpool. Ricky’s just delivered a powerful opening speech to 2,000 UNISON members packed into the Echo Arena. Just like the final scene of his film Mike Bassett: England Manager, Ricky leaves the stage with his clenched fists pumping the air as thunderous applause fills the room. [...]
Read more →
News Unison Conference 2013
Unison set out their expectations for a Labour government

By Mark Ferguson

Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis set out his tests for continuing to support Labour this afternoon. Speaking at their conference in Liverpool, Prentis said: For too long we’ve built the careers of Labour politicians, only to be let down when we needed them most. I don’t want to hear Labour apologising for past mistakes, I want to see a clear agenda from Labour for the future. We must not support a Labour Government that does not : put an end [...]
Read more →
Featured Scotland
Why on earth shouldn’t Nigel Farage visit Scotland?

By Tom Harris

You’ve got to admire Nigel Farage. Like a comedian who’s already died on stage at the Glasgow Empire, he’s put on his “optimistic” hat and chosen to return to Scotland to campaign for UKIP. His last visit, you will recall, was memorable for his being forced to seek refuge in an Edinburgh pub from a mob of nationalists and trots shouting “SCUM!” at him as he tried to convey his message (a tad harsh, I thought. But I suppose “gentleman [...]
Read more →
Comment
Labour needs more than a few warm words on the environment, energy security and climate change

By Callum Smith

It seems that with the announcements of their intention to end universality in social security and accept the Coalition’s spending envelopes, Labour are gradually beginning to articulate what the Labour Party’s 2015 manifesto will look like. While much has been said on social security, general economic direction and housing shortages; there has been little said on the environment, energy security and climate change. Other than a few warm words from Mary Creagh MP in LabourList’s ‘One Nation Labour: Debating the Future’ [...]
Read more →
News
5,000 soldiers face redundancy – Media roundup: June 18th, 2013

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this (and much more) in your inbox. You can sign up here. 5,000 soldiers face redundancy Thousands of members of the armed forces will receive redundancy letters tomorrow – as Government defence cuts continue to bite. Up to 5,300 serving soldiers in the Army will lose their jobs – including [...]
Read more →