On Friday 5 April 2019, as revealed by John Pilger on Twitter from a high level source within the Ecuadorian Government, Julian Assange would shortly be expelled from the London Ecuadorian Embassy. Once evicted, he stands to be arrested by the UK police, extradited to the United States where he faces a secret trial based on a secret indictment. He may face many years behind bars - even the death penalty can't be excluded - all for just publishing, through Wikleaks, facts about world events that the public would be entitled to know in a fair and just world.
In 2010 then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, before Julian Assange was forced to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in October 2012, had ordered the Australian Federal Police to investigate Assange in the hope that they would find he had committed a crime. They found none.
In February 2016, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) stated that his detention was unlawful. This was reaffirmed by the Working Group in November 2015
An Australian government - if it was committed to the rule of law, free speech, human rights and democracy - could could act now to end the British government's illegal detention of Julian Assange in a matter of hours. It could send to London a contingent of Federal Police to escort Julian Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy back to Heathrow Airport and thence to Tullamarine Airport in Melbourne.
Were the British government to dare attempt to interfere with Australian Federal Police escorting Julian Assange back to Australia, the outcry would be enormous - from within Britain, Australia and the rest of the world.
However, not one Australian government, that of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, nor any of the subsequent governments- those of Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull have enacted this basic duty of care towards Julian Assange. They have not even shown any sympathy for him, or interest.
Not one of the political parties with representation in parliament - The Liberals, the Nationals, Labor, the Greens, nor any of the Independent members have spoken up for Julian Assange. This seems an appalling failure of our parliamentary system and those members of Parliament who supposedly represent us. (One exception to this is the now demonised OneNationParty.)
What You Can Do
Give your first preference to candidates who promise to act for Julian Assange. With a federal election looming, it should now be possible to hold to account those elected members of Parliament who have behaved so shamefully towards Julian Assange. Where you are asked to vote for a sitting candidate from one of the major parties, ask him/her should vote for a candidate who has been silent - or worse - about Julian Assange. Where any other candidate asks for your vote ask him/her what he she intends to do for Julian Assange. Give your first and subsequent references to those who give the best responses and put the major parties last.
At 1:00pm on Sunday 10 March originally, incorrectly the given date was 10 May - Ed) outside the State Library in Swanston Street Melbourne, supporters of investigative journalism, free speech and human rights will rally to demand that the Australian government act to free journalist Julian Assange from the arbitrary imprisonment he has faced inside the London Ecuadorian embassy since October 2012 when he sought asylum, that is more than 6 years ago.
Assange's living conditions inside the narrow confines of the Ecuadorian Embassy were already poor. They have been deliberately made worse by the new Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno. This is consistent with President Moreno's treatment of the Ecuadorian people to whom he made many promises in the election 19 February 2017, which he subsequently broke.
As described below by John Pilger in his address to the Sydney rally of last Sunday 3 March, Assange's health and even his life are now at risk. So, the need for the Australian government to act to protect one of its citizens is even more urgent.
Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy after the Swedish government requested that he be extradited to Sweden to be questioned by police over allegations that he had sexually assaulted two women. The women had initially made the allegations when he visited Sweden in August 2010, but Swedish police, who interviewed Assange closed the case and told him he could leave the country.
However the case was re-opened by a special prosecutor in November 2010. The prosecutor requested that Julian Assange be extradited from England for questioning, but failed to give him any assurance that he would not be extradited to the U.S. Assange then sought asylum in the Ecuadorian emabassy.
At this point, the Australian government could easily have acted to resolve the situation. They could have insisted that the Swedish government give Assange a guarantee against extradition to the U.S. or, failing that, expedite his return to Australia, if necessary, with an escort by members of the Australian Federal Police.
But the Australian government failed to act. In more than 8 years since then, it has either done either nothing or has acted to make Assange's circumstances worse.
Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador on 16 August 2012, but the UK government refused to allow him to leave the UK to go the Ecuador. As he has been threatened with arrest by the UK authorities for "skipping bail" should he step outside the embassy, Assange has been effectively imprisoned inside the embassy and, since February 2017 has faced additional hardships deliberately imposed upon him by the new Ecuadorian government, as described above.
On Sunday 3 March, the Socialist Equality Party, publishers of the World Socialist Web Site organised a rally in Sydney to support Julian Assange. The speech by John Pilger and the embedded video, previously published on their web site, is re-published below:
"Whenever I visit Julian Assange, we meet in a room he knows too well.
There is a bare table and pictures of Ecuador on the walls. There is a bookcase where the books never change. The curtains are always drawn and there is no natural light. The air is still and foetid.
This is Room 101.
Before I enter Room 101, I must surrender my passport and phone. My pockets and possessions are examined. The food I bring is inspected.
The man who guards Room 101 sits in what looks like an old-fashioned telephone box. He watches a screen, watching Julian. There are others unseen, agents of the state, watching and listening.
Cameras are everywhere in Room 101. To avoid them, Julian manoeuvres us both into a corner, side by side, flat up against the wall. This is how we catch up: whispering and writing to each other on a notepad, which he shields from the cameras. Sometimes we laugh.
I have my designated time slot. When that expires, the door in Room 101 bursts open and the guard says, “Time is up!” On New Year’s Eve, I was allowed an extra 30 minutes and the man in the phone box wished me a happy new year, but not Julian.
Of course, Room 101 is the room in George Orwell’s prophetic novel, 1984, where the thought police watched and tormented their prisoners, and worse, until people surrendered their humanity and principles and obeyed Big Brother.
Julian Assange will never obey Big Brother. His resilience and courage are astonishing, even though his physical health struggles to keep up.
Julian is a distinguished Australian who has changed the way many people think about duplicitous governments. For this, he is a political refugee subjected to what the United Nations calls “arbitrary detention.”
The UN says he has the right of free passage to freedom, but this is denied. He has the right to medical treatment without fear of arrest, but this is denied. He has the right to compensation, but this is denied.
As founder and editor of WikiLeaks, his crime has been to make sense of dark times. WikiLeaks has an impeccable record of accuracy and authenticity which no newspaper, no TV channel, no radio station, no BBC, no New York Times, no Washington Post, no Guardian can equal. Indeed, it shames them.
That explains why he is being punished.
For example: Last week, the International Court of Justice ruled that the British Government had no legal powers over the Chagos Islanders, who, in the 1960s and 70s, were expelled in secret from their homeland on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and sent into exile and poverty. Countless children died, many of them from sadness. It was an epic crime few knew about.
For almost 50 years, the British have denied the islanders’ the right to return to their homeland, which they had given to the Americans for a major military base.
In 2009, the British Foreign Office concocted a “marine reserve” around the Chagos archipelago.
This touching concern for the environment was exposed as a fraud when WikiLeaks published a secret cable from the British Government reassuring the Americans that “the former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve.”
The truth of the conspiracy clearly influenced the momentous decision of the International Court of Justice.
WikiLeaks has also revealed how the United States spies on its allies; how the CIA can watch you through your i-phone; how presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took vast sums of money from Wall Street for secret speeches that reassured the bankers that if she was elected, she would be their friend.
In 2016, WikiLeaks revealed a direct connection between Clinton and organised jihadism in the Middle East: terrorists, in other words. One email disclosed that when Clinton was US Secretary of State, she knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Islamic State, yet she accepted huge donations for her foundation from both governments.
She then approved the world’s biggest ever arms sale to her Saudi benefactors: arms that are currently being used against the stricken people of Yemen.
That explains why he is being punished.
WikiLeaks has also published more than 800,000 secret files from Russia, including the Kremlin, telling us more about the machinations of power in that country than the specious hysterics of the “Russia-gate” pantomime in Washington.
This is real journalism—journalism of a kind now considered exotic: the antithesis of Vichy journalism, which speaks for the enemy of the people and takes its sobriquet from the Vichy government that occupied France on behalf of the Nazis.
Vichy journalism is censorship by omission, such as the untold scandal of the collusion between Australian governments and the United States to deny Julian Assange his rights as an Australian citizen and to silence him.
In 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard went as far as ordering the Australian Federal Police to investigate and hopefully prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks—until she was informed by the Australian Federal Police that no crime had been committed.
Last weekend, the Sydney Morning Herald published a lavish supplement promoting a celebration of “Me Too” at the Sydney Opera House on 10 March. Among the leading participants is the recently retired Minister of Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop.
Bishop has been on show in the local media lately, lauded as a loss to politics: an “icon,” someone called her, to be admired.
The elevation to celebrity feminism of one so politically primitive as Bishop tells us how much so-called identity politics have subverted an essential, objective truth: that what matters, above all, is not your gender but the class you serve.
Before she entered politics, Julie Bishop was a lawyer who served the notorious asbestos miner James Hardie, which fought claims by men and their families dying horribly with asbestosis.
Lawyer Peter Gordon recalls Bishop “rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying.”
Bishop says she “acted on instructions ... professionally and ethically.”
Perhaps she was merely “acting on instructions” when she flew to London and Washington last year with her ministerial chief of staff, who had indicated that the Australian Foreign Minister would raise Julian’s case and hopefully begin the diplomatic process of bringing him home.
Julian’s father had written a moving letter to the then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, asking the government to intervene diplomatically to free his son. He told Turnbull that he was worried Julian might not leave the embassy alive.
Julie Bishop had every opportunity in the UK and the US to present a diplomatic solution that would bring Julian home. But this required the courage of one proud to represent a sovereign, independent state, not a vassal.
Instead, she made no attempt to contradict the British Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, when he said outrageously that Julian “faced serious charges.” What charges? There were no charges.
Australia’s Foreign Minister abandoned her duty to speak up for an Australian citizen, prosecuted with nothing, charged with nothing, guilty of nothing.
Will those feminists who fawn over this false icon at the Opera House next Sunday be reminded of her role in colluding with foreign forces to punish an Australian journalist, one whose work has revealed that rapacious militarism has smashed the lives of millions of ordinary women in many countries: in Iraq alone, the US-led invasion of that country, in which Australia participated, left 700,000 widows.
So what can be done? An Australian government that was prepared to act in response to a public campaign to rescue the refugee football player, Hakeem al-Araibi, from torture and persecution in Bahrain, is capable of bringing Julian Assange home.
The refusal by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra to honour the United Nations’ declaration that Julian is the victim of “arbitrary detention” and has a fundamental right to his freedom, is a shameful breach of the letter and spirit of international law.
Why has the Australian government made no serious attempt to free Assange? Why did Julie Bishop bow to the wishes of two foreign powers?
Why is this democracy traduced by its servile relationships, and integrated with lawless foreign power?
The persecution of Julian Assange is the conquest of us all: of our independence, our self-respect, our intellect, our compassion, our politics, our culture.
So stop scrolling. Organise. Occupy. Insist. Persist. Make a noise. Take direct action. Be brave and stay brave. Defy the thought police.
War is not peace, freedom is not slavery, ignorance is not strength. If Julian can stand up to Big Brother, so can you: so can all of us."
The real 'matrix'. Barrett Brown, publisher and journalist talks to Chris Hedges about the US government’s war on Wikileaks, Assange and other outlets exposing the inner workings of power.
The following article by Paul Craig Roberts, reprinted with the author's kind permission, has been previously published (23/7/18) on Russia Insider with the same title and on both The Unz Review (4/7/18) and the author's own web-site PaulCraigRoberts.org (4/7/18) as "Washington Moves Against Rafael Correa".
As President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (pictured above) was a Godsend for the Ecuadorian people, for Latin American independence and for WikiLeaks' Julian Assange. By serving justice and truth instead of Washington, Correa earned Washington's hatred and determination to destroy him.
Correa was succeeded as president by Lenin Moreno, who Correa mistakenly believed to be an ally, but who has every appearance of being a Washington asset. The first thing that Moreno did was to make a deal with Washington, block Correa from being able to again stand for the presidency and turn on Julian Assange. Moreno wants to revoke the asylum granted to Assange and has prevented Assange from continuing his journalistic activity from the Ecuadorian embassy in London. In other words, Moreno has conspired with Washington and the UK to effectively imprison Assange in the embassy.
Now Moreno has taken another step that highlights his character as a blackguard. Correa, realizing that he and his family were in danger, moved to Belgium. An Ecuadorian court has now ordered the Belgians to detain Correa and extradite him to Ecuador on a fabricated kidnapping charge.
Correa thinks that Belgium will not comply with an absurd charge for which no evidence is presented and that the charge is intended to smear his name. If I were Correa, I would not be so sure. Look at the ease with which Washington was able to use its vassals—Sweden and the UK—to effectively nullify the political asylum that Ecuador gave Assange. Belgium is also Washington's vassal and will experience threats and bribes—whatever it takes—to deliver Correa into Moreno's hands, which is to say into Washington's hands. If I were Correa, I would get myself over to the Russian embassy and request asylum from Putin.
The Free Julian Assange protest outside the British Consulate at 90 Collins Street Melbourne started on time and was well attended. Julian Assange's father was there and thanked people for coming. We have to give credit to the organisers - the Socialist Equity Party (SEP). It seems that no-one else in Melbourne has been able to draw people together to protest about Julian Assange's persecution, although it is obvious that many people do care. A problem may be that people believe they need permission to hold meetings and rallies, but this is rarely the case. There were several speakers and we did not film all of them. The films uploaded here were filmed on a hand-held digital camcorder, more for the record than for art. We also filmed the surroundings and participants to give viewers an idea of the scene in Australia. Another protest was to be held tonight (19 June 2018) at the State Library, where the film, Collateral Murder, would be shown. We have embedded a copy of this chilling record of a night of murder for fun by US armed forces in Iraq, which is a document that Julian Assange published, and for which he has been pursued with murderous resentment by the United States ever since.
The Collateral Murder video (April 2010) (embedded below) was shown at a Free Assange Vigil from 6-8pm at Melbourne State Library on 19 June 2018.
The video below records James Cogan, National Secretary of the Social Equality Party's speech about Assange's predicament and the record so far of Australian prime ministers, among other things.
John Pilger reminds us of the 'journalists' who let down Julian Assange whilst profiting from the information he released. He reminds us how far down journalism has sunk. He uses the term 'Vichy-journalism' to good effect.
Transcript of John Pilger's magnificent speech on why Julian Assange is being persecuted, who is responsible, and the mass media role
[Headings have been inserted by Candobetter.net editor.]
JOHN PILGER: Thank you for coming for Julian. And thank you to the SEP for organising this important rally. The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy
The Australian government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull have a historic opportunity to decide which it will be. They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this remarkable Australian citizen home. Julian does not seek special treatment. The Australian Government has clear diplomatic and moral obligations to protect its citizens abroad from gross injustice.In Julian's case, from a gross miscarriage of justice and the extreme danger that awaits him, should he walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London unprotected.
We know from the Chelsea Manning case what you in can expect if a US extradition warrant is successful. The United Nations has called it torture.
I know Julian well. I regard him as a close friend, a person of extraordinary resilience and courage. I've watched the tsunami of lies and smear engulf him endlessly, predictably, perfidiously, and I know why they smear him.
Secret US Defense Department document lays out how to destroy Assange
In 2008 a plan to destroyed both WikiLeaks and Julian was laid out in a secret document dated 8th of March 2008. The authors were the cyber counterintelligence assessment branch of the US Defense Department. They described in detail how important it was to destroy - and I quote - "the feeling of trust that WikiLeaks that is WikiLeaks center-of-gravity." This would be achieved, they wrote, "with threats of exposure and criminal prosecution and an unrelenting assault on reputation."
The aim was to silence and criminalize WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech.
Their weapon would be personal sphere and their assassins would be journalists, the very people who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth.
The irony! The irony is that no-one has told these journalists what to do.
I call them Vichy-journalists, after the journalists who served the German occupation of war-time France.
Mainstream journalism decay: ABC's Sarah Ferguson, Sally Neighbor, the Guardian, and others
I've been a journalist for many years. I've never known such corruption of my craft. It is as if a world of illusions has consumed the last vestiges of honest media in the cause of decaying power, its wars and witch hunts. Let me give you one example. Last October, the ABC journalist, Sarah Ferguson, interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned, and, as I quote, "the icon for your generation." This was the same Clinton who threatened to obliterate Iran and, as US Secretary of State in 2011, one of the instigators of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies. When the Libyan president was murdered publicly and gruesomely with a knife, Clinton whooped and cheered. Thanks largely to her, Libya became a breeding ground for Isis and other jihadists.
Thanks largely to her, tens of thousands of refugees fled in peril across the Mediterranean and many of them drowned. In leaked emails, published by WikiLeaks , we know that Hillary Clinton's Foundation received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of Isis and terrorism across the Middle East. From these disclosures we know that as Secretary of State, Clinton, approved the biggest arms deal ever, eighty billion dollars worth. Today Saudi Arabia is using these weapons to crush the starving and stricken people of Yemen.
Sarah Ferguson, the highly paid ABC reporter, raised not a word of this, with Hillary Clinton sitting in front of us. Instead she allowed Clinton to attack and smear Julian Assange as a lightweight, a tool of Russian intelligence, and a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator. Julian was offered no right of reply to this shocking interview, this orgy of defamation, broadcast by Australia's publicly funded state broadcaster.
As if this wasn't enough, Ferguson's executive producer, Sally Neighbor, followed the interview with a vicious retweet, "Assange is Putin's bitch."
We all know it. This is what I mean by corruption. This is what I mean by Vichy-journalism. It was an insult to the very meaning of journalism. There are many other examples.
The Guardian reputedly once a great liberal newspaper has conducted a vendetta against Julian Assange. Like a spurned lover, the Guardian has aimed its personal, petty, inhuman, and cowardly attacks at a man whose work it once published and profited from. It is as if Julian were fair game and too poor to sue for defamation. The former editor of the Guardian called the WikiLeaks, disclosures which his newspaper published in 2010, 'one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years'. Awards were lavished on the paper as if Julian did not exist.
Wikileaks revelations became part of the Guardian's marketing plan to raise the newspaper's cover price. They made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks and Julian struggle to survive. With not a penny going to WikiLeaks a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Lee, gratuitously abused Assange as a damaged personality and callous. They also revealed the secret password Julian had given the Guardian in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US Embassy cables.
With Julian trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy, Luke Hardy of the Guardian, who had made big backs big bucks on the backs of Julian and Edward Snowden, stood among the police outside the embassy and gloated in his blog that Scotland Yard may get the last laugh.
This is how far the craft of journalism has sunk - Vichy-journalism. The question is why. Julian Assange has committed no crime. He has never been charged with a crime. The swedish episode was bogus and farcical and he has been vindicated
Witchhunts by some of the 'Left-leaning' and some 'feminists'
Karen Axelson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up when they wrote - and I quote them - "The allegations against Assange are a smokescreen, behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations and their attendant rape, murder, and destruction. The authorities care so little about violence against women, but they manipulate rape allegations at will." Unquote. Most of this truth was lost or buried in a media witch hunt that disgracefully associated Julian with rape and misogyny. The witch hunt included voices who describe themselves as 'on the left' and as 'feminist'. Shame on them!
Failure to report on seriousness of danger to Assange
Throughout this fear campaign, the threat of Julian's extradition to a hellhole in the US was willfully ignored. Documents released by Edward Snowden showed Julian to be on what is called a 'manhunt target list'. One leaked official memo reads as follows, and I quote: "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorists, you'll be eating cat food forever."
In Alexandra, Virginia, the suburban home of America's war-making elite, a secret grand jury, a throwback to the Middle Ages, has spent seven years trying to concoct a crime for which Julian Assange can be prosecuted. But this isn't easy because the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists, and whistleblowers.
Julian's crime is that he broke a silence. No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done and the public service it has provided in calling rapacious Power to account. Julian and Wikileaks have pushed back a one-way moral screen to reveal that imperialism - our imperialism - the often disguised imperialism of liberal democracies is never benevolent or moral as it contrives to appear, as it is presented so often in the media, but committed to endless warfare to the conquest of our resources, our lives, our dignity, if we allow it.
When Harold Pinter, the great playwrite, accepted the Nobel Prize for literature in 2005, he referred to a vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed. He asked why, and I quote, "the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought of the Soviet Union was well known in the west, while American imperial crimes quote 'never happened' even while they were happening they never happened." He was referring to the great silence.
Julian and WikiLeaks have smashed this silence and exposed how the imperial game is played by those with liberal pretensions. Their revelations have lifted the masks of those who regard whole nations in terms of their usefulness or expendability and that is why his life is in danger.
Prime Minister Turnbull
Seven years ago, here in Sydney, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. I asked him to deliver an urgent appeal from Julian's lawyer to the government of Julia Gillard. Turnbull and I talked for several hours about Julian and his right to justice. He seemed [inaudible] sympathetic. We also talked about Turnbull's famous victory in the 1980s, when as a young lawyer, he had fought the British government's attempted to suppress free speech and prevent the publication of the book Spy Catcher in a way a WikiLeaks of the time, for it revealed the crimes of great power.
Prime Minister Gillard's ignorant and shocking attempts to cancel Assad's passport
When I met Turnbull, the Labour Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had declared WikiLeaks illegal and wanted to cancel Julian's passport - in effect his birthright - until she was told she couldn't do it. She was told by the AFP she couldn't do it; that Julian had committed no crime, that WikiLeaks was a publisher; his work was protected under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia was one of the original signatories. In abandoning Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, and colluding in his persecution, Gillard's outrageous behavior forced the issue of Julian's recognition under international law as a political refugee. Tiny Ecuador invoked the 1951 convention and granted Julian refuge in the embassy. There was no question under international law that his life was in danger. Julia Gillard has recently been appearing with Hillary Clinton as 'pioneering feminist'. It is reassuring to know that political satire is back. In these gigs, Prime Minister Gillard has not referred to her distinction as the first Prime Minister on whose watch Australian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. We know from WikiLeaks warlogs the atrocious nature of that imperial war in Afghanistan. If there's anything to remember Gillard by, it is a sychophantic embarassing speech she made to the US Congress soon after she demanded the the illegal cancellation of Julian's passport.
Will Canberra assume its responsibilities in order to avert tragedy and save this Australian hero?
Is that how we will remember Malcolm Turnbull? Julian's father has written to Malcolm Turnbull just the other day. It is a moving letter in which he has appealed to the prime minister to bring Julian home. He refers to the real possibility of a tragedy.
I have watched Julian's health deteriorate in the years of confinement without sunlight. He has a relentless cough, but is denied safe passage to and from the hospital for even an x-ray.
The Australian Government has the diplomatic power to intervene.
For years the governments in Canberra offered no help, no help to Julian. Now the responsibility of the Trunbull government could not be clearer. It goes to the very heart the very heart of human justice and morality. Malcolm Turnbull can remain silent or he can seize the opportunity and fulfill his government's obligations and defend the life of a man who is a true Australian hero.
He can bring Julian Assange home. The choice is his.
These speeches moved to a different address on you tube. We have located them again, for the moment. See article above this one for the transcript of John Pilger's excellent speech. RALLIES ON TUESDAY 19 JUNE IN AUSTRALIA: Melbourne - outside the British Consulate 12-2PM (British Consulate General Melbourne, 17th Floor, 90 Collins St Melbourne). Will be attended by Julian's father, John Shipton and another young member of Julian's family and Shirley Shackleton. Brisbane - Vigil 4-6PM at the Ann Street Shrine of Remembrance opposite Central Station; Perth - 12PM-2PM at Forrest Chase.
The Socialist Equity Party should be applauded for having organised and recorded the June 17th protest speeches. We should not however forget that Julian Assange's work goes wider than worker protest. It goes to preventing globalist media, corporations and governments from taking away our rights as citizens of nations. The issues go to the nation itself and to the need for solidarity and communication between citizens, always, plus the recognition that Julian is one of us. This cause should be embraced by other forces as well as the Socialist Equity Party. Anyone who supports free speech, human and civil rights, and opposes war, should attend these protests and get others to attend with leaflets, posts to social media, and calls to talk-back radio etc.
• If you knew that a government routinely covered up soldiers massacring civilians as if they were shooting them in a video game, would you stay silent?
• If you knew that 66,081 of the 109,000 recorded deaths in the illegal war on Iraq from US military were civilians, would you stay silent?
• If you found out that a government was spying on the citizens of every nation in the world and passing the information onto corporations and the military, would you stay silent?
Julian Assange did not stay silent. Courageously, he published the documents exposing murder and illegal surveillance, passed on to him by US. soldier, Private Manning.
These documents were also accessed and published in whole or in part by many other reporting outlets, including The Guardian, Der Spiegel, The New York Times, El País, Al-Akhbar, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet, Verdens Gang, Aftenposten, Politiken, NRC, RTL Nieuws, Die Welt,and Fairfax Media. But those media are not being punished.
The United States Government was the government involved in these war crimes and illegal global surveillance. It controlled the mainstream and corporate press and was incensed that Wikileaks, an alternative press, had the moral conviction to out it for its crimes. Its revenge was to engineer Julian Assange's illegal detention in the Ecuadorian Embassy from August 2012.
Using trumped up charges, the UK and Swedish Governments colluded with the United States so that Assange was likely to be extradited to the United States on unknown and probably illegal grounds if he left his place of asylum. The United States has the highest rates of imprisonment in the world and its private and military prisons are known to be brutal and unaccountable.
Assange did not committed any crime by publishing material from a foreign state, any more than have the newspapers who also published this. His arbitrary detention has been denounced by the United Nations. His access to internet, telephone and visitors have all been withdrawn recently and a change of government in Ecuador threatens his continued asylum in its embassy. The Australian Government needs to act to bring Assange home to safety, in accordance with UN rulings.
Will you speak up for Julian Assange, as he did for you?
Rallies planned for Australia include: on Sunday 17 June: Sydney - 1-3 PM at the Town Hall Square. Speakers include John Pilger and James Cogan Socialist Equity Party (SEP) National Secretary. on Tuesday 19 June: Melbourne - outside the British Consulate 12-2PM. (17th Floor, 90 Collins St, Melbourne VIC) Will be attended by Julian's father, John Shipton and another young member of Julian's family and Shirley Shackleton. Brisbane - Vigil 4-6PM at the Ann Street Shrine of Remembrance opposite Central Station; Perth - 12PM-2PM at Forrest Chase.
Apologies: This article previously erroneously stated or implied that all rallies were to occur on the same day. In fact, on Sunday 17 June there will be one rally in Sydney, whilst on Tuesday 19 June, there will be other rallies in Melbourne Brisbane, Perth and, hopefully elsewhere.
In the coming weeks, including on 19 June, rallies have be organised for Julian Assange have been organised across Australia and across the world.
Demand that the Australian government act to abide by its duty of care to any Australian citizen and send to London a contingent of Federal Police to escort Julian Assange back to Australia.
Upcoming Rallies and protests in Australia
Sydney
Sunday, June 17th 1-3 PM, Socialist Equality Party Rally, Sydney Town Hall Square : Speakers include John Pilger and James Cogan SEP National Secretary. Endorsed by Julian Burnside QC and Terry Hicks (Father of David Hicks), Chris Hedges (Pullitzer Prizing winner Journalist), Professor Stuart Rees Facebook event and website
Tuesday June 19th 9AM – 1PM British Consulate Gateway Building, 1 Macquarie Place, Sydney
Melbourne
Vigil outside British Consulate, – Tuesday 19th .: Vigil will be attended by Julian's father, John Shipton and other young member of Julian's family will be in attendance. Julian is totally isolated from his friends and family whilst trapped in the Ecuadorean Embassy.
Speakers include :
Shirley Shackleton:whose journalist husband Greg was murdered by Indonesian force in Balibo on the eve of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Shirley fought for decades for the East Timorese and against the Australian government's cover up of her (and four other journalists).
James Cogan: National Secretary of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP):The Socialist Equality are playing a leading role in the campaign to defend Julian Assange and fight internet censorship. They have also called protests in Sydney, Tamil Nadu and Columbo and are publishing many articles on the campaign on the World Socialist Website.
Class-conscious website and Facebook event
Solidarity Light Vigil, Melbourne CBD – Tuesday 19th 6-8 PM Bring candles and loved ones to show support. Disarm Facebook Event
Brisbane
Vigil 4-6PM – June 19th, Ann Street Shrine of Remembrance, Ann Street, Brisbane City Centre (opposite Central Station) Facebook event
Perth
June 19th 12PM-2PM Forrest Chase : Facebook Event Page
Other Cities
If you are planning to host or know of any other cities who wish to participate in the June 19th actions for Julian, they are being coordinated through the Free Julian Assange at U.K and U.S. Embassies Worldwide Facebook page or send a message direct to the Class-conscious website via our Contact page. Like wise if you have additional details of speakers etc about already listed events, please pass that on too.
At 1:00pm on Sunday 17 June, there will be a demonstration at the Town Hall Square in Sydney to demand freedom for the heroic and visionary Australian journalist, Julian Assange. Julian Assange has been illegally imprisoned [1] in the London Ecuadorian Embassy for almost six years now The alternative to his ongoing imprisonment is extradition to the United States, show trial, and long imprisonment, should he be made to leave the embassy. Should Assange remain, he faces grave threats to his health due to a lack of exercise within the embassy walls and lack of direct sunlight, so far, for six years.
The demonstration has been called by the Socialist Equity Party (SEP). The excerpt below, from the SEP's article advertising the protest, explains Julian Assange's plight:
Assange's situation stems directly from the Australian government's refusal to protect one of its citizens from persecution by other governments. Canberra has instead trampled on Assange's rights in the most reprehensible manner.
The American state accuses WikiLeaks and its personnel of "espionage" for publishing leaked data in 2010 that exposed the extent of its war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and its sinister intrigues around the world. Last year, WikiLeaks published further material that exposed CIA operations to hack and spy on Internet and other communications.
If Assange were put on a show trial in the US, he could face decades of imprisonment, or even the death penalty (my emphasis), for doing what a journalist should do: provide the world with the truth.
In late 2010, the Australian Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard took no action when a Swedish prosecutor initiated a politically-motivated investigation into allegations that Assange “may” have been involved in sexual assault. Under conditions of a furious campaign against WikiLeaks for the damning information it was publishing about US war crimes, the aim of the slander was to both discredit Assange and justify a warrant for his extradition to Sweden for “questioning.” If he were detained in Sweden, Assange and his lawyers rightly feared he could have faced rendition on to the US.
Instead of defending Assange, Gillard and her Labor ministers denounced WikiLeaks for "illegal" actions and declared they would assist the US to prosecute him.
Denied any protection by Australia, Assange was forced to seek political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London on June 19, 2012, after a British court rejected his last legal appeal against extradition to Sweden. For six years, he has been effectively imprisoned in the embassy by the insistence of the British government that if he leaves the building it will arrest him on a charge of absconding on bail. The British government, moreover, has refused to give any guarantee that it would not facilitate his extradition to the US (my emphasis).
This was despite the finding of a United Nations working group in February 2016 that Assange had been arbitrarily detained in contravention of his human rights, and should be allowed his freedom.
In May 2017, Swedish authorities, after finally agreeing to question Assange in Britain, dropped their investigation. No charges were ever laid against the WikiLeaks editor.
The Australian government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, however, refused to intervene and demand that Britain drop its pursuit of Assange over bail-related issues and allow him to leave the London embassy.
...
After six years of confinement inside a small building, with no direct sunlight and deprived of necessary medical treatment, Assange's health was already severely compromised before the immense pressure of almost total isolation was inflicted on him. Reports indicate that Assange is being pressured by Ecuador to leave the embassy, or that the Ecuadorian government may even renege on its grant of asylum and hand him over to waiting British police.
Under conditions in which the British government will not relent on its determination to charge Assange, or guarantee he will not be extradited to the US, the full culpability of the Australian government and the broader political and media establishment is evident.
The Australian state has undeniable means at its disposal to extricate an Australian citizen and journalist from persecution. It can act to return him to Australian territory and provide him with an unconditional guarantee that he will not be extradited.
There are obvious recent precedents.
Australian journalist Peter Greste was arrested by Egyptian authorities in December 2013, along with other Al Jazeera employees, on framed-up charges of “damaging national security.” He was subjected to a show trial and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
In response to immense public outrage in Australia, the government, backed by Washington and the United Nations, called for Greste’s release. Intense diplomatic pressure was applied on Egypt. On February 1, 2015, Greste was released and deported back to Australia.
Earlier, in 2007, under the pressure of widespread anger over the imprisonment of Australian citizen David Hicks in the US concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, the government entreated the Bush administration to release him.
If the British government continues to insist on railroading an Australian citizen into an American prison or worse, then there are a wide range of actions that the Australian government can take to secure his return to Australian jurisdiction.
It would only do so, however, under conditions of the greatest pressure produced by the mobilisation of the working class. Under both Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition governments, the Australian state has demonstrated its hostility to Assange and WikiLeaks.
Author's comment
The article cited above is spot on when it says:
The Australian state has undeniable means at its disposal to extricate an Australian citizen and journalist from persecution. It can act to return him to Australian territory and provide him with an unconditional guarantee that he will not be extradited.
Had the Australian government carried out its basic duty of care as suggested in the above quote and as it had towards Peter Greste, also cited in the article, this whole shameful episode could have been ended years ago.
Every Australian voter, who shares our concerns about Julian Assange, should ask of his local member of Parliament, what he/she has done to help Julian Assange during his last six years of imprisinment. He/she should also ask of every candidate, seeking his/her vote in the next federal election, how he/she intends to help Julian Assange once elected.
Other rallies for Julian Assange in Sri Lanka and India - #whyNotMelbourneAlso">Why not Melbourne also?
Rallies for Julian Assange are also to be held on 19 June in India andSri Lanka.
The Socialist Equity Party must be applauded for publicising Julian Assange on the pages of the World Socialist Web Site and for taking the intiative to organise this rally in Sydney. However, I am sure that a good many others in other parts of Australia - Brisbane, Townsville, where Julian Assange was born, Melbourne, where he spent more than 15 years of his life before leaving Australia, Canberra, etc. - would also like to show their support.
Unless another rally is officially called in the meantime, those, in Melbourne, who want to show their support for Julian Assange could, perhaps, at 1pm on Sunday 17 June, the same time as the Sydney rally, assemble, with placards and leafleats, on the steps of the Victorian State Library as supporters of Syria did on Monday 30 April.
In the video embedded above, Bob Beckel, a former presidential strategist calls for the U.S. to "illegally shoot the son-of-a-bitch". Also, in that video, another spokesman for the U.S. government said of Julian Assange "that if we catch you, we're going to hang you."
Footnote[s]
[1] Two rulings by the United Nations have found the detention of Juian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy to have been illegal. So, figures in the the Swedish government, the British government, including Prime Minister Theresa May, and others complicit in the detention of Julian Assange since 19 June 2012, almost 12 years ago, have broken international law and should face trial before the International Criminal Court for their actions.
Last night, at a concert in Berlin, Roger Waters called upon his audience and his fans to resist attempts to silence Julian Assange, as shown in the images, copied from Twitter, above and below.
Isn't it also about time that the Australian government finally began to exercise its duty of care to one of Australia's most courageous and visionary sons?
Julian Assange is in immense danger. Remarks made this week by Ecuador’s foreign minister suggest that her government may be preparing to renege on the political asylum it granted to the WikiLeaks editor in 2012 and hand him over to British and then American authorities. On March 28, under immense pressure from the governments in the US, Britain and other powers, Ecuador imposed a complete ban on Assange having any Internet or phone contact with the outside world, and blocked his friends and supporters from physically visiting him. For 45 days, he has not been heard from. [Article first Published May 13, 2018 at "Information Clearing House"]
Ecuador Hints it May Hand Over Julian Assange to Britain and the US
Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa stated in a Spanish-language interview on Wednesday that her government and Britain “have the intention and the interest that this be resolved.” Moves were underway, she said, to reach a “definite agreement” on Assange.
If Assange falls into the hands of the British state, he faces being turned over to the US. Last year, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that putting Assange on trial for espionage was a “priority.” CIA director Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, asserted that WikiLeaks was a “non-state hostile intelligence service.”
In 2010, WikiLeaks courageously published information leaked by then Private Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning that exposed war crimes committed by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. WikiLeaks also published, in partnership with some of the world’s major newspapers, tens of thousands of secret diplomatic cables, exposing the daily anti-democratic intrigues of US imperialism and numerous other governments.
For that, Assange was relentlessly persecuted by the Obama administration. By November 2010, it had convened a secret grand jury and had a warrant issued for his arrest on charges of espionage—charges that can carry the death sentence. The then Labor Party government in Australia headed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard threw Assange, an Australian citizen, to the wolves. It refused to provide him any defence and declared it would work with the US to have him detained and put on trial.
On June 19, 2012, under conditions in which he faced extradition to Sweden to answer questions over fabricated allegations of sexual assault, and the prospect of rendition to the United States, Assange sought asylum in the Ecuador’s embassy in London.
Since that time, for nearly six years, he has been largely confined to a small room with no direct sunlight. He has been prevented from leaving, even to obtain medical treatment, by the British government’s insistence it will arrest him for breaching bail as soon as he sets foot outside the embassy.
Now, for six weeks and three days, he has been denied even the right to communicate.
Jennifer Robinson, the British-based Australian lawyer who has represented Assange since 2010, told the London Times in an interview this month: “His health situation is terrible. He’s had a problem with his shoulder for a very long time. It requires an MRI [magnetic resonance imaging scan], which cannot be done within the embassy. He’s got dental issues. And then there’s the long-term impact of not being outside, his visual impairment. He wouldn’t be able to see further than from here to the end of this hallway.”
The effort to haul Assange before a US court is inseparable from the broader campaign underway by the American state and allied governments to impose sweeping censorship on the Internet. Lurid allegations of “Russian meddling” in the 2016 US election and denunciations of “fake news” have been used to demand that Google, Facebook and other conglomerates block users from accessing websites that publish critical commentary and exposures of the ruling class and its agencies—including WikiLeaks and the World Socialist Web Site.
WikiLeaks has been absurdly denounced as “pro-Russia” because it published leaks from the US Democratic Party National Committee that revealed the anti-democratic intrigues the party’s leaders carried out to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary elections. It also published leaked speeches of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that further exposed her intimate relations with Wall Street banks and companies.
As part of the justification for Internet censorship, US intelligence agencies allege, without any evidence, that the information was hacked by Russian operatives and supplied to WikiLeaks to undermine Clinton and assist Trump—whom Moscow purportedly considered the “lesser evil.”
In response to the hysterical allegations, WikiLeaks broke its own tradition of not commenting on its sources. It publicly denied that Russia was the source of the leaks. That has not prevented the campaign from continuing, with Assange even being labelled “the Kremlin’s useful idiot” in pro-Democratic Party circles. WikiLeaks is blamed for Clinton’s defeat, not the reality, that tens of millions of American workers were repulsed by her right-wing, pro-war campaign and refused to vote for her.
Under conditions in which the Ecuadorian government has capitulated to great power pressure and is collaborating with British and US agencies to break Julian Assange, there is an almost universal and reprehensible silence on the part of dozens of organisations and hundreds of individuals who once claimed to defend him and WikiLeaks.
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which in February 2016 condemned Assange’s persecution as “a form of arbitrary detention” and called for his release, has issued no statement on his current situation.
In Britain, the Labour Party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn have said nothing on the actions by Ecuador. Nor have they opposed the determination of the Conservative government to arrest Assange if he leaves the embassy.
In Australia, the current Liberal-National government and Labor leadership are just as complicit. The Greens, which claimed to oppose the persecution of Assange, have not made any statement in parliament or issued a press release, let alone called for public protests. Hundreds of editors, journalists, academics, artists and lawyers across the country who publicly defended WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011 are now mute.
A parallel situation prevails across Europe and in the US. The so-called parties of the “left” and the trade unions are all tacitly endorsing the vicious drive against Assange.
Around the world, the Stalinist and Pabloite pseudo-left organisations, anxious not to disrupt their sordid relations with the parties of the political establishment and the trade union apparatuses, are likewise silent.
The World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International unconditionally defend Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If the ruling elite can haul him before a court, it will hold him up as an example of what happens to those who speak out against social inequality, militarism, war and police-state measures. His prosecution would be used to try to intimidate and silence all dissent.
If Assange is imprisoned or worse, and WikiLeaks shut down, it will be a serious blow to the democratic rights of the entire international working class.
Workers and young people should join with the WSWS and ICFI in demanding and fighting for the immediate freedom of Julian Assange.
Access to the Internet to be informed, to inform others, and to express one's own opinion, is considered by most to be a basic human right in the 21st Century. Yet, this basic human right has now been taken away from Julian Assange by the Ecuadorian government. Wikileaks Publisher, Julian Assange, could be compared with Martin Luther, who used the printing press to challenge a corrupt Roman Catholic empire. In Assange's case, he used of the internet to challenge the corrupt, oppressive, warmongering global regime headed by the United States. We all live under this regime, but we have almost no media through which to question its dark sway. Assange provided that media through Wikileaks. The Ecuadorian Government must be recognised for having given Assange asylum as a political refugee for many years, when his own country, Australia, so shamefully turned its back on him, and on the international crimes he exposed. This granting of asylum by the Ecuadorian Government was the only thing that prevented the Swedish Government and the British Government from handing Assange over to the United States Government. The US has threatened to try Assange for espionage even though he is (a) not a US citizen and (b) has performed an heroic service to the world in exposing the US government's illegal actions against prisoners of war, as well as its multiple illegal surveillance of ordinary citizens. In fact, such a trial would present the rogue US government with much embarrassment because it would throw more light on the secrets that Wikileaks exposed. It is thus correct to fear that Assange would not be tried, but simply imprisoned without a public trial. Assange has also exposed many similar crimes to the US's that have been carried out by other governments. Recently he tweeted an opinion on the independence movement in Catalonia. The Ecuadorian Government, his long-term asylum hosts, who have recently also become his country of citizenship, have claimed that this tweet caused them embarrassment. The upshot has been that his internet access has been removed by his new country and asylum-giver. Assange's only contact with the world and with witnesses to his frightening imprisonment by global conspiracy is via the internet. Without internet contact, he may as well be in a dungeon in Ecuador's London embassy. This seems like a terrible punishment for a solitary tweet. Some might question his judgement for tweeting something politically compromising for Ecuador in the light of his dependence on its goodwill. Many others would defend the world's need to open access to information about the Catalan problems. The situation is intolerably difficult, morally, politically and humanly. However, what we most hope for is that Julian Assange, a once-citizen of Australia who we are so sorry to have lost to this country, will be granted access to the internet and also that he will saved from the imprisonment that the United Nations has deemed to be illegal and unjust.
A Reuter's press release published in the Australian ABC in an article entitled, "Julian Assange has internet access cut off by Ecuador's Government," summarises, "Relations between Mr Assange and his host nation have often grown prickly. Ecuador suspended his internet access in 2016 after a WikiLeaks dump targeting Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign." However, it adds, "Former president Rafael Correa hailed Mr Assange's work but the nation's current head of state has called him a hacker and warned him not to meddle in politics," which context makes Assange's situation sound as if it has overall worsened.
History of Assange's wrongful imprisonment by the United Kingdom
On 12 June 2012, Julian Assange, threatened with extradition to Sweden for questioning over allegations - not even formal charges - that he had raped two Swedish women, sought and received political asylum in the London embassy of the Republic of Ecuador.
Assange feared that once inside Sweden, he would be extradited to the United States, to face the same imprisonment and torture that Chelsea Manning, another whistleblower, was enduring at the time. The US has considered trying him for espionage under the circa World War 1 Espionage Act.
Had the Swedish government given Assange a guarantee to deny any request for extradition by the United States, there can be little doubt that Assange would have gone to Sweden and the whole issue whould have been expedited and finalised very quickly.
As the Swedish government refused for years to even come to London to conduct interviews with Assange, there can be little doubt that the allegations of rape were no more than a cynical ploy by the supposedly neutral Swedish government in complicity with the United States' government, to arrest Assange, make an example of him and reduce the ability of Wikileaks to inform the world of the nefarious actions of the United States and its allies.
Since then the British government concocted another excuse to arrest Assange on behalf the United States.
Assange is charged with skipping bail for seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy, even though the original fabricated rape charges upon which the extradition of Assange was sought have been dropped by the Swedish government.
Why the United Nations classifies Assange's situation as a case of illegal imprisonment
Years ago Australian journalist Julian Assange was found, by the United Nations, to have been illegally imprisoned by the British Government in the Ecuadorian embassy. See https://www.justice4assange.com/UN-Working-Group-on-Arbitrary.html We have reproduced most of the text of this UN page below:
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
On Friday 5 February 2016, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) announced its decision finding that the detention of Julian Assange is unlawful. The United Nations Working Group has ordered that he be released immediately and compensated by Sweden and the United Kingdom. Julian Assange’s petition was filed in September 2014.
Interview with former UNWGAD Chair and Norwegian international Law Prof. Mads Andenæs
The Norwegian lawyer, Professor Mads Andenæs, is a legal academic and the UN Special Rapporteur on arbitrary detention was, since 2009 a chair of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, an expert panel which called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Julian Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation.
Professor Andenæs, who presents in this interview his opinion about the mainstream media coverage regarding to Assange case, too, is a professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo, the former Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London and the former Director of the Centre of European Law at King’s College, University of London. He is also a Research Fellow of the Institute of European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford and a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.
He has been the General Editor of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Cambridge University Press), the General Editor of European Business Law Review (Kluwer Law International) and on the editorial boards of ten other law journals and book series, including the Nijhoff Series on International Trade Law.
He is an Honorary Fellow of the Society of Legal Studies (UK), a Fellow of the International Academy of Commercial and Consumer Law (where he is a member of the board), an Honorary Fellow of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and a Fellow of the The Royal Society of the Arts.
He was the Secretary General of the Fédération Internationale de Droit Européen 2000-2002, the Hon Secretary of the UK Association of European Law 1997-2008 and the Hon Secretary of the UK Committee of Comparative Law 1999-2005. He was the Chair, Association of Human Rights Institutes in 2008.
Please tell us about your job at Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), during the initial part of Julian Assange case before the United Nations (UN)?
I was chair of the UN Working Group when the complaint was received, and the exchanges between the UN and the parties took place. I did not take part in the discussions of the Working Group leading up to the opinion in the Assange case. My term ran out in July 2015, and the decision was published in February 2016.
Why do you advocate for Mr. Assange?
I have spoken out in support of the opinion of the UN Working Group. Mr. Assange is in arbitrary detention and the UK and Sweden should abide by the UN ruling against them and take the steps that are necessary to bring his detention to an end.
Please specify the accusations against Julian Assange, and who accuses him.
The current case about the extradition to Sweden concerns allegations of sexual misconduct. Of course, the allegations relating to Wikileaks involves a strong interest of the security apparatus in many countries.
The fear is that the latter is allowed to influence the process and outcomes in the first case.
How do you see Washington’s allegation that Assange has threatened US security?
That are allegations that usually are fielded against use of the right to provide information and the freedom of speech. There is every reason to be sceptical to such assertions.
How do you see the UN’ decision to free Mr. Assange?
It is very clear. The UN WGAD had to decide two questions. First, whether there was a ’deprivation of liberty’ as opposed to a ’restriction of liberty’. Secondly, whether that deprivation of liberty was ’arbitrary’.
The UN WGAD clearly accepted the argument that Assange’s conditions are not ’self-imposed’, that is, if he stepped into the street, he would be arrested. There was also a ’substantial failure’ of the authorities ’to exercise due diligence’ in the ’performance of criminal administration’ (par. 98).
The line between a ’restriction of liberty’ and ’deprivation of liberty’ is finely drawn in European human rights jurisprudence. Liberty deprivation doesn’t consist only in the easily recognizable conditions of state detention. You must consider the length of time that Assange has remained in the Ecuadorian embassy, and his ongoing circumstances.
Liberty must be capable of being realized in actuality. Where the exercise of such liberty would have significantly coercive results, such as further deprivations of liberty or putting other rights at risk, this cannot be described as liberty in practice. The fact that Assange is resisting arrest doesn’t resolve this issue, as this would be to argue that liberty is a right contingent on his co-operation.
Assange is not free to leave he Ecuadorian Embassy of his own will. He fears extradition to the US and prosecution for his involvement in Wikileaks. The Swedish authorities have refused to provide assurances of non-refoulment which respond to this fear. Assange’s deprivation is ’arbitrary’. One ground is that it is disproportionate.
There are other, less restrictive ways of proceeding. Before issuing a EAW, the Swedish authorities could have followed the normal practice of interviewing Assange in a British police interview room.
After Assange took residence in the Ecuadorian embassy they could have relied on ’mutual assistance’ protocols, questioned Assange by video link, and given him the chance to respond to the allegations against him.
Please clarify ’deprivation of liberty’.
The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights prohibit arbitrary deprivations of liberty in Articles 9. That is something more than a "restriction on liberty". It includes house arrest.
How do you evaluate the United Kingdom (UK) and Sweden’s decision of not respecting UN’ decision?
Rulings by the UN WGAD are not always followed by states, but rarely do they result in such personal attacks as made by UK politicians after the Assange opinion.
I know that the words used by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were not the ones provided by the the civil servants advising on human rights and international law. The UK politicians aimed at weakening the authority of the UN body for short term opportunistic gain.
I fear that these politicians have weakened the international community’s possibility to protect some of the most vulnerable victims of human rights violations.
Their words have circulated among the states responsible for the worst human rights violations. The words of these UK politicians will cost life and human suffering.
The UK may lobby for some support when the matter is reported to the UN Human Rights Council, but the UK will certainly be criticised by other states for its response, and clearly deserve that.
The damage done to the UK in the UN and its moral authority in human rights issues is another matter, but there is no doubt about the damage done to the authority of the UK.
Professor Andenæs, comment the current status of the ’preliminary’ investigation in Sweden, and US ’pending prosecution’ against WikiLeaks.
Also those who are convinced that Mr. Assange is guilty of rape, whether or not you think he is a self-publicist deliberately resisting arrest (and I do not), the fact remains that the authorities could use less restrictive means without compromising the initial investigation into the allegations regarding his sexual conduct in Sweden.
It is timely to remind ourselves that Assange has not been found guilty of rape: at this stage the prosecutor and courts in Sweden has held that there are probable grounds. Professor Andrew Ashworth, Oxford, stated in an Expert Opinion from 2011 that Assange’s team has made reference to, that "I do not consider that any of the incidents alleged in box of the EAW (that are the allegations cited in the arrest warrant) is sufficient of itself to constitute any offence under English law".
The Swedish Supreme Court Vice President has reminded us that the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty (video below), and that when there are contradictory statements, it is for the courts to decide whether there the requirements for a conviction are satisfied. (See video)
The Swedish courts, also the majority in the Swedish Supreme Court, the Vice President was not on that panel, expressed that the arrest warrant even if it could not be executed against Assange, limited his liberty in a way that was relevant to question whether it remains proportional. The majority noted with approval that steps were now taken to interview Assange in London.
Over time, the Swedish Supreme Court may well grow sympathetic to the dissenting judgment of Justice Svante Johansson, that the conditions of the investigation are now disproportionate (a view presented by Anne Ramberg, head of Sweden’s Bar Association and Judge Charlotte Edvardsson, the reporting staff judge in the Supreme Court, in her (public) proposal to the court in the case).
Certainly, Former Legal Counsel to the United Nations and Legal Adviser to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hans Corell, has stated that he ’does not understand why the prosecutor had not questioned Julian Assange during all the years he has been at the Ecuadorian Embassy’.
Reasonable and judicial minds have differed on many of these issues. No doubt they have been coloured by views on the integrity of Assange himself. But human rights are not meant to favour the popular amongst us; they are meant to favour us all.
Why do you think the UK is acting so strongly according to US interests in this case?
Wikileaks has made very important contributions to our knowledge about the diplomatic and political process. It has changed my perception of major events and institutions. Wikileaks makes it much more difficult to manipulate us.
The so-called intelligence community base itself on working methods that are cloaked in secrecy. There are strong institutional forces that want to put an end to Mr. Assange’s activities. That go for very many countries.
How do you see Ecuador government regarding Mr. Assange, and the importance of world solidarity with him not only by other governments, but also by activists and civilians in general, Professor Andenæs?
Ecuador’s government has made a very important contribution to the protection of an international public sphere, and to the protection of freedom of information, freedom of expression and accountability for human rights violations. The expressions of solidarity for him not only by other governments, but also by activists and others around the world arre very important.
How do evaluate the mainstream media approach regarding to WikiLeaks revelations, especially involving Assange judgement?
I had expected a more muscular defence of the right to provide information and the freedom of speech. But media in all countries operate in a complex interaction with governments and take account of the state interest in different ways. In my view, in this case with too much respect for the perceived state interest.
How do you evaluate recent WikiLeaks revelations of US spying on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a private climate change strategy meeting in Berlim, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)?
They reveal wholly unacceptable practices. They also justify the work of Wikileaks.
Interview by Edu Montesanti
WHAT IS THE UN WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION (WGAD)?
Under the authority of the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, the WGAD was established in 1991 to investigate and adjudicate whether states are in compliance with their international human rights obligations. It receives submissions from the individual complainant and the respondents (the states), and decides whether the case amounts to arbitrary (that is to say unlawful, or prohibited) detention. The European Court of Human Rights draws on judgments of the WGAD in cases concerning deprivation of liberty (violations against Article 5).
WHAT IS THE DECISION ABOUT?
The WGAD decides, according to pre-defined criteria:
Whether a person is ’detained’
Whether that detention is ’arbitrary’ (unlawful)
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has found that Julian Assange is arbitrarily detained. The UK and Sweden must immediately release and compensate him. The decision is binding, as the UN Office of the Hight Commissioner for Human Rights has explained.
WHAT TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW DIRECT WGAD INVESTIGATIONS?
The international laws looked to by the WGAD include:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the most universally-ratified human rights treaty;
The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners;
The UN Declaration on Human Rights;
The European Convention on Human Rights.
WHICH OTHER IMPORTANT CASES HAS THE UN WGAD DECIDED?
Against Myanmar: WGAD found that Aung San Suu Kyi (2007) had been arbitrarily detained while under house arrest. The regime released her in 2010. Last year her party won 86% of the vote in democratic elections.
Iran: (December 2015) for arbitrarily imprisoningWashington Post journalist Jason Rezaian. Iran released him on 16 January 2016.
Maldives (October 2015) for illegally imprisoning former pro-democracy president Mohamed Nasheed, who was promptly released. On 23 January 2016 Nasheed visited 10 Downing Street with his lawyers Amal Clooney and Ben Emerson QC.
Malaysia: for the arbitrary imprisonment of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in a politically motivated sodomy case.
Egypt (April 2014) for arbitrarily imprisoning former president Mohamed Morsi, deposed by current President al-Sisi. He has not been released.
WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION?
Sètondji Adjovi (Benin, Second Vice-Chair)
Adjovi, an academic and practitioner specialising in international criminal procedure and judicial reform, worked at the International Criminal Court and at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda before his appointment to the UN WGAD.
Mads Andenas (Norway, Chair and member until mid-2015)
Chair of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention until mid-2015. Has previously held positions as Director of the Centre of European Law at King’s College, University of London and Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London. Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo.
Mr. José Guevara (Mexico, First Vice-Chair)
Guevara is a legal academic and practitioner who focuses on Human Rights Protection and International Criminal Law. Prior to joining the WGAD, worked in the NGO sector, Mexico City’s Ombudsman’s office and in government in the area of human rights. Guevara is the recipient of the Open Society Foundation’s New Executives Fund leading the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights.
Seong-Phil Hong (Chair-Rapporteur, Republic of Korea)
An expert member of the Asian Council of Jurists of the Asia Pacific Forum and legal academic, Seong-Phil Hong has specialised in the case for reparations regarding Japan’s Enforced Sex Slavery during the Second World War and accountability for human rights violations by the North Korean regime.
Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine)
A legal academic and practitioner whose expertise lies in international criminal justice and procedure. Tochilovsky was part of the Preparatory Committee and Commission that drafted the guidelines on criminal procedure for the International Criminal Court.
Leigh Toomey (Australia)
An expert in the UN Human Rights system, Toomey has taught at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and has served as a UN human rights expert both in the capacity as an NGO representative and as a representative for Australia at the UN General Assembly and Commission for Human Rights.
WHO SUBMITTED THE COMPLAINT ON JULIAN ASSANGE’S BEHALF?
On behalf of Julian Assange’s international legal team:
Melinda Taylor (External Defence Counsel, ICC, The Hague
PRESS CONTACTS
Julian Assange submitted a complaint against Sweden and the United Kingdom to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on 12 September 2014. For press inquiries, contact Julian Assange’s legal team:
English:
Melinda Taylor (The Hague) - +31 611566009 (mobile) [email protected]
John Jones QC, Doughty St. Chambers +44 20 7404 1313 [email protected]
Julian Assange, the courageous innovative publisher of Wikileaks, who told the world the truth about US armytorture ofIraqi prisonersat Abu Ghraib has been found by the united Nations to have been illegally held in indefinite detention since he was granted asylum by Ecuador in August 2012, due to the British and Swedish governments complicity with the United States. Now Australia has lost this citizen of global courage and action in defence of human rights, to Ecuador, which has just recently granted him citizenship. See "Julian Assange granted Ecuadorian citizenship to provide 'another layer of protection'".
The whole Assange case could have been resolved years ago, had the Swedish government given Assange a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the United States, should he go to Sweden to face charges (now dropped) of rape. The fact that no such undertaking was made by the Swedish government (supposedly neutral, but in reality an ally of the United States) clearly demonstrates that the charges of rape were no more than a ploy to arrest Assange and deliver him to the United States deep state.
Throughout this long detention and shameful denial of Julian Assange's human rights, Australian parliament has received letters and petitions asking for the government to help Julian Assange, as an Australian citizen and Victorian resident. To our knowledge, only Greens MPs, notably Scott Ludlum, and, at least once, Adam Bandt, have spoken up on the subject, especially in relation to Bills restricting Australian freedoms and expanding state surveillance. Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard have been passive in their responses to questions about Assange's welfare, with Gillard actually making the public error of saying that Wikileaks was illegal. Basically no Australian government has stood up for Assange, even though they have occasionally protested that he has received the same rights as any Australian citizen. This has been denied by Assange and his mother. See, "Fed Govt defends its consular assistance to Assange," at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3515562.htm. [See note for why we haven't actively linked to this ABC site.[1]] Most tellingly, the fact that the Australian government never denounced Assange as a criminal shows that they must have known he was not guilty of the charges against him. See our excerpts below from Hansard.
Hansard Documentation of how Australia handled Assange's detention and threats to his safety
Julie Bishop, Monday, 19 June 2017, responding to letter: Page: 6766,
"Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 20 March 2017 regarding the petition (PN0054) submitted by the Concerned Citizens of Australia to the Standing Committee on Petitions.
The petition refers to Opinion No.54/2015 of the UN Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention adopted on 4 December 2015, in which it considered that Mr Julian Assange was arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that opinion, the Working Group expressed the view that Mr Assange is 'entitled to his freedom of movement and to compensation'. The petition requests that the House of Representatives do all within its power to end Julian Assange's detention.
I received legal advice on the implications of the findings of the Working Group in February 2016. It is important for the Standing Committee on Petitions to appreciate that the Working Group's opinion is directed at the United Kingdom and Sweden; not Australia. Australia cannot intervene in the legal processes of another country, just as we would not countenance other states intervening in Australian legal processes. I also note that the opinions of the Working Group are not legally binding on states.
Mr Assange has been afforded due process by authorities in the United Kingdom, and has avoided lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Mr Assange will need to address his situation through legal processes in the United Kingdom and Sweden, with the assistance of his legal advisers.
However, the Australian Government stands ready to provide Mr Assange with the same consular assistance it would give to any other Australian in these circumstances should he request it, in accordance with the Consular Services Charter. I enclose a copy for the Standing Committee's consideration.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Bishop." Monday, 19 June 2017
"Under existing law, the collection of foreign intelligence is confined to the collection of intelligence concerning the activities of foreign governments, organisations they control or foreign political organisations for the purpose of the defence of Australia or the conduct of international affairs. That is how ASIO have been doing the work that they have been doing in tracking al-Qaeda and tracking terrorist organisations that are much closer to home operating in our neighbourhood. They have these powers. They use them extensively. It is the sole justification that has been given to us for why their staffing and their budget quadrupled in the last decade. It is precisely because they have the range of powers that they need to track non-state actors who mean Australians harm or mean to pursue violent political activities in other countries. They have the powers that they need. When we asked what exactly this was all about, nobody was able to tell us.
What it does do is that it permits ASIO much wider scope to investigate the activities of Australians who are overseas and who do not necessarily pose a threat but perhaps do have implications for foreign relations, such as Julian Assange and other people working in the WikiLeaks organisation. WikiLeaks and Mr Assange obviously have implications for Australia's foreign relations. Things falling out of the document drop were on the front page of every newspaper in the country day after day after day six months ago, and even now those shock waves continue to reverberate through the diplomatic community. So there is no way that you can say that there are no implications there for Australia's foreign relations. But should that entity be spied on by ASIO? Should our clandestine Cold War era spy agency be tracking down Mr Assange, maybe his family if they travel abroad, people working for that organisation, journalists, or people he is talking to or that that organisation is involved with? It appears that the reason that this bill has been known as the 'WikiLeaks amendment' in the Attorney's department is that that is precisely what is intended. The committee simply did not address that issue, and neither did the officer at the table when we asked during the inquiry. This is one example of how a person or organisation outside Australia, combined with the notion of Australia's foreign relations, very considerably expands the scope of ASIO's activities. Australians working overseas for firms that are major rivals to key Australian industries would also be covered. They would be caught by the economic wellbeing argument. If the government has a counterargument to this, it would be delightful to hear it." Senator Ludlam, West Australia, 4 July 2011, BILLS - Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Second Reading,
Senator Ludlam, Petitions Wikileaks, 9 February 2011
"To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
The Petition of the undersigned shows:
1. That Mr Julian Assange is an Australian Citizen.
2. That on 2nd December 2010 the Prime Minister stated that the publishing of certain information on the Wikileaks website by Mr Assange was “An Illegal thing to do”.
3. That the Attorney-General of Australia has stated that he has considered the cancellation of the Australian Passport held by Mr Assange.
4. United States Politician, Ms Sarah Palin, has called for Mr Assange to be “hunted down”.
5. Mr Tom Flanagan, Senior Advisor to the Canadian Prime Minister has, on public television, called for Mr Assange’s assassination.
Your petitioner requests that the Senate:
1. Call upon the Prime Minister to explain to the Senate the basis for her allegation against a fellow Australian citizen that he is a criminal.
2. Call upon the Attorney-General to state to the Senate whether he received any request for the cancellation of Mr Assange’s Australian Passport pursuant to the Australian Passports Act.
3. Call upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs to summon the Ambassador for from the United States of America to Australia and demarche condemning the comments of Ms Patin. [sic - meant Palin.]
4. Call upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs to summon the Canadian High Commissioner to Australia and demarche condemning the comments of Mr Flanagan.
5. Call upon the Governor-General of Australia to provide such protection and assistance to Mr Assange as to which he may stand in need. "
"I wonder whether the Attorney-General might rise to the occasion, as it were, and provide us with some information as to why he will not back up on the public record, neither here in this chamber nor even at an estimates committee last week, how he is able to accuse Mr Edward Snowden the whistleblower of being a traitor when he has been neither charged nor convicted of any crime in the United States, when senior US administration figures have been careful not to use that phrase and when he cannot prove or show any evidence whatsoever that Australians have been put in harm's way? Similar claims were put about publisher Julian Assange when the WikiLeaks documents were first put into the public domain. And unless Senator Brandis is about to prove me wrong, we are about to see debate in here closed down." Senator Ludlam, West Australia, 3 March, 2014, National Security - Order for the Production of Documents,
Senator Ludlam, W.A. Australian Greens, 7 February, 2017
"We let Australian citizen Julian Assange and his courageous colleagues hang out to dry for disclosing war crimes in Iraq and more conventional crimes revealed in the state department cables. When the United States government says jump, then, if we are lucky, our Intelligence and Security Committee will do a rapid bipartisan inquiry into how high. But inevitably, we jump." Senator Ludlam, W.A. Australian Greens, 7 February, 2017, "ADJOURNMENT - Australia-United States Relationship,"
Michael Danby, MP, Melbourne Ports, 1 December 2014, Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill, (No.1) 2014
"I want to end with this discordant note. It is not surprising to see the Greens political party lead the charge against this proposed legislation. In my view, the Greens seem to have an automatic Pavlovian kind of reaction to undermining the intelligence capabilities of our country. People like the Greens political party's Senator Ludlam have publicly supported self-appointed protectors of privacy and trust—stalwarts of moral standing like Julian Assange. Of course, the Greens' backing of Julian Assange and his ideological stablemate Edward Snowden has not exposed a single piece of evidence of the abuse of privacy or citizens' rights in authoritarian countries like Russia. Mr. Assange, the Greens' hero, used to host a program on the Russian disinformation network RT. To give you a flavour for his content and his policies, his first interview gave an armchair ride to Hezbollah's feared terrorist leader, Sheikh Hussein Nasrallah.
Indeed, it is delicious irony that the Greens' other hero, Edward Snowden, preaches excessive oversight and accountability but chooses to reside in Russia, of all places. He destroyed his credibility when popping up on Russian TV a few months ago to give another soft-serve Dorothy Dixer to the new Russian tsar, Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the Greens believe Russia is actually a bastion of human rights. Certainly, Senator Rhiannon used to believe that. I am honoured with the fact that Senator Ludlum has put a fatwa on the Greens speaking to me because I pointed out Senator Rhiannon's political similarity to the wife of the Romanian dictator, Elena Ceausescu. But the main point I make about her is she has never dissociated herself from her membership and participation in the pro-Soviet Communist political party in Australia. It was a seamless transition to the Greens.
Of course, the serious people in this parliament can smirk about Snowden's choice of patrons and about Assange's presence on RT. But it is hard to believe that here, in this House, we have parliamentarians that oppose legislation and seek to foil the efforts of our Defence forces and cooperation with our security services overseas. It occurs to me that the Greens political party ought to be more concerned about people losing their heads than about the people holding the swords. We had the appeasers in the 1930s. Eighty years later we have the Greens." Michael Danby, MP, Melbourne Ports, 1 December 2014, Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill, (No.1) 2014,
Prime Minister Gillard responds to question from Adam Bandt, MP, Greens in House of Representatives, Australian Parliament, Questions without Notice, 13 May 2015:
"Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. Senior figures in the United States have called for Julian Assange to be hunted down and in the US courts he may face the death penalty. Has the government sought an assurance from the United States that he will not be prosecuted. What steps has the government taken, or will the government take, to prevent Julian Assange being taken to the United States? Will the government put the interests of Washington ahead of the liberty of an Australian citizen and the freedom of the press?"
"Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:35): I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. I know that he is raising an issue that is on the minds of many Australians as result of the recent news about the decision in the UK on the extradition matter involving Mr Assange. Can I assure the House of the following: the Australian government is providing full consular assistance to Mr Assange, as it does for all Australian citizens. I am advised that Australian consular officials visited Mr Assange on a number of occasions during his period of detention in London and raised several matters of concern with prison authorities on his behalf. Australian consular officials have attended all of Mr Assange's court appearances, including yesterday's hearing.
Since Mr Assange was released on bail, Australian officials have repeatedly conveyed offers of consular assistance through his lawyers, with whom they were most recently in contact yesterday. Swedish authorities have confirmed that any legal action against Mr Assange will be conducted in accordance with due process. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said today, at this stage we do not have any advice from the United States that there is an indictment against Mr Assange or that the United States has decided to seek his extradition. If at any stage in the future Mr Assange faces legal proceedings from the United States we would, for Mr Assange—as we would for any other Australian citizen—seek assurances from the United States in relation to due process. The Australian government cannot interfere in the judicial processes of other countries, but of course we will continue to closely monitor proceedings against Mr Assange and continue to provide full consular assistance to him." 13 May, 2015,
Mr Rudd responding to a letter re Assange, 4 July 2011
Dear Mr Murphy,
I refer to your letter of 16 March 2011. regarding a petition about Mr Julian Assange, submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions. I note the Committee's referral under Standing Order 209(b) of items 3 and 4 of the petition. My response follows.
Item 3 called upon me to summon the Ambassador for the United States of America to Australia and demarche him condemning the comments of American politician Ms Sarah Palin on Mr Assange. Item 4 called upon me to summon the Canadian High Commissioner to Australia and demarche him condemning the comments of Mr Tom Flanagan, former Senior Advisor to the Canadian Prime Minister, on Mr Assange.
The Australian Government deplores and condemns all calls to violence against any Australian citizen wherever and by whomever they are made. However, neither of the individuals in the petition cited are holders of public office in their respective countries so it would not be appropriate to demarche their governments through their diplomatic representatives on statements they are reported to have made. Both the United States of America and Canada have laws protecting the rights of individuals against threats to their person. under which any concerns about these reported statements could be pursued.
[1] The reason we have not linked to the Assange article on the ABC is because the ABC does not have an SSL certificate for this article. That means that if we link to it, oversensitive browsers will say that candobetter.net is linking to unsafe links. SSL certificates are security certificates. Just because the ABC does not have an SSL certificate, it does not mean the site isn't safe; it just means that it hasn't paid its protection money to issuers of SSL certificates. But your browser may tell you that it is unsafe - so we don't actively link.
Fears are increasing that something terrible has happened to Julian Assange, the Australian who founded Wikileaks and exposed power elites in the United States - most recently through 'Pizzagate'. We really hope that these fears are groundless, but police presence has been removed from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where Assange has been sequestered since 2012. The Anonymous video inside this article gives more detail than any other source, analysing and timelining what has happened recently with Assange. You need to start about 37 seconds in to avoid an overly long intro. Please contact candobetter.net if you have information about Assange. The Australian Government should be inquiring into his welfare - but they have failed totally to defend his rights now for years.
75.5% of Russians support President Vladimir Putin
“As you know, the modern world, especially the Western world, is highly monopolised and many Western countries – whether they want to hear this or not – have voluntarily given up a considerable part of their sovereignty. To some extent, this is a result of the politics of blocs. Sometimes we find it very difficult to come to terms with them on geopolitical issues. It is hard to reach an agreement with people who whisper even at home for fear of being overheard by the Americans. This is not a joke or a figure of speech.” (Vladimir Putin)
Vladimir Putin denounces, more and more explicitly, the servility of France and Europe towards the United States, whether in the case of wire-tapping French leaders or that of the Mistral ships.
Far from protest- ing against the flagrant violation of French sove- reignty that the espionage of its top leaders const- itutes, our govern- ment bravely hast- ened to hush up this scandal ...
The publication by WikiLeaks of documents establishing the wire-tapping by the United States of three French Presidents was an open secret known since the revelations of Edward Snowden. Far from protesting against the flagrant violation of French sovereignty that the espionage of its top leaders constitutes, our government bravely hastened to hush up this scandal, as was expected by Lavrov and Putin. Let us remember that France prided herself in 2013 for having rejected the asylum for Edward Snowden, and that it is illusory to believe that these revelations could change anything : official France cannot but turn down flat Julian Assange's calls.
Francois Hollande com- plains of alleged Rus- sian interference in Uk- raine whilst arming ter- rorists fighting the pop- ularly elected Syrian President Bashar al- Assad. This war has, so far, cost the lives of 220,000 Syrians by one estimate.
By refusing the delivery of two helicopter carriers ordered and paid for by Russia, France is both disgraced and discredited internationally as a reliable economic partner and military supplier. The inept pretext of the Ukrainian crisis and alleged Russian interference, invoked by a country that involved itself in the Syrian crisis by arming Al-Nusra terrorists (of which it is apologetic) and calling for the overthrow (even murder) of the legitimate Syrian leader, reveals the extent of the hypocrisy and indecency of the French government and its subjection to American diktats. Especially since this same government then concluded huge arms sales contracts with the barbaric regimes of Qatar and even Saudi Arabia, engaged in an illegal and criminal war in Yemen.
While trade between the US and Russia is increasing, their European “allies” are forced to impose sanctions on Moscow and suffer alone its formidable repercussions: thus Vladimir Putin has renewed for one year the Russian embargo on food products from Europe.
Vladimir Putin recently said to Charlie Rose, an American TV star presenter who asked incredulously if Russia really aspired to gain respect (indeed, what a preposterous idea):
“You know, I hear this all the time: Russia wants to be respected. Don't you? Who does not? Who wants to be humiliated? It is a strange question. As if this is some exclusive right – Russia demands respect. Does anyone like to be neglected?” To this rhetorical question, our French leaders respond ‘yes’ without hesitation and continue to whisper in their own homes for fear of prying ears (and microphones).
Instead of a rapprochement with Russia, a historic partner concerned about the respect of States and their sovereignty, in addition a rising great power and champion of the defence of international law, France and Europe prefer subjugation to the US, the superpower in irremediable decline with which they chain their destinies. It is easy to conceive the repulsion that Russian elites, despite their professionalism, must feel for our inglorious leaders. Probably to the extent of the felt more and more by their own peoples, whom Putin chooses to address directly.
... France is now relegated to the status of American sub-colony whose independence and national interests are routinely violated and trampled ...
Former arrogant colonial power and conqueror, then sovereignist Gaullist Republic, France is now relegated to the status of American sub-colony whose independence and national interests are routinely violated and trampled, as much by the stateless and spineless leaders in Paris, repeatedly guilty of the crime of high treason (abolished, thankfully for them), as by the imperial hawks in Washington.
Even a country like Algeria, a former French colony run by a corrupt and retrograde military regime, has at least leaders concerned of their national interests to the point of refusing any participation in the Saudi-American coalition against Yemen, while Hollands’ France was ready to pounce gleefully on a new crusade in Syria, which could have triggered World War III. One may ask, to use an expression of Norman Finkelstein, why prostitutes have such a bad reputation... Welcome to Western mediocracy!
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,
Mr Lavrov will tell us about the consultations in Paris. Let's start with this. Please, Mr Lavrov.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov:On the whole, it was not useless because even despite certain wrangling during the discussion, the main outcome was the acknowledgement of the fact that there is no alternative to complete fulfilment of the Minsk Agreements. First and foremost, the acknowledgement by our German and our French partners of the fact that the overwhelming part of the Minsk provisions should be implemented through direct dialogue between authorities in Kiev and Donetsk and Lugansk.
I can't say that we have resolved all the problems because this should be done directly by the Contact group and the working subgroups created. I will report on that in more detail later, but on the day of our meeting, a report on the taps [by the United States of the French leadership] was published, and this gave rise to unrest in France so this was another thing that distracted our attention.
Vladimir Putin: How will this scandal end?
Sergei Lavrov: Frankly speaking, I think that Germany's example [the US special services wiretapping the German leadership] gives the answer: I think that both sides will try to blanket the scandal and forget about it.
Vladimir Putin: That is what would happen.
Putin denounces the ’submission’ of France: ”Even without Mistral, we will survive”(English subtitles)
Olga Ushakova: Let’s take another question from the audience – from Dmitry Shchugorev's section this time.
Dmitry Shchugorev: We have Dmitry Abzalov here, the president of the Center for Strategic Communications. Please, go ahead.
Dmitry Abzalov: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. I have this nagging question about Mistral ships. This week, the second ship was tested and left for the French shipyard. What are the prospects? Will we push for having these ships delivered to us? Will we seek financing? In general, what will our military and economic partnership with the European Union and France, in particular, be like after what happened a year ago?
Vladimir Putin: The refusal to deliver ships under the existing contract is, of course, a bad sign. However, frankly speaking, it's of little consequence for us or our defence capability. We signed these contracts primarily to support our partners and offer work to their shipyard. We planned to use the ships in the Far East. For us, this is not critical.
However, I believe that the leadership of France – and the French people in general – are honourable people and will return the money. We are not even going to demand any penalties or exorbitant fines, but we want all of our costs covered. This certainly means that the reliability of our partners – who, acting as part of the military-political bloc, in this case NATO, have lost some of their sovereignty – has suffered, and is now questionable. Of course, we will keep this in mind as we continue our military and technical cooperation.
Kirill Kleymenov: Our partners may find that it was an easy way for them to get off the hook.
Vladimir Putin: That's all right, we'll survive.
[...]
Vladimir Putin to the peoples of the West: Russia is not an imperial power, the US spy on NATO members (English subtitles)
Speech by Vladimir Putin on the integration of the Crimea to Russia, March 18, 2014 – With a reflection on this intervention dated April 22, 2014
Today, I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all else. Isn't the desire of Crimea's residents to freely choose their fate such a value? Please understand us.
I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, at the expert, though very high level, some nations that were then and are now Germany's allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.
I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed Ukraine's unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about Ukraine's greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide the nation. Today's civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.
I repeat, just as it has been for centuries, it will be a home to all the peoples living there. What it will never be and do is follow in Bandera's footsteps!
Kirill Kleymenov: But before giving the floor to [our correspondent in Germany], I'd like to ask you to return to the speech that we discussed at the very beginning, the one that you made before signing the treaty on Crimea and Sevastopol's accession to Russia. Many people were very impressed by it and compared it to your Munich speech. They even called it your best speech.
I'd like to ask you why you made this speech. First, the protocol didn't demand it and, second, the format was very unusual – you addressed peoples rather than countries or governments.
Vladimir Putin: The format was chosen based on the importance of the event and the situation. This is an unusual event in the life of our people, our country and our state. This is why I considered it my duty to address the Federal Assembly and the people of the Russian Federation in the presence of members of the State Duma and the Federation Council. This is the first point.
Second. Why was the speech addressed to the peoples of other countries rather than their governments? As you know, the modern world, especially the Western world, is highly monopolised and many Western countries – whether they want to hear this or not – have voluntarily given up a considerable part of their sovereignty. To some extent, this is a result of the politics of blocs. Sometimes we find it very difficult to come to terms with them on geopolitical issues. It is hard to reach an agreement with people who whisper even at home for fear of being overheard by the Americans. This is not a joke or a figure of speech. Listen to me, I'm serious, I'm not joking. However, they are our main partners on economic and some other issues.
But I addressed the peoples of these countries primarily because an ordinary person from Germany, France or Italy will instantly sense whether a statement is false or not. Our position is absolutely open, honest and transparent, and for this reason it is easier to get it across to ordinary people than even to some leaders. It seems to me we succeeded to some extent. No matter what government rules a country, it will have to consider the opinion of its voters. This is why I addressed the people.
The Ecuadorian embassy in London has provided refuge for Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks and candidate for the Victorian Senate in the 2013 Federal elections.
Facing a large backlash, resignations, and protests, the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has decided that it will not make an intervention at the Canadian Supreme Court in the case involving Chevron Corporation’s contamination of the Ecuadorian rainforest.
In a letter sent to members, CBA president Michele Hollins stated "The [Legislation and Law Reform] Committee concluded that while the factum was well-drafted and of a high standard of quality, it did not meet the specific requirements of CBA’s Intervention Policy. Consequently, under the terms of the Intervention Policy, the CBA came to the conclusion that without the certification of the factum, the Intervention could not move forward and would be withdrawn."
Although the previous letter to members made mention of opposition to the CBA intervention, this second letter did not. Santiago Escobar, a member of the Anti Chevron Committee of Canada, in an interview with teleSUR stated "The CBA won’t admit this but they withdrew because of the protests they were facing, they knew that they couldn’t be seen supporting a corporation that has negatively affected the lives of so many Indigenous people in Ecuador."
The CBA’s legislative and law reform committee had recommended against proceeding. Meanwhile the environment, aboriginal, and civil litigation committees has urged the CBA not to intervene on behalf of Chevron. Kathryn Deo, who had resigned from the CBA in protest told the Globe and Mail "I’m sure it was a difficult decision but it was clearly the right decision and we are appreciative of their courage in reversing course." Lawyers in Canada were upset that the board of the CBA had authorized a law firm with ties to Chevron, Blake Cassels and Graydon LLP, to submit the brief.
At issue is whether the Ecuadorian plaintiffs can seize the assets of Chevron corporation in Canada in order to collect a USD $9.5 Million judgment against Chevron for the contamination it cause in the Lago Agrio region. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the case could indeed be heard. Chevron has appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which will hear the case in early December of this year. Chevron maintains that courts in Canada have no jurisdiction in this case, should the Supreme Court rule against them, the full judgment could be collected and paid to the Ecuadorian plaintiffs.
The term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ was coined in 1973 after a bank robbery and hostage situation caused hostages to bond with their captors and helped them fight off those who were there to rescue them. Ironically, there is a new brand of the syndrome in the country where it originated – Sweden. Only, it doesn’t involve a few hostages and hostage-takers.
The Australian Immigration Department has been left behind by other federal government operations in its monitoring of Australia's social media chatter.
Could we end up being gagged about immigration, as in Sweden?
People are complying with the destructive culture to avoid punitive action being taken against them. They are being held hostage not by empathy and sympathy, but by political correctness and laws against free speech.
In total, 115,845 immigrants arrived in Sweden in 2013, many from Syria and Somalia. The figure is the highest Sweden has ever had in a one-year period. The Swedish Parliament and Government aim to have a migration policy that protects the right to asylum, facilitates freedom of movement across borders within the framework of regulated immigration, and promotes needs-based labour immigration.
Citizens of the EU/EEA and Switzerland are entitled to live and work in Sweden without acquiring a work or residence permit.
Schools, law enforcement, jobs/unemployment, welfare and healthcare are being impacted by a heavily disproportionate number of immigrants causing problems and rising costs. It will mean the destruction of the welfare system in Sweden if this goes on. It's come to the point where the police refuse to respond to calls from certain areas, areas which incidentally happens to be filled with immigrants.
As a refugee you don't have to prove anything. This gives you the right to free healthcare, an apartment and free benefits for as long as you wish for and you don’t even have to learn how to speak the language. Nobody’s flooding Africa with Non-Africans and giving them free health care, affirmative action and special privileges.
(Paraphrase of the film)
When President Obama visited Sweden last year, he expressed admiration for the "Swedish model". This should make Americans, and the Western world too, nervous. A UN report says that in about 15 years, Sweden will be a third world nation, below Libya and Bulgaria. Swedes believe their country is "racing into the future" but critics warn that it's "racing to the bottom".
Sweden has been a laboratory of social experiments. They believe they are building a perfect society. They have been compared to other countries that have tried to build perfect societies, such as North Korea and the Soviet Union. If you don't like the way it's being done, you won't be shot like in North Korea, but your life could become very unpleasant very quickly.
A journalist visited the home of a professor who thought he made anonymous comments about immigration. Left wing hackers helped the newspapers track him down, and others like him. He was then exposed to the whole nation as being "racist". Another man, a manager was fired for views critical of immigration.
A cornerstone of their society is "multiculturalism". They have mass immigration from some of the poorest and most backward nations on Earth. Swedes who disagree with this plan, you are labelled "racist", "fascist" or even "Nazi". You must be "friendly" towards foreigners, and immigration. Once you are "proven" to be hostile to immigration, you are out of the game!
It doesn't matter that the model is failing, crime is increasing and standards in schools are plummeting. Jews are living in fear in some areas, and some migrants are fearful, but Swedes are supposed to learn from immigrants, not the other way around!
Assimilation is completely out of the question! "Assimilation" is a Nazi word in Sweden. Many Swedes have their opinions stifled in fear of being called a "racist". You could lose your job, no career, you might lose your family, There was a new newspaper to cover these issues, but Swedes were too intimated to have the newspaper "Despatch International" delivered to their homes. What if the neighbours saw it? They could think your were a racist, or hate Muslims! "Despatch International" now hangs on through donations.
Sweden has become a nation in which some newspapers are too dangerous to read. Parents warn their children not to participate in public discussions, not to express "radical" ideas about this or that, because they are afraid it will harm them. You can't solve problems because you can't mention the problems!
Sweden was a good, rich country, but while it won't become a third world country overnight, there's a risk that it will!
In 2012, the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the fourth-most competitive country in the world. There is an image of Sweden as tolerant and liberal and a nation that take freedoms seriously, and appreciates the importance of liberty.
“In Denmark as in Sweden, says social editor Kaj Schueler, “it is sometimes argued that there are only certain things that should be said, thought, and debated when it comes to topics like feminism, Islam, immigrants, cultural differences, crime, and multiculturalism. If you do not take a politically correct stance on these questions, it is said, you are excluded from the media.”
The right to express and receive thoughts, opinions and feelings is an important right. And it is also important that it has been enshrined in Sweden’s constitution.
Sweden has long had a law against ‘objectionable or offensive behaviour’ ( ‘förargelseväckande beteende’). This law, which still exists today, was applied to anti-Semitic propagandists before the hets mot folksgrupp.
Hate speech in Sweden is now defined as speech that publicly and intentionally threatens or expresses disrespect or contempt for ethnic or other such groups by alluding to race, colour, national origin, ethnic origin, creed or sexual orientation.
Hate-speech laws, wherever they exist, are invariably justified in the name of protecting people. But what this means is that the state begins regulating peoples’ everyday verbal interactions.
Assar Lindbeck has been Sweden’s most influential economist during the post-war era, and is often referred to as “The Nestor of Economics in Sweden”. Lindbeck was a leading member of the Nobel Prize committee 1969-1994. Assar Lindbeck points out that it is “clear” that Sweden cannot have open borders, since the welfare state cannot afford the strain of unlimited immigration. asylum seekers are ill-equipped for life in the high-tech Swedish society. Employment statistics show that over 60 percent of the new arrivals and their relatives have a very “rudimentary education”, which means that many of them are actual or practical illiterates.
Two women in their thirties accused Assange of rape and sexual molestation during a high profile visit he made to Stockholm in 2010 – at the height of his website’s revelations of US military attacks on civilians in Iraq. The WikiLeaks founder has long argued that the Swedish investigation is politically motivated and backed by Washington as a way to speed his eventual extradition to the U.S., where he says he would be tried for publishing thousands of classified U.S. government documents - using "rape" as a smokescreen similarly in the way they use "racism" for any criticism of immigration!
In an interview on the 4 Corners program, The Battle For Syria, on 4 October 2012, Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr said to Kerry O'Brien, "... perhaps an assassination ... is what is required ... ."
Carr's support for the assassination of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is consistent with allegations that for 40 years he was an agent of the United States Government within the Australian Labor Party. His relationship with the CIA is the subject of Bob Carr: Washington's man in Australia in the Melbourne Age of 8 April 2013 and the article, by Murray Hunter, Is Bob Carr a spy? of 11 April 2013 in the Independent Australian, which cites evidence from the Age article and which we republish below. The US, which Carr uncritically supports, has used assassins, and worse, against the people of Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. A number of its own Presidents including JFK and a number of popular Americanpolitical leaders have also fallen to the bullets of assassins.
How Australian governments helped kill 3.3 million Iraqis
Since 1990, Australia has participated in two illegal wars against Iraq.#fn1">1 The Hawke Labor Government led Australia into the first war of 1991 whilst the Liberal/National Coalition Government of John Howard led Australia into the second war of 2003. In addition, Australia participated in the imposition of sanctions which have prevented vitally needed food and medicine from reaching the people of that devastated country. It is now well known that the pretexts used to launch these wars, including the Kuwaiti Incubator babies story and the claim that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) were lies.
Accordingto oneestimate, 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children consequently died. To escape death through war, disease or starvation, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled. According to Wikipedia, 1,300,000 fled to Syria.
Syria, which gave refuge to Iraqis fleeing Australian aggression, now bullied by Australia
Prior to that on 4 October 2012, in an interview on the 4 Corners program, The Battle For Syria, Bob Carr said to Kerry O'Brien, "... perhaps an assassination ... is what is required ... ."
Carr's support for the assassination of the Syrian President seems consistent with his alleged 40 year record of being an agent of the United States Government within the Australian Labor Party . The US, which Carr uncritically supports, has used assassins against the people of Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. One of its own Presidents and a number of popular Americanpolitical leaders have also fallen to the bullets of assassins.
The Age exposes the Australian foreign minister as an "agent" under US influence; Murray Hunter asks -- is U.S. influence in Australian politics destroying policy objectivity?
Foreign Minister Bob Carr (image courtesy ABC).
JUST AROUND a week ago in Beijing, Australia's Foreign Minister Bob Carr entered the US-Korea conflict by trying to persuade the Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi to adopt sanctions against North Korea.
On Monday (8 April), an investigative journalist from The Age, after going through 11,000 cables from the U.S. embassy in Canberra and consulates in Sydney and Melbourne, leaked by US Army Private Bradley Manning and published by WikiLeaks, found that the current Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr had been briefing the US embassy since the 1970s on both the internal decision making of the Australian Government during the Whitlam Labor Government (1972-75) and internal workings of the Australian Labor Party (ALP).
Bob Carr has been Australia's foreign minister for 12 months, replacing Kevin Rudd, who resigned after challenging Julia Gillard for the prime ministership. Carr has been involved in the Australian Labor Party for more than 40 years and was New South Wales premier from 1995-2005.
Carr began his relationship with US embassy officials in the mid 1970s, when he was president of Young Labor and education officer of the NSW Labor Council. According to The Age investigative report Philip Dorling he would regularly brief the US Consul General over labour issues and the prospects of the Labor Government in Canberra. From the information gathered from Carr and also NSW Labor President John Ducker, intelligence reports on Australian politics and labour issues would be sent onto Washington. Leaked US cables to WikiLeaks also indicated that the former Labor Senator Mark Arbib was also a "protected" US embassy source passing on information and commentary on Australian politics.
Bob Carr is very well known for his staunch support for the Australian-US alliance as an non-negotiable pillar of Australian foreign policy and often dismisses critics as being in "emotional silly expression lacking in any substance and characteristic of the silly leftwing fringe of the ALP".
With such rigid advice to the prime minister and cabinet at a time where many academics and commentators like Professor Hugh White of the Australian National University are calling for a re-appraisal of this alliance and much more strategic engagement with China, it is very difficult to see how the Australian Government's pending 2013 Defense White Paper will signal any major shifts in policy on this matter.
At the very least, hanging on to the Australian-US alliance without any objective appraisal and redefinition may not serve the country's strategy interests in the Asia-Pacific Region well if the U.S. continues a competitive stance against China.
These revelations add to past suspicions by many in the labour movement about members of the party and government (when Labor was in power) who have been involved in close relationships with U.S. officials.
Labor suspicion of U.S. intelligence operating in Australia mainly stems from the election of the reformist and nationalistic Whitlam Labor Government in 1972, after 23 years in opposition. Whitlam immediately pulled Australia out of the Vietnam conflict, recognized the Peoples' Republic of China, campaigned for a nuclear free Indian Ocean, spoke up for Palestinian rights in the United Nations, and opposed French nuclear testing in the Pacific.
In 1973, the then Attorney General of Australia Lionel Murphy led a raid on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO), the equivalent to the U.S. CIA, over concern with the organisation's involvement with the training of fascist Croatian groups, and the launching of terrorist operations from Australian soil. According to the Hope Commission back in 1977, ASIO was handing over to the CIA information on Australian opposition politicians and kept files on all ALP members.
The Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) was assisting the CIA in undertaking clandestine operations in Cambodia and Chile, even though Australia was officially neutral in Cambodia and supported the Government of Salvador Allende in Chile, without the knowledge of the Australian Government.
Many felt that when the Whitlam Government took measures to control the operations of the US Naval Communications Station on the North-West Cape of Western Australia, the Defence Signals Directorate in Melbourne, the Joint Defense research facility at Pine Gap and Nurrunger in South Australia, that the U.S. became vitally concerned.
After Whitlam discovered that ASIO and ASIS had secretly assisted the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, he dismissed the heads of both organizations. Whitlam then hinted that he may not renew the Pine Gap agreement with the U.S. due for signing on 9th December 1975, which would have severely dented U.S. intelligence gathering ability. Labor mythology believes that the U.S. ambassador to Australia at the time, Marshall Green, had a hand in the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in November 1975 by the then Governor General Sir John Kerr. Of course, Kerr's time working for a closely aligned Australian intelligence organization to the U.S. OSS, the forerunner of the CIA, has always added spice to such conspiracy theories.
After Whitlam discovered that ASIO and ASIS had secretly assisted the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, he dismissed the heads of both organizations. Whitlam then hinted that he may not renew the Pine Gap agreement with the U.S. due for signing on 9th December 1975, which would have severely dented U.S. intelligence gathering ability. Labor mythology believes that the U.S. ambassador to Australia at the time, Marshall Green, had a hand in the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in November 1975 by the then Governor General Sir John Kerr. Of course, Kerr's time working for a closely aligned Australian intelligence organization to the U.S. OSS, the forerunner of the CIA, has always added spice to such conspiracy theories.
During the first week after the dismissal of the Labor Government, the army was on stand-by at their barracks in case there were mass demonstrations. However, it was the Australian Council of Trade Unions then president Bob Hawke who summoned the labour movement to be calm. US diplomatic cables also implicate the former prime minister, saying he regularly conferred with the U.S. Consulate in Melbourne during his ACTU years. It was generally believed that the Labor Attaché at the U.S. embassy in Canberra was in reality the CIA station chief (McKnight, D., "Labor and the Quiet Americans", The Age, February 20, 2003, p15). The future Hawke Government, elected in 1984, went on to implement many pro-U.S. initiatives, and prevented public disclosure of documents relating to the Nugan Hand Bank during his term as Prime Minister, which were believed to implicate the CIA with drug trafficking and organized crime.
This is the first time that leaked U.S. documents have confirmed what many believe to be the truth surrounding U.S. infiltration within the Australian Labor Party. The issue is likely to be very quickly dismissed in Australia by the argument that the U.S. is an ally. However, within these documents there is some proof and support that the U.S. has meddled in the affairs of the Australian union movement and political parties for many years. What is even more astounding is that some Labor politicians showed disloyalty to their party to a foreign power during the Whitlam years.
Bob Carr has been forthright in exposing past politicians as members of the Communist Party of Australia, so should take the accusations against him seriously, either stepping aside for the duration of an inquiry or resigning outright. David Combe's relationship with a Soviet diplomat Valery Ivanov back in 1984 led to swift action on the part of the Hawke Government at the time. In the interests of transparency and sovereignty, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO should conduct an inquiry.
The real 'matrix'. Barrett Brown, publisher and journalist talks to Chris Hedges about the US government’s war on Wikileaks, Assange and other outlets exposing the inner workings of power. 
The Free Julian Assange protest outside the British Consulate at 90 Collins Street Melbourne started on time and was well attended. Julian Assange's father was there and thanked people for coming. We have to give credit to the organisers - the Socialist Equity Party (SEP). It seems that no-one else in Melbourne has been able to draw people together to protest about Julian Assange's persecution, although it is obvious that many people do care. A problem may be that people believe they need permission to hold meetings and rallies, but this is rarely the case. There were several speakers and we did not film all of them. The films uploaded here were filmed on a hand-held digital camcorder, more for the record than for art. We also filmed the surroundings and participants to give viewers an idea of the scene in Australia. Another protest was to be held tonight (19 June 2018) at the State Library, where the film, Collateral Murder, would be shown. We have embedded a copy of this chilling record of a night of murder for fun by US armed forces in Iraq, which is a document that Julian Assange published, and for which he has been pursued with murderous resentment by the United States ever since. 
Julian Assange is in immense danger. Remarks made this week by Ecuador’s foreign minister suggest that her government may be preparing to renege on the political asylum it granted to the WikiLeaks editor in 2012 and hand him over to British and then American authorities. On March 28, under immense pressure from the governments in the US, Britain and other powers, Ecuador imposed a complete ban on Assange having any Internet or phone contact with the outside world, and blocked his friends and supporters from physically visiting him. For 45 days, he has not been heard from. [Article first Published May 13, 2018 at 
Fears are increasing that something terrible has happened to Julian Assange, the Australian who founded Wikileaks and exposed power elites in the United States - most recently through 
Recent comments