Julian Assange

George Christensen to put to Parliament bill to make the Australian Government act to Free Julian Assange

Mon, 2021-11-29 17:30 by James Sinnamon

George Christensen, the Australian Federal Member for the northern Queensland coastal seat of Dawson, has today, on 29 November, introduced the Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021 into the House of Representatives. Every Australian, who wants to finally see Julian Assange released from prison, must urgently contact his/her Parliamentary representative and urge each of those members to do all that he/she is able to see that George Christensen's bill gets put, fully debated and thence voted upon.

Topic:

Australia: Demand your Parliament finally allow debate on Julian Assange

Fri, 2021-11-26 00:31 by James Sinnamon

The final sitting of the Australian Parliament for 2021 is from Monday until Thursday next week. In the embedded video, I explain how, if it chose to, the Federal Government could have acted long ago to force the British Government to end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange. Australians must make the government act to free Julian Assange, or else, hold it to account should it continue to fail to do so.

Topic:

Assange: Richard Medhurst Analysis of US extradition High Court Appeal 29 Oct 2021

Fri, 2021-10-29 22:19 by Sheila Newman

Richard Medhurst attended both days of the High Court Appeal by the US to obtain extradition of Assange to America, and we have linked to his video report below, and transcribed parts of it, including the question of whether Assange might do a prison sentence in Australia, if convicted - a question that has been treated very naively by the Australian media.

Topic:

US Democrats and press speak up for Assange

Tue, 2021-09-14 18:09 by admin

This series of video quotes came out in February 2021, but it is still a useful item for helping people who only watch mainstream newsmedia to understand Assange's plight.

Topic:

Will Australia's Parliament ever allow a debate on Julian Assange?

Mon, 2021-08-09 03:58 by admin

Update, Wed 11 August: I have submitted the included Open Letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison as an attached PDF file through his "Contact Your PM" form at https://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm. What you can do: Contact Scott Morrison, your local MP and your state Senators and tell them that you think it is about time Julian Assange was properly debated on the floor of our Parliament.

Whilst millions around the world have been protesting for Julian Assange almost nothing has been said for years on the floor of the Parliament of the country of which Julian is a citizen - Australia. This is not because Julian Assange has no support in Parliament. In fact, the "Bring Julian Assange Home" has 26 members. But arcane parliamentary procedural rules have, so far, made it impossible for those 26 supporters of Julian Assange to put his case to the floor of our Parliament. Twice so far, in June and again in August, the Parliamentary Selection Committee has prevented Julian Hill from putting to Parliament his motion (see below) in support of Julian Assange.

What sort of parliament prevents such a large group of supporters of the most famous Australian in the world from putting its case? It is time that ordinary Australians told their local members that this is just not good enough. As I have done below, they must put to Prime Minister Scott Morrison as well as each of their local members: If they are not prepared to raise their voices within Parliament for Julian Assange, then at least allow those who do want to raise their voices to do so. At least allow Julian Hill to put his motion to the floor of Parliament for a proper debate (and not just the 10-30 minutes allowed for each Private Members Motion (PMM) only on Monday mornings - and even that inadequate amount of time has been denied to Julian Hill!).

What have you to fear from a debate on Julian Assange? - Open Letter to Scott Morrison

Dear Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese,

(I have previously, on 11 March, written another Open Letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison concerning Julian Assange and have yet to receive a reply. The earlier Open Letter is here.)

I am writing to request that, as a matter of urgency, you allow a motion concerning Australia's award-winning journalist Julian Assange, which was first foreshadowed almost 8 weeks ago by Julian Hill MP, to be put to the House of Representatives, debated and voted upon.

This motion, which is included below as an appendix, was first foreshadowed by Julian Hill on Wednesday 16 June. Last year Andrew Wilkie had also tried to have a motion concerning Julian Assange debated on the floor of Parliament, but was unsuccessful.

So, after all this time, after more than nine years of the illegal detention and psychological torture of Julian Assange, including more than two years of solitary confinement for 23 hours per day at Belmarsh Prison, and as he faces the threat of extradition to face even worse conditions of imprisonment in the United States for the rest of his life, the Australian Parliament has yet to have any discussion longer than the two minutes duration allowed in Question Time about this Australian citizen!

How can this be? With millions of people around the world crying out for the release of Julian Assange, surely our Parliament should be able to find the time to discuss the treatment, by Britain and the United States, of Australia's most famous citizen?

I had naively thought that that a Parliamentary motion only needed a mover and a seconder for it to be put, but this is not the case with Julian Hill's foreshadowed motion.

Apparently, because, even with the "Bring Julian Assange Home" Parliamentary Group having 26 members, Julian Hill's motion has still been designated a Private Member's Motion (PMM). As a PMM it can only be debated on a Monday, that is, if that Monday is not a public holiday and it can only be debated if the Parliamentary Selection Committee, which is comprised of members of the Government and the Opposition, first agrees on the previous Wednesday to let that motion be put!

And even were Julian Hill's PMM to be approved, a total of only one hour and fifty minutes is allowed to debate whatever seven PMMs are approved of by the Selection Committee - an average of less than 16 minutes, and as little as 10 minutes, per PMM.

So far, even this miniscule period of time has not been allowed by the Selection Committee to supporters of Julian Assange to put their case to Parliament . Twice so far, on Wednesday 17 June and, again, on Wednesday 4 August, the Selection Committee has rejected Julian Hill's foreshadowed motion.

Am I to conclude from this that both the Government and the Opposition fear any debate about Julian Assange on the floor of Parliament, let alone a proper debate in which everyone with a view on Julian is allowed to speak?

On the other hand, if you truly believe that you have fully discharged all of your responsibilities towards Julian Assange, then what have you to fear from such a debate? Why not move a procedural motion to allow Julian Hill's motion to be fully debated on the floor of Parliament?

Surely, then, in the course of the ensuing debate, you can show Parliament, Australia and the rest of the world how both Julian Hill and I are wrong.

Yours faithfully,

James Sinnamon

Frankston, Victoria

Appendix: Notice of Motion by Julian Hill MP (first posted here)

MEMBER FOR CLARKE: I give notice that on the next day of sitting (Monday 21/6/21 - JS) I shall move that this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the trial and extradition of Mr Julian Assange are inconsistent with international law, and Australian legal standards, and contravene the legal rights and protections for which those laws and standards provide;

(b) the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has found that Mr Assange 'showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma';

(c) several medical reports find that Mr Assange is in ill-health due to prolonged arbitrary confinement, and indeed the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled that the 50-week sentence of Mr Assange for bail violation, which formally ended on 21 September 2019, was punitive and disproportionate given the nature of the offence and the usual sentence;

(d) Mr Assange is facing extradition for an alleged political offence, which is expressly prohibited by Article 4(1) of the Anglo-US Extradition Treaty and an abuse of power; and

(e) Mr Assange is an Australian citizen and, if convicted in the US, faces 175 years in prison, which would be in effect a death sentence;

(2) acknowledges that Mr Assange is a publisher and journalist, as recognised by his 2011 Walkley award and 17 other awards for excellence in journalism and promoting human rights, and that his charges:

(a) are a direct assault on press freedom; and

(b) threaten the protection of others who publish classified information in the public interest; and

(3) calls for Mr Assange to be allowed to return to Australia.

Topic:

Britain: Shocking misuse of courts to shut up whistleblowers on political crime

Fri, 2021-08-06 21:43 by admin

In this extraordinary interview, revealing more political abuse of the British legal system, Chris Hedges talks to Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was removed from his post after he made public the widespread use of torture by the Uzbek government and the CIA.

Murray has since become one of Britain’s most important human rights campaigners, a fierce advocate for Julian Assange and a supporter of Scottish independence. His coverage of the trial of former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, who was acquitted of sexual assault charges, saw him charged with contempt of court and sentenced to eight months in prison. The very dubious sentence, which upends most legal norms, was delivered, his supporters argue, to prevent him from testifying as a witness in the Spanish criminal case against UC Global Director David Morales. The company founder is being prosecuted for allegedly installing a surveillance system in the Ecuadorean Embassy when Julian Assange found refuge, that was used to record the privileged communications between Assange and his lawyers. Morales is alleged to have carried out this surveillance for the CIA.

The original title of this interview of Craig Murray by Chris Hedges on 27 June 2021 was, "On Contact: Judicial lynching." The original URL is https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/527602-craig-murray-judicial-lynching/ Below we have reproduced the videoed interview and the transcript.

YouTube channel: On Contact

Follow us on Facebook: Facebook.com/OnContactRT

Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/rttv/sets/on-contact-1

Chris Hedges: Welcome to On Contact. Today, we discuss the judicial lynching of the human rights, activist Craig Murray.

Craig Murray: When I became a whistleblower, they were very keen to put me in prison but that--they couldn’t find a way of doing it without the obstacle of a jury. I think they finally--the state--the establishment has finally found a way to imprison me without a jury. There’s also the fact that what this is about is that there’s a split in the independence group. And the reason, they were trying to frame Alex Salmond and I should be totally blamed. I have no doubt whatsoever that this was an attempt to fit up Alex Salmond on false charges orchestrated by those currently in charge of his own party, particularly orchestrated by the current First Minister of Scotland. And that this attempt to frame him was foiled by the jury. The jury saw through it. And the reason for this, the split in the Scottish National Movement was behind this is that Alex Salmond and I and others believe that the movement has been hijacked by people who have no intention of actually obtaining Scottish independence.

CH: Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan was removed from his post after he made public the widespread use of torture by the Uzbek government and the CIA. He has since become one of Britain’s most important human rights campaigners, a fierce advocate for Julian Assange, and a supporter of Scottish independence. His coverage of the trial of former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, who was acquitted of sexual assault charges, saw him charged with contempt of court and sentenced to eight months in prison. The very dubious sentence, which upends most legal norms, was delivered, his supporters argue, to prevent him from testifying as a witness in the Spanish criminal case against UC Global Director David Morales who is being prosecuted for allegedly installing a surveillance system in the Ecuadorian Embassy when Julian Assange found refuge there, that was used to record the privileged communications between Assange and his lawyers. Morales is alleged to have carried out this surveillance on behalf of the CIA. Joining me to discuss his case is Craig Murray. So Craig, before we talk about the rather complicated judicial procedures that have been leveled against you--charges that have been leveled against you, let’s talk about UC Global and Julian Assange. You, I think, did probably the best coverage of the trial and have written, you know, very presciently and eloquently about Julian’s case.

CM: Thank you. Yes. UC Global was spying, specifically, on Julian’s defense counsel, and on meetings Julian had in which he was discussing his defense, and the evidence is--and the evidence that’s been given in court is, by former employees of UC Global who have turned whistleblower, that that was at the behest of the CIA. And of course, this is quite extraordinary. The idea that the government which was trying to extradite Julian Assange, was spying on his legally privileged conversations with his counsel to defend that extradition. In any normal course, anywhere, in any Western so-called democracy, that would be enough to have the case dismissed in itself. That hasn’t been the view taken by the London courts. The counsel for the US government claimed that due to Chinese walls, the CIA have never given the Justice Department any of the material which the CIA had obtained on the defense counsel. In which case, why were the CIA specifically instructing UC Global to spy on the defense counsel if they weren’t going to use the material? What other use could the CIA be putting that material to, you know? It’s plainly nonsense. You don’t--you don’t tell a company to spy specifically on somebody’s lawyers if you’re not going to use it in the legal case. So this whole thing is a [INDISTINCT] of lies and evasion, and it all goes back to the--to the CIA and the state department.

CH: So we should be clear that a lot of the stuff is leaked, El Pais, and other newspapers. So we have videos that they took inside. You know, the leaks, this isn’t conjecture. Can you--a lot of this evidence has become public. Can you lay out, you know, what we’ve been able to see, especially in the Spanish press?

CM: Yeah, certainly. The Spanish press has, you know, put out in some detail that the employees have testified that they were ordered specifically to spy on the defense counsel. The video material itself has been leaked to the media. You can find it online, including video material of my own conversations with Julian, because it wasn’t only his legal counsel who were spied upon. And as well as that, you know, it’s been leaked that there were discussions of potentially poisoning and killing Julian Assange. There were discussions on kidnapping him, there were discussions on obtaining material like nappies of his babies, so their DNA could be mapped and the parenthood checked. The--and also, not discussions, what actually happened was not just videoing his lawyers, but following his lawyers away from the embassy, tracking them to their homes, surveilling them more generally. And in fact, there have been burglaries at offices of some of his lawyers, which, so far, evidence hasn’t directly linked to UC Global, but we--it seems almost certainly was.

CH: And for those of us who visited, I visited Julian a couple of times, we had to turn over all of our electronics to the UC Global security system, and we now know, from these leaks, that our information was copied, is that true?

CM: That’s absolutely right. In fact, you know, both you and I are, I think, in a situation where, you know, all the information, as well telephones has been--has been taken and given to the CIA by UC Global.

CH: So let’s talk a little bit about--and this isn’t the first time you’ve run into a confrontation with the CIA as ambassador to Uzbekistan. You exposed the widespread use of torture on detainees held at the behest of the CIA by the Uzbek government. And so you, you know, for many years, have I think been a--safe to say, a target. I know we can talk about what’s happening at this moment, but before we got to this moment, where you’ve been charged with contempt of court and we can talk about, you know, how they’ve kind of twisted legal normalities to get to that verdict, what--since you left the diplomatic service, and then especially during your long campaign, you’re quite close to Julian, have you seen other attempts to essentially criminalize you in any way?

CM: Well, very much so. And it should be said, of course, that the CIA was actively shipping people to Uzbekistan from other countries, in order for them to be tortured, that they were sending people there to be tortured, taking them on the CIA-controlled rendition flights, and one of the things that happened was Tashkent being a small place, I used to actually meet and talk with the people who physically did the renditions with the pilots who flew them in. So, you know, there’s no doubt at all that was happening, and I was able to provide with my testimony as to it happening. At that time, I was threatened repeatedly with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act which carries very long jail terms, and in many ways, it’s the equivalent of the Espionage Act which Julian is now--is now charged. Those didn’t--that didn’t happen in the end, and these that didn’t happen. It was under the Official Secrets Act. In those days, you got a jury trial, and the jury would have had to decide whether to send me to jail or not. And we have hesitance and particularly the late and great whistleblower Clive Ponting who blew the whistle on British publications that deliberately inflamed and led to full warfare in the Malvinas, or Falkland Islands, with the sinking of General Belgrano. He leaked information that the Belgrano was in fact steaming away from the islands at the time we sank it, killing many hundreds of people. He undoubtedly leaked that information and should have been jailed under the Official Secrets Act legally, strictly, but the jury refused to convict him because the jury felt he had done the right thing. And in my case, the government felt that they tried to convict me under the Official Secrets Act. It was extremely likely the jury would refuse to convict even though I was, you know, openly admitting to having leaked the material and to doing my best to whistle-blow on them and stop CIA torture. So that was a difficult period, when I was expecting potentially to be jailed for a long time. I’ve face numerous legal threats, and so like many whistleblowers, I’ve had evidence, and first-hand evidence of government interference every time I tried to get a job [INDISTINCT] with the government going and talking to potential employers and telling them not to employ me. I’ve had a great deal of surveillance and intimidatory surveillance, and those kinds of things. So it’s a climate, that in many ways, I got used to it, and which, to be honest, serious national security whistleblowers have to get used to it, it’s what is going to happen to you if you become a national security whistleblower.

CH: You have stood up for other people who are being persecuted. I mean, you’ve really become quite an important voice within the UK. And you sat in on this trial with Salmond. And just--we have a minute and a half before we have a break, but just lay out what he was being charged with, which you found to be--or you always believe was untrue.

CM: Basically, there were accusations from nine women of sexual assaults, which went at one end of the spectrum from the actual attempted rape, possible attempted rape, to the other end of the spectrum, putting a knee on somebody--a hand on somebody’s knee in a--in a car. But the circumstances of each of the accusations was staged in ways I can’t really detail here. And the--and the women all knew each other, and were all very closely connected to each other, and were--and the majority of them were extremely close allies of the current First Minister of Scotland. And they’re stories were--just didn’t work, they just didn’t match, and ultimately, he was acquitted by the jury. So that’s what made me suspicious of the entire thing when I first heard of it. There were aspects to their stories which just didn’t square with known facts, and that led me to start my investigation.

CH: Great. When we come back, we’ll continue our conversation with Craig Murray. Welcome back to On Contact. We continue our conversation with Craig Murray about his trial, conviction, and appeal. So you sat in on a courtroom. It was a very brief trial, wasn’t it? And I read through twice the--what they’ve charged you with. It’s really quite obscure and not very clear. They essentially blame you for identifying those witnesses but you never named them. Just, you know, explain, you know, how they’ve essentially twisted the legal framework to go after you.

CM: Yeah. No, this is--this is quite extraordinary. I’ve been found in contempt by Jigsaw Identification. And that means not that I named anyone and not that I personally identified anyone but that I gave clues in what I vote, which put together with other information that could be found elsewhere in the public domain might enable or make it lightly in legal terms that somebody could identify someone. There was no evidence at all presented to court anybody had been identified as a result of anything I published. But the idea was that somebody could be identified. And if I can give one example, if a piece of information I’d written in reporting the defense case were added together with another piece of information which six years previously and unbeknown to me had been published on page six of the regional newspaper. And that were added together to a piece of information in a book which I had never read and heard anyone else had ever read either. If you put those three together, that would give you sufficient clues to work out who somebody was, what was--was the argument. Some of them were more direct than that, I mean, some of them saying if you put together what I said with the BBC report, then those two might give you enough clues to work out who somebody was. It’s an extraordinary thing because, of course, it makes it almost impossible for any reporter to know what somebody else knows or know what the BBC are going to report or to say anything at all about the events that happened and who was involved, without the chance that you’re giving a little bit of extra information that may enable somebody to reveal an identity. And it’s extremely--it’s called Jigsaw Identification. That’s what courts formally call it. It’s not called batting statutes. This is a construct the courts have been--have come up with in their history of finding ways to enforce contempt laws. And of course it’s not total--it’s not totally daft. The idea is is that if somebody is a protected witness, you shouldn’t be able to say that they live in such and such streets. They work in such and such profession. They drive a red car. They were born in this town. And then say, “Oh, I didn’t publish for them therefore I’m not guilty.” I mean, you can understand why there is a law that prevents you getting at an identity by publishing clues. It’s not unreasonable to have such a law. It’s just that in this case, they’ve used it at an extreme stretch to say that little bits of information I gave out and gave out solely in the context of reporting the case of the defense could, added together with other things from a wide variety of places, help be a clue that help find an identity.

CH: This sentence of, you know, this prison sentence, what’s the legal basis for it? It, you know, of course there’s no legal basis now to hold Julian in Belmarsh. One hopes this isn’t endemic throughout the UK judicial system but how do they justify the sense? And I think one of the things that struck me when I read through this is that they also said that it didn’t matter what intent was, that even if you had no intent to expose the identities of these women, you still would be found guilty.

CM: Yeah, it’s what they call in the UK and possibly they use the same terminology in the US. It’s what they call an offense of strict liability, that if you do it, even if you do it by accident, you are just as guilty. And possession of narcotics is perhaps an example of the best known offense of strict liability, saying I didn’t know I had them isn’t an excuse. You have them, you have them and you’re going to jail. That was quite extraordinary because, I mean, one thing I will say, I want to make absolutely plain, I have no intent whatsoever to reveal these identities and I do not believe I did reveal them. And I most certainly did not intend to reveal them. The judgment does says there’s no--there’s no requirement for intent in the legislation. Intent doesn’t have to be--has to be pilgrim. They did gratuitously asked--they did gratuitously add that they believed I did have intent despite there having been no evidence whatsoever given of intent. And the hearing only lasted an hour and a half. And it had no evidence for anybody had identified anybody. And no evidence of intent but then the verdict said that I had been deliberately trying to put out names or deliberately trying to identify people. And the prison sentence was because this would cause, you know, potentially serious harm to protect the witnesses or prevent other protected witnesses from coming forward based on no evidential basis whatsoever. Very, very peculiar judgment. And I should say my defense team can’t find any evidence of anyone publishing, anyone from the media, old media or new media, having been jailed for contempt for over 40 years in the UK. People just don’t get jailed for contempt of court. And there are rulings of the European Court of Human Rights to which, you know, just gotten the subject which state unequivocally that normally you shouldn’t be jailing journalists. If a journalist does do something wrong, they or their media organization should be fined. And, but it--you know, to actually jail journalists for writing things is a very serious intrusion upon freedom of speech.

CH: Okay. Let’s just from the broad picture why are they doing this and what do they hope to accomplish?

CM: I think it’s several things coming together. And, of course, there was no jury in my trial. And I sent you the note , when I became a whistleblower, they were very keen to put me in prison but that--they couldn’t find a way of doing it without the obstacle of a jury. I think they finally--the state--the establishment has finally found a way to imprison me without a jury. There’s also the fact that what this is about is that there’s a split in the independence group. And the reason, they were trying to frame Alex Salmond and I should be totally blamed. I have no doubt whatsoever that this was an attempt to fit up Alex Salmond on false charges orchestrated by those currently in charge of his--in party, particularly orchestrated by the current First Minister of Scotland. And that this attempt to frame him was foiled by the jury. The jury saw through it. And the reason for this, the split in the Scottish National Movement was behind this is that Alex Salmond and I and others believe that the movement has been hijacked by people who have no intention of actually obtaining Scottish independence. And what this is about is putting a lid on people like me who support Scottish independence actively and really want Scottish independence shortly. And I should say there are four or five other--the speech prosecutions. Prosecutions for what I would call court crime currently active in Scotland. I’m not the--I’m not the only one. And all of them against independence supporters. In fact, there are five prosecutions and four of them are of people I know, which shows you that it’s a close group being picked upon all for just saying things. So I think the motives are essentially critical.

CH: I think also--I mean, wouldn’t you agree you’ve already become a lightning rod because you are one of the most prominent and vocal defenders of Julian Assange;.

CM: Well, I think that certainly lays behind a lot of it. I mean, my relationship to Julian and my relation to WikiLeaks and my having a platform which is widely read internationally which could expose the shenanigans of the--of the court hearings against Julian. I think that certainly increased the market labor costs, willingness--the state’s willingness to try to shut me up and imprison me, yes. There’s no doubt that’s in play here.

CH: And just to close last 50 seconds, you are--you and your lawyers are appealing this decision, is that where we are?

CM: Yes, we filed our appeal to the Supreme Court today. I have a stay of imprisonment until the 6th of July in order to enable me to appeal to the Supreme Court and that’s what we’re now--we’re now doing.

CH: And if the Supreme Court decides not to hear your appeal, what happens?

CM: At that stage, I’ll go to prison. Though strongly, I will be appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.

CH: Great. Thank you very much. That was Craig Murray on his trial, conviction, and his struggle for appeal over his coverage of the trial of former Scottish Minister Alex Salmond.

Topic:

Defending Australia without defending war: Alternatives to the Australia-US Alliance

Sun, 2021-07-25 19:53 by Sheila Newman

Topic:

This Friday: Two Melbourne Protests for Julian Assange - British Consulate 7:30am and Flinders Street 6:30pm

Thu, 2021-06-17 23:59 by James Sinnamon

Tomorrow (Friday 18 June) from 7:30AM until 9:00 AM outside the Melbourne British Consulate, Supporters of Julian Assange will be protesting against his illegal continued imprisonment by the British government. Apparently, Julian Assange, who has not been found guilty of any crime after more than two years imprisonment in solitary confinement 23 hours per day in Belmarsh Prison, is being kept there awaiting the lodgement of the United States' appeal against Judge Vanessa Baraitser's ruling of 6 January 2021 to disallow the extradition of Julian Assange - an outrageous abuse of procedure. Then from 6:30pm outside Flinders Street Station, other Melbourne supporters of Julian Assange will be holding their weekly vigil.

The inordinate length of time that the US prosecution is taking to lodge its appeal seems to be an indication that they are struggling to come up with any arguments that would hold any weight in the British Appeals court. That the British Judicial system has apparently not set a deadline for the US prosecutors can only be wilful negligence on its part. It is long past time that the Australian Government should have acted to bring this outrage to an end.

Please find the time to come to one or both protests which are being held in Melbourne tomorrow.

First event: Protest outdside the British Consulate - 90 Collins Street, 7:30AM-9:00AM

The details, from Facebook, for the first protest are:

Event by Melbourne 4 WikiLeaks

British Consulate Melbourne

Price: Free · Duration: 1 hr 30 min

Public · Anyone on or off Facebook

Father and half brother of Julian Assange, John and Gabriel Shipton, are currently touring the USA fighting to save Julian's life on the #HomeRun4Julian tour.

Right now, Chicago is feeling privileged to be hosting John and Gabriel as part of the national tour. Pressure is on the Biden administration to drop its drive to extradite and persecute Assange (www.AssangeDefense.org/tour).

Please join us in solidarity early Friday morning outside the British Consulate at 90 Collins St Melbourne.

John and Gabriel will be at the British Consulate in Chicago at the exact same time. For them it will be Thursday afternoon, for us, Friday morning.

If there is a live stream we will somehow screen it outside the British Consulate.

The movement to free Julian is growing. Freedom fighters of the world unite!

Love Is Our Resistance!

+++++++++++++++++

Second event: Weekly Friday evening Vigil for Julian Assange at Flinders Street Station

Melbourne supporters of Julian Assange will again be holding our weekly Friday evening vigil for Julian Assange in front of Flinders Street Station as we have been each Friday for well over a year.

Please come along, help us hold up our banners, hand out leaflets, listen to speeches and say a few words yourself, for Julian Assange, through the megaphone.

Topic:

Julian Hill MP to put crucial Motion for Julian Assange to the Australian Parliament this coming Monday 21 June - how you can help

Wed, 2021-06-16 03:40 by admin

Update, 16 June: (see comment) The House of Representatives Selection Committee has ruled that Julian Hill's motion cannot be put this coming Monday 21 June. That motion will now have to wait almost 7 weeks, until 9 August, in the next (joint - both Senate and House of Representatives) sitting of Parliament, before it can be put and debated!

New important initiative. Labor MP Julian Hill's private motion may finally force Australian parliamentarians to take sides for or against Julian Assange and lead to his being freed. Whether this motion is heard and debated depends on whether the House of Representatives Selection Committee allows it. We urge Australians to contact their local members and each other to get behind Mr Hill's motion, which calls for Assange to be set free from his illegal imprisonment, noting that he is the recipient of many awards for journalism, detained for political reasons through an abuse of power. If the motion is allowed through, then both sides of the house will be obliged to vote or abstain, and the Australian public will finally see what they are made of.

Earlier this afternoon at 2:03pm, I received, from Labor Member of Parliament, Julian Hill, a response to an e-mail I had sent him and a number of other MPs at around 1:00am earlier today. That email included a PDF file which is attached below. That PDF contains a motion that Julian Hill hopes to put to the House of Representatives, this coming Monday 21 June, in support of Julian Assange. The text of the proposed motion is also included within this article as an Appendix. Mr Hill has given that Notice of Motion to the House of Representatives Selection Committee. That motion, if allowed by the Selection Committee, will be put to the House this coming Monday 21 June. Essentially the motion calls upon the Australian Government to act to end the illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange, to get the United States' government to cease its attempts to extradite Julian Assange and for Julian Assange to be allowed to return to Australia.

Topic:

Australia's Parliament must act to end the illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange

Wed, 2021-06-09 02:01 by James Sinnamon

On 3 June, Peter Khalil, Labor member for the Melbourne metropoliton seat of Wills, presented to Federal Parliament a petition from one of his constituents on behalf of Australian journalist Julian Assange. The video of Peter Khalil's speech is embedded below.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate will be sitting this coming fortnight, firstly, on Tuesday 15 June and then the following two days and, secondly, on Monday 21 June and the following three days. Members of the "Bring Julian Assange Home" Parliamentary Group could use these sittings to properly hold to account the Government of Scott Morrison over Julian Assange through a proper debate. They could consider putting to both houses a motion which calls on the Government to act to end the illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange. A motion I have already suggested to members of the group is included below.

Once such a motion is put, then each and every member of the both houses will face the choice: Vote to instruct Scott Morrison to use his authority as Prime Minister of Australia to act to free Julian Assange from Belmarsh Prison or be shown up before the voting public as being in support of the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange.

Whilst this and previous instances in which Julian Assange's plight has been raised on the floors of Australia's Parliament are to be welcomed, they have not, as far as I can tell, significantly improved the prospect of ending the illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange. From my own perusal of Hansard, neither Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Foreign Minister Marise Payne, nor any of the other responsible government ministers have ever taken the trouble to respond to such speeches.

Where, instead, questions are put to the relevant ministers, government ministers are at least forced to attempt to explain away their unconscionable conduct, but given that only about 2 minutes seems to be allowed for the whole exchange, what can be achieved in Question Time usually falls far short of what is needed. An example is Greens Senator Janet Rice questioning Foreign Minister Senator Marise Payne on 25 March, about her government's failure to support Julian Assange.

Experience so far has shown that the presentation of petitions to parliament, short speeches are not sufficient to hold all members of the government to account.

However, if, instead, members of the "Bring Julian Assange Home" Parliamentary Group were to put to Parliament a motion which calls upon the government to act, such as one which I suggested to them on 25 May:

This Parliament finds it unacceptable that Australian journalist Julian Assange, who is not guilty of any crime, continues to be held in London's Belmarsh prison in solitary confinement for 23 hours every day, whilst those who started the 2003 Iraq war have yet to be held to account for this crime against humanity.

Accordingly this Parliament calls upon the British government to immediately expedite, and in a more transparent fashion than previously, all outstanding legal matters concerning Julian Assange including his own appeal against his continued imprisonment.

Should the British government fail to do so, this Parliament instructs Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Foreign Minister Marise Payne, as a matter of urgency, to raise this at the United Nations and at the International Criminal Court.

… then they would have sufficient time show to the House and the broader publice how the treatment of Julian Assange by Britain violates International law, British law, and all human decency.

Whilst the Government may still have the numbers to defeat such a motion, they are unlikely to have been seen to have won such an argument. The names of those who were to vote against such a motion or abstain would be on the public record and they would most likely suffer electorally for having done so.

An earlier suggested motion is included below as Appendix 2.

Appendix 1: Speech by Nils Melzer in support of Julian Assange

The #Assange case may be the biggest judicial scandal in history.
It is the story of a man being persecuted for telling the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.
I cannot leave to my children a world where telling the truth has become a crime, for it will be a tyranny. https://t.co/5DUyqcP9t1 pic.twitter.com/lotJ5dBRUT

— Nils Melzer (@NilsMelzer) June 4, 2021

Appendix 2: My earlier suggested Parliamentary motion of 29 March

Noting that multiple award-winning Australian journalist, Julian Assange, who has committed no crime against British or Australian law, has been illegally detained and psychologically and physically tortured by the British government since 19 June 2012, firstly until 11 April 2019 inside the London Ecuadorian Embassy, and, after that, in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day in Belmarsh Prison, this House/Senate requires Scott Morrison to use all his authority as Prime Minister to demand of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson that he immediately release Julian Assange and facilitate his return to Australia or to any other country of his choosing with his wife Stella Moris and his two children.

Should the British Government refuse to release Julian Assange, this Parliament instructs the Prime Minister to ask the United Nations to act for Julian Assange's release and, should it be necessary, to put the case to the International Criminal Court.

Topic:

How the "Bring Julian Assange Home" group can make the Morrison government act to free Julian or hold it to account for failure to do so

Thu, 2021-06-03 04:22 by James Sinnamon

Update: 2:10pm, Tue 15 June 2021:I have been contacted by Millie from Andrew Wilkie's Hobart Office. Millie advised me that last year, Andrew Wilkie put on notice a motion a Private Members' Motion in support of Julian Assange.This motion was still not been put. The attached PDF of the motion, and the text of the e-mail from Millie, are included below. -JS

Further Update:2:30pm, Tue 15 June 2021: As I was updating this article, I received an email from Julian Hill, another member of the Support Group. He told me that he has put on notice another motion in support of Julian Assange, and has asked for debate time. I will post the full email shortly.

Update 12:40pm, Thu 3 June 2021: After I had posted this finished article at 4:50AM this morning, I realised that the most recent example I had cited in the Appendix below was dated 26 February 2020 - more than 12 months old! However, my perusal, just now, of more recent documents confirm to me my belief which I stated in the article, that is that the failure by any of the "Bring Home Julian Assange" parliamentary support to formally move a motion in support of Julian Assange, either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, has allowed both Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Foreign Minister Marise Payne to avoid effective scrutiny of their failure to support Julian Assange. Those Hansard pages are Assange, Mr Julian Paul (25/2/2021) by Tony Zappia MP, Committee on 25/03/2021 by Senator Rex Patrick, Mr Julian Assange (25/2/2021) by Senator Whish-Wilson, Assange, Mr Julian Paul (2/2/2021) by Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, Iraq War, Mr Julian Assange (16/2/2021) by Senator Peter Whish-Wilson. I will append copies of the above pages below in another Appendix shortly.

15 June: Parliamentary discussion limited by collusion between Liberal/National Government & Labor Opposition?

For the past 12 months at least, there has been little effective scrutiny of the abandonment of Julian Assange, and worse, by the Australian government in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. This is because, by the seeming choice of both the Government and the Labor Opposition, those who want to raise the issue of Julian Assange, who are members of the Cross-bench and even those who are members of the governing Liberal and National Parties or the Opposition Labor Party, have only been able to raise this issue through a Private Members Motion (PMM - see below for explanation) which requires a lot of effort on the part of that member and which can still be refused by the Selection Committee. Consequently those who want to speak for Julian Assange on the floor of Parliament can do it in two other ways:

Putting a question to a government minister. As is shown in Greens' Senator Janet Rice's questioning of Foreign Minister Marise Payne on 25 March, the amount of time allowed for the question, the Minister's ~~obfuscation~~ response and discussion about that response, seems to be only two minutes - usually only a fraction of the time necessary to properly discuss most aspects of this issue.
Tabling a petition as shown in Australia's Parliament must act to end the illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange (8/6/21). On this occasion, after Labor member Peter Khalil presented a petition for Julian Assange and spoke for 1 minute and 19 seconds, no member of the Government took the trouble to respond.

Clearly, discussion of such a crucial issue as Julian Assange warrants much more time than the Australian parliamentary duopoly has , so far allowed to occur.

Not realising these complexities, I previously sent to members of the Group two proposals for motions to be put to Parliament. They can be found in my article Australia's "Bring Julian Assange Home" group must act now on the floor of our national Parliament (31/5/2021). Had either of those motions ever been put, that would have, firstly, given any of the members of the "Bring Julian Assange Home" support group much more time to put his/her case than he/she has been able to so far. Secondly, those hostile to Julian Assange would have been left with no choice but to put to Parliament whatever 'case' they had against Julian Assange. Simply ignoring the issue, as they usually had previously, would have only made them look worse. However, whatever case they would have put would have been quickly torn to shreds in the course the debate. Whilst it is unlikely that this motion would have been carried, every member of whatever House in which that motion was put would be left with no choice but to take a stand one way or the other or to abstain. In these circumstances abstention would not have reflected much more favourably on that Parliamentarian than voting against Julian Assange.

Such a comprehensive debate on the floor of the Australian Parliament would be a massive addition to the arsenal of those fighting for Julian Assange's freedom across the globe.

A search (with the search terms "Julian Assange" - quote marks omitted) through the Hansard of Australia's 46th Parliament, elected on 18 May 2019, reveals a number of powerful speeches in support of Julian Assange by members and supporters of the "Bring Julian Assange Home" group from the floors of both the the House of Representatives and the Senate. Some of these are included below in the Appendix. However, that search also showed that there was surprising little response from members of the Government of Scott Morrison of whom these speeches are so critical. Most of the speeches were not responded to at all whilst, on the few occasions that they did respond, such as in Question Time, neither Prime Minister Scott Morrison nor Foreign Minister Marise Payne bothered to make more than a token pretence at rebutting the substance of these speeches.

15 June: How parliamentary rules allow the major parties to suppress discussion they don't want

The reason is that the rules of Parliament only allow members, acting for either the governing Coalition or the Opposition Labor Party, to easily put motions to be properly debated in either of the two houses. Cross-benchers, of which Andrew Wilkie and most other members of the Group are, are required to go through a complicated process to have a Private Members' Motion (PMM) approved by the Selection Committee before that PMM can even be put to either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Then a PMM can only be put on Mondays, so presumably, in the current sitting week consisting of only Tuesday 15 June, Wednesday and Wednesday a PMM cannot be put. Once a PMM is put, only three speakers are allowed to speak for the motion and three are allowed to speak against speakers and each is only allowed to speak for 5 minutes. The total time allowed for discussion is 30 minutes. As I have written in one of the above update above, Labor MP Julian Hill has submitted a motion to be put this coming Monday 21 June. It still remains to be seen if this motion is put.

Why have so few in Parliament had anything to say about Julian Assange, so far?

So why why have they shown so so little concern for "Bring Julian Assange Home" Parliamentary group? The fact that that group has not yet even put one motion to Parliament in support of Julian Assange seems, to me, to be a likely reason. (Update, 15 June 2021: The reason why there has been so little discussion is because, as shown above, the rules make it very hard for those, mostly Cross-bench members, who are not acting on behalf of either the Government or the Opposition to put any motion not approved of by the major parties to the floor of Parliament. The reason is not, as I had previously wrongly assumed and implied, that members of that members of the "Bring Julian Assange Home" Parliamentary Support Group were willfully failing to put any motion in support of Julian Assange to Parliament.)

The overwhelming majority of Parliamentarians, so far, have said nothing one way or the other on Julian Assange. (Update, 15 June 2021: See previous update.They have clearly avoided coming out openly supportive of the government's abandonment of Julian Assange, knowing that such a stand would most likely cost them support from their electors.

Putting to Parliament a motion requiring the government to act to end the British government's illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange would require this silent majority to make a choice: Either pay the cost of being seen to support the abandonment of Julian Assange by both the Morrison government and the Labor Opposition, or come out openly in opposition to that crooked political consensus.

A motion in support of Julian Assange would massively invigorate debate in Parliament

Whichever choice each member of this currently silent majority chooses to take - support Julian Assange, support the Australian government's collusion with the U.S. against Julian Assange, or abstention - political survival will necessitate that he/she will have see that his/her decision is argued for very forcefully on the floors of Parliament.

The indifference, so far, shown to arguments put by the "Bring Julian Assange Home" group, as shown in the Hansard excerpts included below, will quickly change into a vigorous attempt by the current Government and Opposition leaders to defend their failure to support Julian Assange on the floors of Parliament - an argument they stand no hope of winning in the eyes of most Australian voters, in my opinion.

Below, #foreshadowedMotion">within the Appendix, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson stated on 13 February 2020 that he intended to put the next day a motion in support of Julian Assange. Unfortunately he never put this motion. (Update, 15 June 2021: See above section, "How parliamentary rules allow the major parties to suppress discussion they don't want".) Had he done so, it would now be much easier now to hold to account all those who have betrayed Julian Assange, and remove them from office, at the next Federal election.

However, it is still not too late. The Lower House is meeting later today (Thursday) and there is still time to contact the different members of the "Bring Julian Assange Home" group who are listed in my previous article, Australia's "Bring Julian Assange Home" Group must act now on the floor of our national Parliament (Update, 15 June 2021: I have got supportive feedback from both Andrew Wilkie's office and from Julian Hill. I am now much more aware of the difficulties they face. See above section "How parliamentary rules allow the major parties to suppress discussion they don't want".) and tell each one of them that you would like him/her to put to Parliament today the following proposed motion from that article :

This Parliament finds it unacceptable that Australian journalist Julian Assange, who is not guilty of any crime, continues to be held in London's Belmarsh prison in solitary confinement for 23 hours every day, whilst those who started the 2003 Iraq war have yet to be held to account for this crime against humanity.

Accordingly this Parliament calls upon the British government to immediately expedite, and in a more transparent fashion than previously, all outstanding legal matters concerning Julian Assange including his own appeal against his continued imprisonment.

Should the British government fail to do so, this Parliament instructs Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Foreign Minister Marise Payne, as a matter of urgency, to raise this at the United Nations and at the International Criminal Court.

(Update, 15 June 2021: Last year, Andrew Wilkie submitted a motion to the Selection Committee, which was never put. Right now a Private Member's Motion (PMM) has been submitted to the Select Committee by Julian Hill MP (Labor). Hopefully that PMM will be debated this coming Monday.)

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix: Australian Federal Parliamentarians speak up for Julian Assange

Petition: Mr Julian Assange - Andrew Wilkie, 10 Feb 2020

Mr WILKIE (Clark) (16:35): On Saturday, I'll fly out for London, at my own expense, to visit Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison. My aim is to check on his welfare and to assure him that a great many people, especially here in Australia, are rightly concerned he is being treated unjustly.

A lot has been said and written about Julian Assange, and there's a broad range of views about the man. But the substantive matter here is quite simply that he's being persecuted for publishing information that was in the public interest, including hard evidence of US war crimes. That the perpetrator of those crimes, America, is now seeking to extradite Mr Assange to face 17 counts of espionage and one of hacking is unjust in the extreme and, arguably, illegal under British law. If the extradition goes ahead, not only would Mr Assange face life in a US prison but the precedent would be set for all Australians—and particularly for journalists—that they are at risk of extradition to any country they offend.

Last week, the member for Dawson and I were presented with the Free Julian Assange petition. It contains nearly 300,000 names and is a powerful document, one that mustn't be ignored by the Australian government. I now seek leave to table this document for consideration by the Petitions Committee.

Leave granted.

I table the petition.

Assange, Mr Julian Paul - Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, 11 Feb 2020

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (19:59): I rise to make some remarks about Julian Assange. This Australian journalist faces 175 years—that is, death—in a US jail. And for what? For publishing truthful information in 2010 that embarrassed the US government about their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what they thought they could get away with in Guantanamo Bay. Over a thousand journalists from 97 countries have signed a very substantive and detailed statement as to why they support this fellow journalist. Their statement ends:

Dangerous times call for fearless journalism.

I quite agree, and I seek to table this statement.

I'm a proud member of the Bring Assange Home parliamentary group that is working in this building, in Australia's federal parliament, across party lines. It is part of a rising tide of public opinion across the world calling for Assange to walk from Belmarsh prison a free man and to return home. I'm also proud that the Greens have been consistently arguing in this place for over 10 years now for high-level political intervention by our government. I would especially like to acknowledge our former senator Scott Ludlam, and also Felicity Ruby, who have both worked in this building for many years.

In the cases of David Hicks and James Ricketson, the Australian government intervened to bring these Australians home. The same is now needed for Julian Assange. Last week, the parliamentary group was presented with a growing petition, now 270,000 signatures strong and which I understand was tabled in the House today, calling for Assange's freedom. Doctors from around the world have appealed for his release, aghast at the state of his health. Several weeks ago, our foreign minister received a letter from a hundred doctors, stating that if Assange dies then they will want to know what she did to prevent his death. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture has warned that Assange is being denied legal rights and is being subjected to psychological torture that could cost him his life.

There is some good news for Julian Assange, if we can call it that. Thanks to Belmarsh prisoners organising inside the prison, and also pressure from the outside, he is now allowed to mix with other prisoners. That means that corridors will no longer be cleared when he walks through and he will no longer be confined to a cell for 22 hours a day alone in the hospital wing but will be able to speak with other human beings.

At a court hearing on 23 January, Assange's lawyers complained of inadequate access to their client in Belmarsh maximum-security prison to properly prepare his case. Edward Fitzgerald QC said:

We've had great difficulties in getting into Belmarsh to take instructions from Mr Assange and to discuss the evidence with him. We simply cannot get in as we require to see Mr Assange and to take his instruction.

Given the complexity of the case and the life sentence it may impose, it is utterly absurd that his lawyers' visits are so difficult and that he doesn't have access to materials to prepare his defence properly. Surely our government could and should intervene on these matters. I call on them to do so as a matter of urgency.

The judge has now allowed for an extension of the trial, with the case starting for one week on 24 February 2020 and resuming again on 18 May for three weeks. One of the co-chairs of the Bring Assange Home parliamentary group will visit Assange in Belmarsh prison next week, and I look forward to Mr Andrew Wilkie, a fellow Tasmanian, taking the solidarity and support of parliamentarians and Australians directly to this Australian citizen.

The UK extradition treaty does not allow for extradition on political grounds, and of course this case is political. Julian Assange is a political prisoner, and he is potentially about to be extradited to our so-called close friend and ally the United States. Australia is abrogating its responsibility to an Australian citizen and its own sovereignty by allowing Assange's human and legal rights to be violated in accepting the application of domestic US law to an Australian citizen. Journalism is not espionage; bring Assange home. (Time expired)

#10;">Senate Notices - Presentation, #foreshadowedMotion" id="foreshadowedMotion">13 Feb 2020

Senator Whish-Wilson to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a) notes with deep concern that:

(i) Mr Julian Assange, Australian citizen, and founder and publisher of Wikileaks, is currently detained in Belmarsh high security prison in the United Kingdom (UK),

(ii) Mr Assange faces extradition to the United States (US) under the Espionage Act and 175 years in prison for his part in the publication of evidence of war crimes, and

(iii) Mr Assange's physical and mental health in prison is significantly deteriorating;

(b) calls on the Australian Government to publicly make it clear to the US and UK Governments that it opposes Mr Assange's extradition; and

Assange, Mr Julian - Mr George Christensen, 24 Feb 2020

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:47): As you know, I'm a conservative, and as a conservative I support free speech and press freedom. That's why I went with the member for Clark over to the UK last week to visit Australian journalist and publisher Julian Assange, who's detained in HM Prison Belmarsh in England. He's self-described his state of health as 'not good'. It was clear that he was disoriented, which was obviously the result of prolonged isolation, because he has been in jail and, before that, in an Ecuadorian embassy. Why? Because the US is seeking to extradite him on apparent allegations that he was involved in espionage and conspiracy to hack.

These allegations amount to WikiLeaks calling for information from whistleblowers and then receiving and publishing such information. Well, that's not espionage and that's not conspiracy to hack; that's journalism. Is he a journalist? I'd say yes, and probably more pure than most, but does it matter? Of course not. He's a publisher at the very least, and it shouldn't be a crime to publish material that's in the public interest. In my books, he's actually a hero for exposing war crimes. Whether you think he's a hero or whether you think he's a ratbag, again, it doesn't matter. If he's a ratbag, he's our ratbag, and he should be brought home. No Australian should be facing a situation where a foreign court is deciding whether they should be sent to another foreign country to face trial for simply publishing the truth. My message to both the US and the UK is: bring Julian Assange home now.

Assange, Mr Julian - Senator Peter Whish-Wilson and Senator Katy Gallagher, 24 Feb 2020

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:57): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 464, standing in my name for today, relating to Mr Julian Assange, be taken as a formal motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to that motion being taken as formal? There's an objection.

In lieu of suspending standing orders, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Photo of MP Senator WHISH-WILSON: This is not the time for this parliament and for politicians to be silent—silent on the extradition of an Australian citizen and journalist to the United States, whose war crimes were exposed. This is not the time to be silent on the criminalising of journalistic activity. This is not the time to be silent on such a dangerous precedent being set—where our friend and ally the United States say about a political prisoner, Mr Julian Assange: 'We want this guy. We want to throw him in the dock'—and give him a virtual life sentence, 175 years—'for exposing our war crimes.' This is the time to be speaking out on an egregious and abusive use of power by one of the most important countries on this planet. (Time expired)

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:58): I also seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Photo of MP Senator GALLAGHER: Like any Australian citizen facing legal difficulties overseas, Mr Assange is entitled to consular assistance. The opposition understands this assistance has been offered by the Australian High Commission in London. The opposition calls on the UK government to ensure that all proper legal process and procedural fairness is afforded to Mr Assange in proceedings now before the UK courts. Given Mr Assange is an Australian citizen, in advance of any extradition request being granted we expect that the Australian government work with the UK government to seek a guarantee from the United States that the death penalty would not be imposed.

The opposition is concerned about reports that Mr Assange's health has been deteriorating. The shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for foreign affairs have written to the Australian government to raise this concern and to request that Australia press the UK government to ensure that Mr Assange receives appropriate medical care while in detention pending the outcome of the US extradition request.

Assange, Mr Julian - Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, 25 Feb 2020

Senator WHISH-WILSON(Tasmania) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Marise Payne. Minister, last year youflew to Thailand to lobby the Thai government against extraditingHakeem al-Araibi, an Australian soccer player, to Bahrain. At the time you said publicly your intervention was because you were very concerned about Hakeem's detention and very concerned about his potential extradition to Bahrain. This was the right thing to do. Minister, given that you and your government were so vocal about Hakeem's detention and the risks of his potential extradition, why have you not shown the same zeal and commitment tosecure the release of Australian citizen and Walkley-Award-winning journalist Julian Assange? Why have you not flown to the UK to lobby the UK government or to the US to lobby the US government against extraditing Julian Assange?

Senator PAYNE(New SouthWales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:49): I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his question. On any examination of the facts of the two matters which Senator Whish-Wilson has put to the chamber, that of Hakeem al-Araibi and thatof Julian Assange, they are qualitatively different circumstances. As the government have previously indicated, we are in regular contact with authorities in the United Kingdom, in line with our consular mandate, and have been assured by those authoritiesthat Mr Assange is being held in appropriate and humane conditions. I can also inform the chamber that I specifically raised the issue of Mr Assange, and his conditions, in my discussions with the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs, MrRaab, when he visited Australia just a matter of weeks ago. I want to also note for the chamber—and this may go to a further question from Senator Whish-Wilson, at which point of course I would repeat this statement—it is important to note that the Australian government has no standing in any of Mr Assange's legal proceedings and is unable to intervene in them.

The PRESIDENT:Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question?

Senator WHISH-WILSON(Tasmania) (14:50):They certainly are different, Minister. Let me tell you why. Overnight, the UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer,said that Julian Assange's case is about more than one individual. He said, 'This is a battle over press freedom, the rule of law andthe future even of democracy.' Those are strong words coming from the United Nations. Minister, if you agree with the United Nations about what is at stake here, why isn't your government doing more to intervene in this case and bring Julian Assange home—more than the usual consular assistance?

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:50):My personal opinion on what the special rapporteur may or may not have said is not relevant in this matter. What is relevant is the undertakings the Australian government has sought from British authorities in relation to the position on the detention of Mr Assange as the proceedings are awaited. We continue to closely monitor Mr Assange's case, as we would for other Australians in detention overseas in other contexts, and we in fact do. I note that Mr Assange has a very high public profile. For the Australian government, he is a consular client, and one for whom we provide appropriate support, according to our consular mandate, as I said. I appreciate that members of the public, including people in this chamber—self-evidently from Senator Whish-Wilson's questions—do feel strongly about Mr Assange's situation. But it is important to remember that Australia cannot intervenein the legal processes of another country.The PRESIDENT:Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question?

Senator WHISH-WILSON(Tasmania) (14:51):A few days ago, it was revealed that meetings between Julian Assange and his lawyers had been secretly taped and filmed. This is a clear and egregious breach of legal professional privilege. Minister, do you believe that Julian Assange will get a fair trial in the US, or do you agree with Nils Melzer that, for all intents and purposes, Julian Assange is a political prisoner and he should not be extradited to the US, where he would face nothing but a politically motivated show trial?

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:52):Senator Whish-Wilsoncontinues to quote the views of an individual rapporteur—

Senator Whish-Wilson: You've done it on several occasions—

Senator PAYNE: who has made a range of observations, not all of which we agree with. As I have indicated, and I am aware of the media reporting in relation to alleged surveillance of Mr Assange while in the Ecuadorian embassy, I don't intend to provide a running commentary on this case. I don't provide running commentaries on cases before courts in other parts of the world, or in Australia, frankly. We have no standing in the legal matter that is currently before the courts. As is the case for any individual, Mr Assange is entitled to due legal process, which we expect the legal systems of both the US and the UK to deliver. (Time expired)

Assange, Mr Julian - Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, 25 Feb 2020

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:39): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to questions without notice asked today.

The standard response this government has had to any question asked about Australian citizen Julian Assange—award-winning journalist who's being extradited to the US for uncovering their war crimes—has been that, 'This government doesn't intervene in any foreign legal process involving other countries.' I asked the question of Senator Payne today that clearly shows that is not the case. Last year Senator Payne flew to Thailand to lobby the Thai government against the extradition of Hakeem al-Araibi, an Australian soccer player who was being extradited to Bahrain. The minister claimed today—I will go back and have a look at the Hansard—that the cases are very different. Once again I beg to differ.

It was very clear, when I saw the Australian Story that featured the work around a number of high-profile Australians to help secure the release of Hakeem, that he was a political prisoner in Thailand. He was going to be sent back to Bahrain to face potential torture, harm or even a death sentence. Let me tell you what the UN rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, said last night and you can tell me that there are no similarities between these two cases. He said, 'The extradition of Julian Assange is a modern show trial.' He said:

The case of Julian Assange is nothing else than a modern show trial featuring politically motivated prosecutors, denial of justice, manipulated evidence, biased judges, unlawful surveillance, denial of defence rights, and abusive prison conditions. What sounds like a textbook example of dictatorial arbitrariness is in fact an actual precedent happening in the middle of Europe, the birthplace of human rights.

It is our ally and friend, the United States, who he is talking about here. It's not Bahrain. It's not a country in the Middle East with a record of human rights abuses. This is the United States of America that the UN is talking about. I recommend senators read this report that was out last night. The language is extraordinary. It is extraordinary that this has come from the UN about the case of Julian Assange.

The minister said, as I just mentioned, that the two cases are quite different. I would agree that in a sense, yes, they are quite different because the UN is clearly saying, as, by the way, is just about every journalist and major outlet around the world—that is, the ones who are speaking out in defence of journalistic freedom and trying to oppose the criminalisation of journalism—that this case is unique because it is not about an individual anymore. This case is about freedom of speech. It is about journalistic integrity. It is about the rights of an Australian citizen. That's what's at stake here. In fact, the UN rapporteur said last night, 'This is ultimately about democracy and whether we want a totalitarian regime that we all sit under.' And I would ask the minister to reflect on her answers and to explain to this chamber and to Australians who care deeply about the torture and the extradition of Julian Assange why these cases are different. I know why they're different. It's because the US is a close ally and a friend of ours. We have an ANZUS Treaty with this country. I understand there's a lot at stake with our close friend and ally, but, because they're a close friend and ally, that's exactly why we have a relationship where we should be adults with our ally and where we should say: 'This is simply unacceptable. You cannot extradite an Australian citizen who has rights on the basis of a breach of a US law.' If this precedent occurs, it is extremely dangerous. Today it's Julian Assange. Tomorrow, it could be your son or your daughter or your brother. This is an egregious abuse of power. It is an appalling abuse of power by our friend and ally the US. This parliament has been silent for too long. I ask senators to speak out on this case and bring Julian Assange home. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Julian Hill MP - 26 Feb 2020

…

I also want to remark that the persecution and treatment of Julian Assange are unconscionable. He's an Australian citizen who has the same rights as you or me, and the Australian government's ongoing failure to speak out against his extradition to the United States and demand his return is shameful. It's wrong. It's immoral. And it's offensive for the Prime Minister to say that he should 'face the music'—as if this is any ordinary case! It is not. It is entirely political. It corrupts our alliance with the United States when our government is too scared and too cowardly to defend our own. It corrupts our democracy when our government refuses to fight to defend Australian citizens just because they don't agree with their political philosophy. The precedent that extradition would set would dangerously undermine our sovereignty and have a chilling effect on journalism and the media's ability to hold power to account in this country and across the world.

We need to be very clear-eyed in this House as to what extradition would mean. One of our citizens, an Australian, would face what is effectively a death sentence. The current charges would see him confined in extreme isolation for 175 years. Indeed, it's possible in the state of Virginia, which has the death penalty, that more charges will be laid once he's extradited that would see him killed. Australia has a long history of opposing extradition—a proud history—wherever there is the risk of a death penalty.

If that's not enough, there's the torture which has been inflicted on him. It's an astounding phrase—'the torture that's been inflicted upon an Australian in the United Kingdom'. It should not be said lightly and must never become acceptable. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, investigated Julian's case. He said he shows 'all the symptoms for prolonged exposure to psychological torture' and his health conditions are so dire that his life is now at risk. When the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture reports on one of our citizens, surely the Australian government should speak up and demand his return. There's nothing but silence from the government. It doesn't matter whether you agree with him, it doesn't matter whether you disagree with him, it doesn't matter whether you like him, it doesn't matter whether you dislike him; he's an Australian and he's entitled to the protection of the government.

Of course, if the death penalty or torture are not enough to spur this government to action, there are broader important principles at stake; there is a lot more to this inherently political case. Let's be clear. He's been persecuted to punish him for exposing war crimes and the misuse of state power. Those who committed the war crimes have never been prosecuted. He's been persecuted to silence him forever in his WikiLeaks project and to scare others into silence. I note that we've had a power failure.

Ms Flint: They're silencing you!

Mr HILL: They're silencing me! They've hacked the parliament! Are we on?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou):The mics are on. You can continue.

Mr HILL: I don't personally agree with all that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks has done, but, if we're to protect our democratic values, that must never be the point. This case goes to the importance of journalism and journalists in a democracy holding power to account. Publishing embarrassing, classified footage of war crimes in Iraq is journalistic behaviour supposedly protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I will quote Kevin Rudd. He said:

If their case is essentially that Mr Assange broke the law by obtaining and disclosing secret information, then I struggle to see what separates him from any journalist who solicits, obtains and publishes such information.

The claim we often hear in response is that 'he's not a journalist'. That is irrelevant. The protection exists in the law for journalistic activity, not some special class of persons. It should extend to all of us, to any Australian engaging in journalistic activity.

What Julian Assange has published is in principle no different than the Pentagon Papers, in 1971, which exposed the truth about the Vietnam War and the actions of two United States presidents. The chilling effect that this US case would have on the media globally is profound. The pursuit of Julian Assange is very deliberate; it's calculated to mute whistleblowing and investigative journalism. If Julian Assange is guilty of a serious crime for publishing classified material revealing war crimes, then democracies are weakened. Media across the world will be too scared to publish in the future if that's what they want. Then there's the dangerous principle of extraterritoriality, which is nerdy and boring and is getting lost in the propaganda. But let's be clear. If this American bid succeeds, the precedent is terrifying for our democracy.

What Julian Assange did in 2011 is not espionage. There's no evidence he attempted to hack into US government IT. There is no evidence he encouraged others to do so. There is no evidence that any lives were lost or serious harm done.Importantly, he's not a US citizen. His actions took place outside the USA. Let's be clear. Under the precedent of extradition that the United States is seeking in this case, anyone who publishes anything that the United States government brands as secretcould be prosecuted under the US Espionage Act—anyone who publishes anything, anywhere in the world, could be extradited to the United States.

Now, unbelievably, the Trump administration has stated that Julian Assange has no First Amendment rights to free speech and free press because he's a foreigner. So,under this precedent, US criminal laws apply everywhere—even when people have never been to the United States, including journalists or any Australian wherever they are—but US constitutional protections don't apply to them. Our government should take this seriously and defend our sovereignty and freedom. I'll just make some brief remarks on the sexual assault allegations. There has been conflicting and sensational reporting for years. Allegations of sexual assault and rape are incredibly serious matters that should not be weaponised for political purposes. The media confusion regarding this is deliberate. Julian Assange shone light and exposed corruption. Suddenly the bright lights turned back on him, and he's a hacker, a narcissist, a spy. He doesn't shower, you know; he's not clean.Then there's the story h e doesn't even feed his cat properly. Then he's a creepy predator. Citizens mustn't suspend critical thinking or their analytical capabilities when such allegations are made.

I'd encourage people to read the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture case review. These are his conclusions, not mine. He concluded that he's been subjected to a preliminary investigation for nine years with no charges;that the police tampered and rewrote evidence to manufacture these charges;that he didn't run away from interview—he actually went to the police and authorities several times while in Sweden and was given their permission to leave the country. It was only when he was in London that he heard of the secret extradition proceedings in the United States to extradite him that he said he couldn't go back unless Sweden provided assurances that he wouldn't be extradited to the US. They refused to give those assurances. He offered repeatedly to give evidence from asylum, but the objective was to keep the investigation alive, to keep him in suspended animation for nine years with no charges.

Then, magically, of course, the case was dropped, wasn't it, when he suddenly got into British custody and was allowed to face extradition to the United States. Despite all of this—an effective death sentence, torture and manifest injustice—our government refuses to speak up and defend this Australian. Ministers hide behind their weasel word talking points about legal processes and having his day in court. I say again:it doesn't matter if you agree with him, it doesn't matter if you like him, it doesn't matter if you dislike him;he's an Australian with the same rights as you or me and he's entitled to the protection of his government. As Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen—and I never thought I'd be in a club with them in this parliament (… - the remainder of this speech is missing, how much, I don't know, but I will fix this shortly. - JS, 15/6/2021.

#foreshadowedMotionOf2020" id="foreshadowedMotion2020">Correspondence received from Andrew Wilkie's office, Tuesday 15 June

Dear James

Thanks for speaking with me on the phone just now. As discussed, attached is the motion Andrew submitted for consideration by the Selection Committee last year.

The crossbench have a roster for motions to be selected for private members business each sitting week. Andrew’s motion is not scheduled for selection for some months. But rest assured he takes the opportunity to raise this issue every chance he gets – both in Parliament and in the media. He also visited Mr Assange in Belmarsh Prison at the beginning of last year.

As I mentioned to you on the phone, I’d recommend getting in contact with your local MP, and also the Victorian Senators, to urge them to support the Parliamentary Group to Bring Julian Assange Home, of which Andrew is a co-chair.

Regards

Millie von Stieglitz
Office of Andrew Wilkie MP
Independent Member for Clark

Topic:

Australia's "Bring Julian Assange Home" group should act now on the floor of our national Parliament

Tue, 2021-06-01 04:22 by James Sinnamon

The denial of Julian Assange's liberty in London for almost nine years since June 2012 and, more so, his imprisonment in Belmarsh prison since April 2019 in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day, is against British law and International law. Had the Australian government chosen to use its authority, it could have long ago ended Julian Assange's ordeal, got him out of prison and back to Australia, to be with his two children and their mother Stella Moris.

Instead the Australian government chose variously to do nothing or else to smear Julian Assange.

On 12 April last year a number of Australian parliamentarians began to speak up for Julian Assange. Some even personally visited Julian Assange in prison. John Shipton, Julian Assange's father puts their number at 28, speaking in a video about his "Bring Julian Assange Home" tour. [1]

In spite of this sizeable number of members of the support group, and in spite of the massive support for Julian Assange in Australia and across the world, the Federal Government has yet to be properly held to account before the Australian people for its abandonment of Julian Assange.

The reason for this is that, as far as I can ascertain, the only avenue so far used by members of the Support Group to raise the issue of Julian Assange, has been Question Time in either of the two houses of Parliament. This consisted of an exchange between Greens Senator Janet Rice and Foreign Minister Marise Payne, on 25 March, on the subject of Julian Assange. That exchange lasted only 2:17 minutes, and much of that time was wasted with Marise Payne's obfuscation and shouting down Janet Rice.

From this, it seems that avenues other than Question Time should be used by the "Bring Julian Assange home" support group.

The most obvious alternative is to put a motion requiring this government to act in support of Julian Assange, to the floor of either The Senate or the House of Representatives. Even if the numbers of the current Australian Parliament will prevent such a motion from being carried, then at least putting such motions would give supporters of Julian Assange far more time to put their case both to Parliament and to the broader Australian public through social media and blog sites, such as this one, https://candobetter.net. For the Parliamentary Support Group not yet to have done so appears to be a terrible oversight.

The correspondence included, below, as an Appendix to this article, included two motions I have asked members of the Parliamentary Support Group to put. I wrote the first on 29 March. As far as I can tell no member of the Support Group put that to Parliament.

#whatYouCanDo">What you can do

The House of Representatives is meeting later today (Tuesday 1 June 2021), Wednesday and Thursday. Please contact one or more of the Senators and Members of Parliament #bringAssangeHomeGroup">listed below and ask him/her to to put to his/her House the motion included below in my letter of 24 May to Senator Andrew Wilkie.

My e-mail of 24 May to House of Representatives members of the "Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group"

Dear member,

I am sending you this e-mail in which is enclosed a copy of an e-mail I had sent very early yesterday morning to Andrew Wilkie. I am sending this to you because your name was included on a list of Australian Parliamentarians who have spoken up for Julian Assange.

As you would understand, Julian Assange's circumstances make this issue urgent. Quite possibly his health has been irreparably damaged by his long imprisonment and neglect. He could well die if he is not released or, at least, given urgent medical treatment for his conditions including terrible tooth abscess.

The included letter to Andrew Wilkie includes a request to put, to the House of Representatives, a motion which calls upon the British government to quickly expedite, in a manner more transparent than was previously the case, all outstanding legal matters concerning Julian Assange. Furthermore, should the British government not do so, the Australian government should be instructed to take this issue to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

I believe this motion should be put to allow this vitally important issue to be more adequately discussed and scrutinised, than for example, the very short (2 minute, 17 second) exchange between Senator Janet Rice and Senator Marise Payne of 25 March (see /node/6093 for video and transcription of the exchange).

I believe that if the Australian government was resolved to help Julian Assange it could, in very little time, before world public opinion, and with the option of recourse to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, make the British government release Julian Assange from Belmarsh prison and also make the US abandon its outrageous attempt to extradite Julian Assange to face the rigged Grand Jury in the eastern district of Virginia.

Surely, in a functioning democracy, the Australian government should be held to account for failing to meet up its basic obligation to uphold the rights of Julian Assange. Unless my proposed motion, or something similar is put to the House of Representatives, the Senate or both, I think that holding the Australian government to account for this will prove to be much harder.

Thank you for reading this.

Yours faithfully,

James Sinnamon

Enclosed Letter of 23 May to Andrew Wilkie

Dear Andrew Wilkie,

My Apologies for this late notice, but I only realised not long before midnight that the House of Representatives will be sitting again later today.

Just for now, I am sending copies to other members of the House of Representatives who have previously shown their support for Julian Assange. Later today, I will also send copies to Senators who have also shown support as well as any other supporters in the House I may have missed.

Some time during the next four days sitting of the House of Representatives, could you please put the following motion:

This Parliament finds it unacceptable that Australian journalist Julian Assange, who is not guilty of any crime, continues to be held in London's Belmarsh prison in solitary confinement for 23 hours every day, whilst those who started the 2003 Iraq war have yet to be held to account for this crime against humanity.

Accordingly this Parliament calls upon the British government to immediately expedite, and in a more transparent fashion than previously, all outstanding legal matters concerning Julian Assange including his own appeal against his continued imprisonment.

Should the British government fail to do so, this Parliament instructs Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Foreign Minister Marise Payne, as a matter of urgency, to raise this at the United Nations and at the International Criminal Court.

?

Please feel most welcome to draft a similar motion if you think you can improve upon my wording.

As you will surely appreciate, this is a matter of utmost urgency, given the state of Julian Assange's health and given the stated resolve of the United States government to appeal Judge Vanessa Baraitser's ruling against the extradition of Julian Assange.

Whilst it now seems unlikely to me that such a motion would pass either in the House or the Senate, I still believe that having this debated on the floor of either or both houses of the Australian Parliament would enormously lift the profile of the International campaign.

Also, I think it will most likely increase the public support for those who speak and vote for such a motion and will have the opposite effect on those who oppose the motion or abstain.

I include below, as an Appendix, another proposed motion, which I sent to you and other supporters of Julian Assange on 29 March. As far as I am aware, that was not put, which I think is unfortunate.

For further information about my own efforts to free Julian Assange, please look at /JulianAssange/.

I will endeavour to contact you and the other recipients of this e-mail later today. If you want to contact me, I can be reached on 0412 319669.

Thank you for having read this.

Yours faithfully,

James Sinnamon

Appendix: My earlier proposed motion of 29 March on Julian Assange

Noting that multiple award-winning Australian journalist, Julian Assange, who has committed no crime against British or Australian law, has been illegally detained and psychologically and physically tortured by the British government since 19 June 2012, firstly until 11 April 2019 inside the London Ecuadorian Embassy, and, after that, in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day in Belmarsh Prison, this House/Senate requires Scott Morrison to use all his authority as Prime Minister to demand of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson that he immediately release Julian Assange and facilitate his return to Australia or to any other country of his choosing with his wife Stella Moris and his two children.

Should the British Government refuse to release Julian Assange, this Parliament instructs the Prime Minister to ask the United Nations to act for Julian Assange's release and, should it be necessary, to put the case to the International Criminal Court.

#bringAssangeHomeGroup">The "Bring Julian Assange Home" Group

Whilst Julian Assange's father John Shipton said on 24 April that there are 26 members of the "Bring Julian Assange Home" Parliamentary Support Group before Peter Khalil joined, I only count 24. (In my opinion, this is still more than enough to make this government pay dearly for its unconscionable refusal to stand up for Julian Assange). I would be most grateful were anyone to supply me with the names of other members of the Group - JS, 14/6/21.

House of Representatives members and supporters

Electorate State Party M/S

Mr George Christensen MP Dawson Qld Liberal National Party of Qld Co-Chair

Mr Andrew Wilkie MP Clark Tas Independent Co-Chair

Mr Adam Bandt MP Melbourne Vic Greens Member

Mr Steve Georganas MP Adelaide SA Labor Party Member

Dr Helen Haines MP Indi Vic Independent Member

Mr Julian Hill MP Bruce Vic Labor Party Member

Hon Barnaby Joyce MP New England NSW The Nationals Member

Mr Peter Khalil MP Wills Vic Labor Member

Ms Rebekha Sharkie MP Mayo SA Centre Alliance Member

Ms Zali Steggall OAM, MP Warringah NSW Indpendent Member

Ms Susan Templeman MP Macquarie NSW Labor Party Member

Ms Maria Vamvakinou MP Calwell Vic Labor Party Member

Mr Josh Wilson MP Fremantle WA Labor Party Member
Mr Tony Zappia MP Makin SA Labor Party Member

Senate members and supporters

State Party M/S

Senator Mehreen Faruqi NSW Greens Supporter

Senator Stirling Griff SA Centre Alliance Supporter

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young SA Greens Supporter

Senator Nick McKim Tas Greens Member

Senator Rex Patrick SA Centre Alliance Supporter

Senator Janet Rice Vic Greens Supporter

Senator Rachel Siewert WA Greens Supporter

Senator Jordon Steele-John WA Greens Supporter

Senator Larissa Waters Qld Greens Supporter

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson Tas Greens Member

Footnote[s]

[1] See "John Shipton speaks at the Melbourne Vigil for Julian Assange, Flinders St Station, Fri 21 May 2021," video at https://www.youtube.com/embed/ifucM7rMcfw. It is difficult to know for sure the precise count of the number of members of the Parliamentary Support Group for Julian Assange. One list, divided into members of the House of Representatives and Senators is included above. I think I recall a hearing that the count was 28.

John Shipton is currently in Miami, touring the United States to put to the people of the United States, the case for why his son Julian Assange should be freed from his illegal imprisonment in London and not extradited to the United States

Topic:

Do Melbourne pro-Palestine protesters think the Palestinian resistance can triumph whilst US forces and their terrorist proxies rampage through neighbouring Syria and Iraq?

Sun, 2021-05-16 14:59 by Geoffrey Taylor

Can Palestine be liberated while the US illegally occupies Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Apparently Melbourne's pro-Palestine movement thinks Palestine can be liberated while Syria has much of its territory illegally occupied and US troops also illegally occupy Iraq and Afghanistan.

Topic:

Melbourne May Day: march to demand that the Australian government act to end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange from Trades Hall, South Carlton

Sat, 2021-05-01 03:11 by James Sinnamon

Apologies for this very short notice.

At 1:30pm today, 1 May 2021, the International Workers' Day, the day on which Trade Unionists commemorate the struggle and sacrifices by trade unionists to achieve dignity and decent living standards for themselves and their families, supporters of Australian journalist and founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange will be marching as a contingent, behind Melbourne for Wikileaks' (@Melbourne4Wiki)'s large banner, pictured further below.

Julian Assange has committed no crime and has already served his outrageous 50 week sentence for the supposed misdemeanour of skipping bail back in 2012 when he sought political asylum at the London Ecuadorian embassy. Yet, two years after his imprisonment, he still remains behind bars in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day, as United States prosecutors pursue their appeal of Magistrate Vanessa Barraitser's ruling against the extradition of Julian Assange.

Were Julian Assange, who is not even an American citizen, to be extradited, he would face a rigged trial, before a jury of employees of U.S. intelligence services or their spouses, for supposedly violating the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917. Such a jury is expected to pay little heed to the arguments of Julian Assange's defence team before sentencing him to 175 years more imprisonment in solitary confinement - all for revealing to the world, facts about U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.

Please join us at 1:30pm, outside the Melbourne Trades Hall at the corner of Lygon Street and Victoria Street, South Carlton, to support Julian Assange. Please help us hold up that banner and distribute our leaflets. (A PDF file of a double-sided A5 leaflet, which has been adapted to become the article Uphold the Rule of Law - demand that the Australian government act to end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange (11/2/2021) can be downloaded from here.

Where: Melbourne, Trades Hall, corner of Lygon Street and Victoria Street, South Carlton.

When: Today (Saturday, 1 May), 1:30pm

Topic:

Video: Julian Assange's father, John Shipton, interviewed prior to embarking on his "Home Run for Julian" World Tour

Mon, 2021-04-26 01:40 by James Sinnamon

Topic:

Melbourne protest at British Consulate to mark 2nd anniversary of illegal arrest of Julian Assange - 4:00pm Sunday 11 April

Sun, 2021-04-04 14:12 by James Sinnamon

A 336K double-sided A5 leaflet (adapted from previous leaflet) can be found, attached to this page here.

Topic:

Stephen Taberner & trio: Like a Movie, a song for Julian Assange (Lyrics inside)

Sat, 2021-04-03 20:33 by admin

This is a beautiful original song, beautifully performed, with well conceived lyrics describing the importance of Assange, his suffering, and encouraging people to work to have him released.

LYRICS:

like a movie
flickering in blue and grey
like a movie
you can’t take your eyes away

1.
here's a man in the nose of a beast
a magic camera on his eye
they're not men he sees before him
just pixels floating by

his eyes narrow on the target
his finger is the boss
seven men go to the dust they came from
underneath his cross

like a movie

2.
and here's a man on an aeroplane
his eyes are warm, his eyes are closed
weary from too much seeing,
from 10 years on this road

they took his son, they took his freedom
took away his space to think
they took his walls and moved them closer
they pushed him to the brink

like a movie
flickering in blue and grey
like a movie
betrayal's only one frame away

3.
and here's a hawk, in front of an eagle
three colours tattooed on it's chest
his eyes are flint, his heart is granite
cos uncle knows what's best

there’s talk of a man who’s said too much
talk of a man who’s sealed his fate
talk of a bounty for the one who brings
his head upon a plate

like a movie

4.
and now here's a man in a tiny cell
his tired face is gaunt and pale
he walks ten thousand steps each day
the santiago trail

his hair is white, the spider’s eyes were black
the mighty web was a thing of awe
he went in deep, he couldn’t come back
but he showed us what he saw

like a movie
flickering in blue and grey
like a movie
dignity will hold no sway

and when the dawn breaks, and the mist clears
you can watch the final scene, if you dare
one man in front of an army, all alone

and his man, what’s he going to do now?
and what about you, what are you going to do now?
are you going to sit there, and keep on watching?
cos if we all got up we could stop this movie
don't you think it's time we stopped this movie?

like a movie
flickering in blue and grey
like a movie
we can’t let it end this way

Topic:

Twitter posts about Julian Assange

Wed, 2021-03-31 15:04 by admin

13/. Editor-in-Chief of @wikileaks, @khrafnsson, points out the absurd obscenity of the US claiming that - by publishing evidence of war crimes - #JulianAssange’s was “causing harm”

He & @johnpilger have been denied access to the court for the Julian Assange extradition hearing. pic.twitter.com/SfwQmunE7R
— Stefan Simanowitz (@StefSimanowitz) September 7, 2020

Pentagon Papers whistleblower reveals that he also committed 'offence' for which Assange has been indicted

(6 Dec 2022) In the short interview below, Daniel Ellsberg, who famously leaked the ''Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times in 1971, explains how he was also given a copy of all the data leaked by Chelsea Manning before it was published by Wikileaks. So, by the current standing of the Department of Justice, he, alongside all the newspapers which published that information, are no less indictable than Julian Assange. If Ellsberg were to be indicted for the same offence for which Assange has been indicted and held in solitary confinement since April 2019, he believes he could show the Unted States Supreme Court, that that indictment is in violation of the United States Constition.

To @POTUS and @TheJusticeDept: Stop the extradition of Assange. I am as indictable as he is on the exact same charges. I will plead "not guilty" on grounds of your blatantly unconstitutional use of the Espionage Act. Let's take this to the Supreme Court. https://t.co/odm2gd6Ci1
— Daniel Ellsberg (@DanielEllsberg) December 6, 2022

Another Twitter Post

more text

Pentagon Papers whistleblower reveals that he also committed 'offence' for which Assange has been indicted

In the short interview below, Daniel Ellsberg, who famously leaked the ''Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times in 1971, explains how he was also given a copy of all the data leaked by Chelsea Manning before it was published by Wikileaks. So, by the current standing of the Department of Justice, he, alongside all the newspapers which published that information, are no less indictable than Julian Assange. If Ellsberg were to be indicted for the same offence for which Assange has been indicted and held in solitary confinement since April 2019, he believes he could show the Unted States Supreme Court, that that indictment is in violation of the United States Constition.

To @POTUS and @TheJusticeDept: Stop the extradition of Assange. I am as indictable as he is on the exact same charges. I will plead "not guilty" on grounds of your blatantly unconstitutional use of the Espionage Act. Let's take this to the Supreme Court. https://t.co/odm2gd6Ci1
— Daniel Ellsberg (@DanielEllsberg) December 6, 2022

Topic:

Read more about Twitter posts about Julian Assange

Azerbaijan President holds mirror up to BBC journo re ill-treatment of Assange and UK censorship

Fri, 2021-03-12 21:00 by Sheila Newman

In this video, BBC journalist Orla Guerin interviews Azerbaijan President Aliyev, assuming that Azerbaijan press and politics are heavily censored, and presses him on that. He denies the accusation, then asks her why Julian Assange has been held inhumanely for years, if the British and western press are so free. The BBC journalist simply won't acknowledge the situation for journalists and the media in her own country, kind of proving the president's point.
Topic:
President President Aliyev
Azerbaijan
BBC
UK
Orla Guerin
Julian Assange
video
press freedom
Censorship
hypocrisy
human rights

Read more about Azerbaijan President holds mirror up to BBC journo re ill-treatment of Assange and UK censorship
2 comments

Video: Melbourne for Wikileaks vigil demands the Australian government act to bring Julian Assange home from his illegal imprisonment and torture

Sat, 2021-02-20 17:50 by James Sinnamon

Melbourne for Wikileaks (@melbourne4wiki) holds vigils for Julian Assange, every Friday, from 6:30pm until 8:30pm, under the clocks at Melbourne's iconic Flinders Street Station. Yesterday, Friday 19 February, I unfurled a canvas banner, 5 meters wide and 1.7 meters deep, with a big picture of Assange on it. No sooner had we raised this banner than we heard loud cries of support for Julian Assange. Support also came from cars, whose drivers tooted their horns, as they drove past the station. (See video below.)

After some time, in which members of the group handed out leaflets and and spoke to passers-by, a succession of people spoke through a megaphone. I was the third speaker. The video of that 7 minute speech was filmed and uploaded to YouTube and is embedded below. Unfortunately the recordings of two other speeches were lost and can't be included here. (I will transcribe my speech soon and include it in this article. Note that in the part where I argue that Julian Assange could not get a fair trial in East Virginia, I said this would be because the "jury was likely to be made up of employees of US intelligence services and their siblings." I meant to say, of course, "employees of US intelligence services and their relatives.")

James Sinnamon speaks at Vigil for Julian Assange

Thanks to everyone who told me my hat looked terrible. I promise never to wear it again.

Appendix: Transcript of James Sinnamon's speech

I'm here today to show my outrage at the fact that the Australian government has done nothing, while this heroic, courageous and visionary journalist, Julian Assange has been illegally held in prison, illegally psychologically tortured and now, illegally physically tortured because no reason other than the fact that through Wikileaks, he was able to tell the world what the United States didn't want us to know about what they were doing in their own grubby political world and other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya.

We now know, because of Julian Assange and other whistleblowers [2] before him, that the American case for their wars against Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan was a pack of lies. We know that because of Julian Assange and courageous whistleblowers from within the ranks of the United States military and within the United States government who know that what the United States has been telling the world is a lie and they've proven this to us. They've given us the information to show us that they've been lying to us. [3]

Now, because the world knows so much more about what the United States has been doing, it means that they are not able, so easily, to make up a pretext towards another war against another country.

Obviously, two countries that are in America's cross-hairs is Venezuela in South America - they want to take over Venezuela and steal all their petroleum - and they want to take over Iran for daring to be a sovereign independent sovereign country not under the control of the United States.

Now, Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. To report the crimes of the Americans and their allies is not a crime. It's journalism.

To speak the truth is not a crime. It's journalism.

But, in the eyes of the crooked, vile people, that are running the United States, and their allies, it is a crime for people to speak the truth about their crimes, and that is why they have been trying, since 2010, to get their grubby little hands on Julian Assange and they have done that through subterfuge with the help of the crooked Swedish government and the London government, they've fabricated a charge that Julian Assange had sexually assaulted these two women in Sweden.

Julian was quite prepared to go Sweden to answer those charges, but the Swedish government would not agree to prevent him from being extradited to the United States. So, he knew that the Swedish government, in collusion with the United States, had attempted to get him on to Swedish soil only so that they could send him off to the United States.

In the United States there plan was to try him in secret before a jury made up exclusively of people from East Virginia, who are mostly working for intelligence agencies or their siblings. [4] So it is unlikely that this so-called jury would have [inaudible ] paid any attention to the argument of Julian Assange's defence team. They would have taken about 30 seconds to pronounce him guilty and once Julian Assange had been found to be guilty, their plan was to lock him in jail for 175 years and in his prison term he would be confined to a single cell for 23 hours a day and allowed outside for only one hour a day. [5]

He would be denied any books, any Internet, anything. His life would be an absolute misery. The people he would be in jail with would be convicted terrorists and other murderers.

The prospect of this was so terrible for Julian Assange that he was clearly thinking of committing suicide rather than allow himself to be locked in jail for 175 years.

Now, all this time, for the last 10 years, the Australian government has said almost nothing. It's been ages - weeks since the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has said a word about Julian Assange. All he has said is, "Oh, it's going on in England and it's not really our business to interfere with what the British courts are saying."

Not a word about the complete travesty of justice that Julian Assange is facing with the fact that every day he is brought to court - every day he was tried - he was brought to court inside a cage. He couldn't speak to his lawyers. He couldn't pass notes to his lawyers. He was stripped several times and searched each day before he went into court.

How is that 'due process' according to Foreign Minister Maurice Payne? She calls that 'due process'?

Clearly, this Australian government, that's supposed to have a duty of care towards Australian citizens, doesn't want to know.

They're turning their backs on Julian Assange and doing nothing.

Any government that allows another government - the British government, the American government - to treat any of its citizens, that have committed no crime, in this way, doesn't deserve to be in power.

And what we have to do is, when every member of Parliament asks for your vote at the next election, ask that member of Parliament: What have they done for Julian Assange for the last 10 years whilst an innocent Australian citizen, who has committed no crime, has been tortured physically, [6] confined illegally and psychologically tortured? Where have they lifted a finger for Julian Assange? Ask them that question and it will be amazed if any one of them can talk to you with a straight face.

What you have to do is you have to find some candidates who do have a backbone and do have principles who are prepared to stand up for Julian Assange. Find those candidates, vote for them.

So what we are going to do is to continue to hold these vigils every Friday night. We're going to try to reach a larger and larger audience, get more and more people to these vigils and these protests and make our voices so loud that it will be impossible for the Australian government to ignore and continue to do nothing for Julian Assange.

It's about time the Australian government acted. If they had a backbone. If they had any decency in them, here's what they would do:

Tomorrow they would send out an contingent of Federal Police. [7] They would go right to Belmarsh Prison. They would tell the Belmarsh Prison authorities that Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, is being held there illegally by the British government. They would demand that the British government immediately release Julian Assange to come back to Australia. That's what a government with a backbone and decency would do.

Now the Australian government has done nothing. They've barely said a word about Julian Assange these last ten years. Any word they say is to cast aspersions on Julian Assange.

None of these people deserve your vote. None of them deserve to hold office. Make sure you act on that at the next federal election. Thank you.

Footnote[s]

[1] On the previous Friday 12 February, I had not gone to the vigil due to the sudden and unexpected, if short-lived, outbreak in Coronavirus infections on that day. On the Friday prior to that, Friday 5 February, the banner had been made with only one tubular canvas slot at each end into which the supporting dowel poles with which it could be held up for display could be inserted. Unfortunately, because of the banner's great size - 5 meters x 1.7 meters - one pole at each end was not sufficient to support the banner. A third tubular canvas slot was needed in the middle. As a workaround, I stood behind the banner (as pictured right) and held it up with my raised arms hands in the middle. After some time this fatigued me and we chose to place it flat on the ground facing upwards. (The image is linked to a short @melbourne4wiki tweet which contains a short video from which that image was copied. That tweet was re-tweeted by "Denver Free Assange" (@DNVfreeJA) The following Friday wooden poles to support the banner were inserted into its three long narrow vertical pockets, as you can see in the video.

[2] Correction: Julian Assange is, himself, a journalist and not a whistleblower.

[3] Corrrection: In fact the WMD fabrication that was used to start the war against Iraq in 2003 was not exposed by any whistleblower or Wikileaks. United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter. Scott Ritter, who had previously uncovered Iraqi chemical weapons, argued in 2003, that chemical weapons in Iraq didn't exist in quantities substantial enough to pose a threat. He consequently opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq but, for most people, that news was overwhelmed by the vast amount of corporate newsmedia reporting in favour of the invasion of Iraq.

[4] Two corrections: I should have said that the "jury ... are all working for intelligence agencies or their family" and not the "jury ... are mostly working for intelligence agencies or their siblings."

[5] Julian Assange would be allowed out for only one hour every day into another adjacent cell as small as his main cell for exercise.

[6] Correction: During his illegal detention inside the Ecuadorian embassy, which lasted 6 years and 10 months (19/6/12 - 11/4/19) Julian was psychologically tortured, but not physically tortured. This changed after Julian Assange was dragged out of the embassy on 11 April 2019 and imprisoned at Belmarsh. There Julian Assange was subject to both psychological and physical torture.

[7] Monday 22 Feb 2021, 7:47AM +11 : Upon further reflection, whilst the British government's imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange is clearly illegal, Julian Assange's release is unlikely to occur simply as a consequence of a contingent of Australian Federal police officers attempting to enforce Australian law and international law on British soil.

However, were Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison to speak to British Prime Minster Boris Johnson to demand Julian Assange's release, I think it highly unlikely that the British PM would not accede.

If Boris Johnson did not agree to release Julian Assange, Scott Morrison would have this recourse: He could threaten to take the case to to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or to the United Nations. The ICC would almost certainly find the United Kingdom's treatment of Julian Assange illegal, if not criminal.

If Julian Assange's case were ever brought to the United Nations, the United Kingdom's odious complicity with the US government would be clearly shown before the whole world.

In the high likelihood that Boris Johnson would then agree to release Julian Assange, Scott Morrison should then send a contingent of Australian Federal Police to escort Julian Assange from Belmarsh Prison back to Melbourne in order to safeguard him from any further malign behaviour by any agent of the United States government.

This is how a decent and humane national leader would behave.

Topic:
Julian Assange
WikiLeaks
Scott Morrison
Nils Melzer
Flinders St Station
activism
protests

Read more about Video: Melbourne for Wikileaks vigil demands the Australian government act to bring Julian Assange home from his illegal imprisonment and torture

Uphold the Rule of Law - demand that the Australian government act to end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange

Thu, 2021-02-11 15:40 by James Sinnamon

The article below is an adaptation of a double-sided A5 leaflet I wrote to be distributed at the Friday Night Vigil for Julian Assange held in front of Flinders Street Railway Station from 5:30pm until 7:30pm. The 210K PDF file is attached to the article Barraitser's 'compassion' towards Julian Assange a ploy to avoid judicial scrutiny of the United States' illegal war on journalism? (12/1/21). I have since handed out this same leaflet, so far, at three subsequent Friday night vigils.

End the illegal detention and torture of this Australian hero.

Why won't the Australian government act to get Julian Assange out of the Belmarsh hellhole?

By its stated intention to imprison the visionary Australian journalist and publisher, Julian Assange, for 175 years, the United States government has confirmed the criminality and malevolance of those who are truly in charge of it. State officials, including Hillary Clinton, have also been recorded talking openly about assassinating Assange.

Because mainstream media now only reports what the US government tells it, the world needs the Wikileaks news service to reveal the truth behind the United States' and its allies' wars, over the last three decades and beyond. Wikileaks has protected the identities and the ability of people in the military, government spy agencies, government bureacracy, or private corporations, to get vital information out to all of us about repeated dangerous and criminal acts of states towards ordinary people.

The United States' deep state has been trying since 2010 to get its hands on Julian to punish him for revealing its war-crimes to the world, and for refusing to reveal his sources. The US wants firstly to prevent Julian Assange from resuming his own work for Wikileaks, and secondly, to set a precedent that would allow the US henceforth to kidnap any other journalist, whose reporting would reveal to us facts about other invasions of, and meddling in the affairs of countries throughout much of the world - in countries like Venezula, Cuba, Bolivia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iran - that the US wants to keep hidden from us.

Julian Assange is not even an American. He is an Australian citizen. He has committed no crime - he has only been found guilty of the misdemeanour - skipping bail in 2012 to seek asylum in the London Ecuadorian embassy after the Swedish prosecutors had sought to extradite him for questioning over allegations of sexual assault by two Swedish women.

When the Swedish government refused to give Julian a guarantee that they would not allow the US to extradite him, he decided that the request for questioning could only be a ploy on behalf of the US. So, Julian skipped bail' and sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy. For thus acting to thwart US attempts to illegally kidnap him from Swedish soil 8 years ago, UK Judge Vanessa Barraitser sentenced Julian Assange to imprisonment alongside convicted terrorists and murderers in Belmarsh Prison for 50 weeks - the absolute maximum offence for the misdemeanour of skipping bail.

Even after Julian had served that outrageous sentence, Barraitser further extended his detention to allow more time for the US prosecutors to prepare their 'case' for extradition, which, after weeks of further kangaroo court proceedings, was denied to the US, whilst all the prosecution's smears against Julian were still upheld.

In spite of this unexpected ruling, Barraitser refused to release Julian. He is expected to spend many months in degrading conditions behind bars whilst various appeals by the US against her rulng are heard.

What you can do

Attend the Melbourne for Wikileaks (@melbourne4wiki Twitter page) vigil for Julian Assange at Flinders St. Station every Friday at 6:30pm.

Reprint this pdf file at /files/upholdTheRuleOfLawForJulian.pdf or linked to article on Julian Assange, Barraitser's 'compassion' towards Julian Assange a ploy to avoid judicial scrutiny of the United States' illegal war on journalism? (12/1/21)

Seek the truth at candobetter.net/JulianAssange, rt.com, sputniknews.com, presstv.com, southfront.org and other alternatives to corporate newsmedia.

Topic:
Julian Assange
protest
Flinders Street Station
Melbourne
Victoria
Australia
Melbourne For Wikileaks

Read more about Uphold the Rule of Law - demand that the Australian government act to end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange
2 comments

Barraitser's 'compassion' towards Julian Assange a ploy to avoid judicial scrutiny of the United States' illegal war on journalism?

Tue, 2021-01-12 16:30 by James Sinnamon

Republished, with embedded 25 minute Video, from Assange extradition court ruling (11/1/21) |PressTV. This is the most recent edition of Richard Medhurst's (pictured) weekly Communiqué broadcast.

See also: Melbourne Vigil to Free Julian Assange at Flinders Street Station this Friday at 7:30pm (10/1.21).
The 210K PDF file, from which the double-sided A5 flyer "Uphold the Rule of Law", about Julian Assange can be printed, can be downloaded from below.

A British Judge has ruled on whether Australian journalist Julian Assange will be extradited to the United States. The WikiLeaks founder is wanted on espionage and computer hacking charges and faces up to 175 years in prison.

As Richard Medhurst, who attended the extradition hearing, explains, the judge's decision to block extradition solely on health grounds still leaves press freedoms at risk and validates the politically charged indictment by the US.

Conceivably, were the prosecution, at a subsequent hearing, to assure Judge Vanessa Barraitser that they would take tender-loving care of Julian Assange during his solitary confinement and 'trial' before a jury packed with U.S. secret service operatives, she could then rule that the health grounds objection to the U.S. plans to extradite Julian Assange no longer holds whilst again disregarding the clear politcal motivation behind the U.S. extradition request.

Topic:
Julian Assange
WikiLeaks
UK
Vanessa Barraitser
Richard Medhurst
extradition
justice

Read more about Barraitser's 'compassion' towards Julian Assange a ploy to avoid judicial scrutiny of the United States' illegal war on journalism?
2 comments

Melbourne Vigil to Free Julian Assange at Flinders Street Station from 6:30pm this Friday 2 April, Good Friday

Sun, 2021-01-10 18:10 by James Sinnamon

Update (Thursday 1/4/2021): Melbourne supporters of Julian Assange will be holding our weekly vigil tomorrow evening at Flinders Street Station from 6:30pm Good Friday, this Friday 2 April. For more information see @LorineBrice

Melbourne supporters will be holding their weekly vigil for Julian Assange this Friday at 6:30pm outside Flinders Street Station. It is vital for every Australian, who values free speech and opposes the unlawful detention and torture of Julian Assange by the U.K. government at the behest of its U.S. master, to demand that our government act now to free Julian Assange. For more information, see @LorineBrice, @Melbourne4Wiki.

Be there: 7:30pm, this Friday, at Flinders Street Railway Station. Listen to speeches and help us hand out leaflets.

Failure to act could well result in Julian's death, as Greek Australian activist, Yanis Varifoukis, explains in the video embedded below:

Yanis Varoufakis: "They don't want to extradite Assange. They want to kill him."

Topic:
Julian Assange
Wikleaks
Melbourne
vigil
Lorine Brice

Read more about Melbourne Vigil to Free Julian Assange at Flinders Street Station from 6:30pm this Friday 2 April, Good Friday
8 comments

Assange Extradition Hearing mistrial - Interview with Craig Murray, former British Ambassador, in daily attendance

Sun, 2020-10-04 22:25 by Sheila Newman

[Note alternative video URL is https://youtu.be/ZtwpzqAJMBo.]Chris Hedges discusses with Craig Murray, a former British Ambassador, the hearing underway in London to extradite Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, to the United States. Murray’s exhaustive reporting, which can be found at https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/, has become one of the few sources of reliable information about a hearing that has become notoriously difficult to cover because of court restrictions imposed on the alternative press, and which is being ignored for political reasons by most mainstream news organizations. If you wonder why there is no video-coverage available of the Assange mistrial, it is because (a) Human Rights NGOs, which were promised video-access, had this cut off after the first day and (b) despite access being available to most corporate and government media, mysteriously, none has availed themself of it. That is the reason that you and I are not able to monitor this mistrial, and that is possibly the reason it has been able to continue. The public gallery is virtually empty. This is really a secret trial. Only five family members of Assange have been allowed, with Craig Murray having the title of uncle, to Assange. Craig Murray's coverage of the trial is apparently under a shadow ban from the major internet platforms; his readership has dwindled to something like 10 per cent, despite his coverage providing a unique and valuable public window, where almost none exist, into this dark political tower that the Old Bailey has become.

Excerpt from Craig Murray's report for Hearing Day 21

Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 21
October 1, 2020

I really do not know how to report Wednesday’s events. Stunning evidence, of extreme quality and interest, was banged out in precis by the lawyers as unnoticed as bags of frozen chips coming off a production line.

The court that had listened to Clair Dobbin spend four hours cross-examining Carey Shenkman on individual phrases of first instance court decisions in tangentially relevant cases, spent four minutes as Noam Chomsky’s brilliant exegesis of the political import of this extradition case was rapidly fired into the court record, without examination, question or placing into the context of the legal arguments about political extradition.

Twenty minutes sufficed for the reading of the “gist” of the astonishing testimony of two witnesses, their identity protected as their lives may be in danger, who stated that the CIA, operating through Sheldon Adelson, planned to kidnap or poison Assange, bugged not only him but his lawyers, and burgled the offices of his Spanish lawyers Baltazar Garzon. This evidence went unchallenged and untested.

The rich and detailed evidence of Patrick Cockburn on Iraq and of Andy Worthington on Afghanistan was, in each case, well worthy of a full day of exposition. I should love at least to have seen both of them in the witness box explaining what to them were the salient points, and adding their personal insights. Instead we got perhaps a sixth of their words read rapidly into the court record. There was much more.

I have noted before, and I hope you have marked my disapproval, that some of the evidence is being edited to remove elements which the US government wish to challenge, and then entered into the court record as uncontested, with just a “gist” read out in court. The witness then does not appear in person. This reduces the process from one of evidence testing in public view to something very different. Wednesday confirmed the acceptance that this “Hearing” is now devolved to an entirely paper exercise. [...] Read more at https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-21/.

Topic:
Julian Assange
Craig Murray
Chris Hedges
extradition trial
mistrial
Julian Assange

Read more about Assange Extradition Hearing mistrial - Interview with Craig Murray, former British Ambassador, in daily attendance
2 comments

Liveblog updates on Assange extradition trial - at wikileaks site

Fri, 2020-09-25 12:32 by Sheila Newman

Daily, lively and dedicated coverage at https://defend.wikileaks.org/liveblog/ from what is closest to the horse's mouth, from https://defend.wikileaks.org/. There is plenty to read about, including a defense whereby Julian Assange is located on the autism spectrum and strong precedents where England refused US request for extradition in very similar cases, which took into consideration the harshness of US prison conditions and the likelihood of suicide.

In the cases of Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon, the U.S. government was blocked from extraditing them because the United Kingdom High Court of Justice (Love) and the British Home Secretary (McKinnon) recognized their Asperger’s syndrome would result in degrading or inhuman treatment that violated human rights. Source: https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/23/doctor-assange-aspergers-prison-extradition-trial/.

The video below is of an international peoples' forum on Assange's predicament, dated 21 September 2020.

Topic:
Julian Assange
WikiLeaks
Julian Assange
autism spectrum
legal precedent
extradition hearing
September 2020

Read more about Liveblog updates on Assange extradition trial - at wikileaks site
1 comment

Assange trial: German parliamentarian observer shocked by judge & officer conduct

Mon, 2020-03-02 23:31 by Sheila Newman

Sevim Dagdelen, member of German Bundestag, has been an authorised observer for all or most of Assange's trial. Her account is detailed and informative. Among other observations: US prosecution members are worried that this will be a mistrial due to the procedural unfairness and court bias against Julian Assange, who cannot properly hear what is going on, has no access to his papers, and little access to his lawyers - even in the court. No British parliamentarians are present, yet this is the most internationally important case so far of the 21st century and it has brought British justice into controversy and opprobrium. WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson was temporarily banned from viewing the proceedings, and Assange's family left the court and refused to return if he was not let back in.

In the second part of this episode, Buglife CEO Matt Shardlow speaks about the growing threat of the extinction of insects worldwide. He discusses lobbying efforts by insecticide companies and how they will affect post-Brexit Britain, the continued prevalence of harmful insecticides in the EU and around the world, the crisis of the extinction of bees and many other insects, without which birds and other species will starve.

Topic:
Julian Assange
corrupt British justice system
Sevim Dagdelen

Read more about Assange trial: German parliamentarian observer shocked by judge & officer conduct

‘Fair trial threatened’ as judge rejects Assange request to sit with lawyers: Day 4 of US extradition hearing as it played out

Fri, 2020-02-28 17:38 by admin

Day four of Julian Assange’s extradition hearing saw lawyers discussing whether international law supersedes English law and a dramatic rejection by the judge of a simple request for Assange to be allowed to sit with his lawyers. [This article first published at https://www.rt.com/uk/481823-assange-judge-denies-bench-lawyers/ on 27 February 2020 at 8pm.].

Snowy and wet weather didn’t deter the WikiLeaks founder’s supporters who gathered outside the Woolwich Crown Court and could again be heard inside the courtroom itself.

It was expected that the day would begin with Judge Vanessa Baraitser considering an application by the defense for Assange to sit on the benches with his lawyers, rather than in the glass-fronted dock where he has been so far, flanked by security guards, and unable to communicate with his team or hear proceedings properly.

Instead, however, the court offered Assange headphones to help him hear. He took the headset and Edward Fitzgerald QC for the defense said they would “give it a try” but he would need to be “glued to the mic” to ensure Assange could hear him and it may not be a proper solution.

It was not the last that was heard of the issue, which blew up dramatically later in the day.

‘Subverting parliament’

Legal arguments kicked off with James Lewis QC for the prosecution rehashing points made on Wednesday that English law contains no exception to extradition for “political offenses” and that this trumps international law. On the contrary, the defense has argued that a 2003 US-UK extradition treaty (along with a slew of other treaties and international conventions), do prevent extradition for political offenses — and that this is more relevant.

Lewis argued that Fitzgerald was trying to introduce an exception through the “backdoor” and subverting the intention of parliament. He also argued that “political offenses” would need to mean Assange explicitly aimed to overthrow the US government or incite a change in policy — and said it was not clear that this was the whistleblower’s goal when he leaked information.

Lewis also reiterated his argument from Monday’s hearing that Assange was not being prosecuted for leaking information to the media, but for putting “lives at risk.” The prosecution has not, however, been able to prove that any lives were actually lost due to WikiLeaks’ actions — and the defense has, over the past three days, made a thorough case that Assange went to great lengths to redact documents, even warning the US government directly when other actors were about to dump unredacted versions online.

Alice in Wonderland world’
Fitzgerald rose for the defense just before midday. Lewis, he said, was going “too far” to suggest that the bilateral treaty between the US and UK had no legal significance — particularly since the treaty itself is the basis for the US’s extradition request. The defense accepted that the extradition treaty is not domestic law, but said the European Convention on Human rights is. At this point, Judge Baraitser asked Fitzgerald if he was just arguing “in circles.”

He said the court would be in a “pretty strange Alice in Wonderland world” if the treaty that gave rise to the extradition request supposedly had nothing to do with the legality of it.

He argued that the US was engaging in “abuse of process” with the extradition request and that the courts had the powers to rule on that. He pointed to a previous case wherein the US tried to extradite a US citizen on tax evasion charges and it was denied on “abuse of process” grounds.

Asked by the judge why he believes Assange was seeking a change in US government policy rather than simply exposing government wrongdoing, Fitzgerald asked “what other goal” could there have been, other than a change in policy? He said WikiLeaks’ actions were explicitly designed to change White House policy in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

‘Interfering with fair trial’

After a long lunch break, Mark Summers QC rose for the defense and told the court that the headset Assange had been given was not a solution to the problem of him being unable to hear and communicate with his team. This sparked a heated back and forth between Summers and Judge Baraitser.

Summers argued that the glass dock in which Assange was sitting presented numerous logistical issues and cited a report which concluded that such enclosures interfere with the right to a fair trial. He said the presence of mics and US personnel in the courtroom also made it impossible to communicate privately.

Judge Baraitser said she was willing to offer frequent breaks for Assange to confer with his team, but Summers did not accept this as a solution, saying it was “not practical” to stop proceedings “every three minutes” and that it was normal practice around the world — and in the UK — for a prisoner to be allowed sit and confer with lawyers.

Hostile to the defense’s concerns, the judge accused Summers of exaggerating and said that if a three-week hearing planned for May-June needed to become a six-week hearing, “so be it.”

The drama prompted Assange himself to rise from his seat to complain further. Judge Baraitser warned him to sit back down and speak through his lawyers. “I can’t,” he said. She told him to put his hand up if he wanted to attract the attention of his team, but Summers complained that since Assange was behind him, he couldn’t see when he had his hand up.

Even when reminded of Assange’s “particular vulnerability” and mental health issues, Baraitser did not back down, and ultimately refused the request for him to leave the dock. Somewhat surprisingly, the US prosecution maintained a “neutral” approach and did not object to the prospect of Assange sitting with his lawyers — but it made no difference.

Following some brief discussion about upcoming hearing dates, the court adjourned just before 3pm. It is now expected to resume for a case management hearing on April 7.

Topic:
Julian Assange
Julian Assange
British justice system
US extradition
fair trial
persecution
alternative media

Read more about ‘Fair trial threatened’ as judge rejects Assange request to sit with lawyers: Day 4 of US extradition hearing as it played out

Video & transcripts from event: "What is Happening to Julian Assange & Journalism?" (4 Dec 2019 )

Tue, 2019-12-10 23:26 by Sheila Newman

Suelette Drefus, Julian Burnside, Kristinn Hrajnsson, and Lizzie O'Shea were the main people in this event. I have transcribed some of Suelette Drefus, Technology Researcher and Author's excellent summary of Julian Assange's contributions to the public internet and free software. She also displayed courage in criticising powerful people on stage. At around 1h 44m into the video she has the courage to criticise corporate media journalist, Peter Grest, for his repetition of opinions used to slur Julian's credentials as a journalist and publisher. Interesting to wonder why Grest was released without explanation after an international outcry from the same western block that is either persecuting Assange or leaving him to rot.

The film of the event is now on twitter broadcasts. The introduction to the main speakers starts around 17.40 minutes:https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1YqKDnymbLwJV?fbclid=IwAR2MhE7PGdDm6ZN0lbSn25y5AdS9QQftWBsJZ_uOpZUDua_3WZPRb5bi74c

Excerpts from Suelette Drefus's comments on Whistleblowers round the world.

[Suelette Drefus has known Julian Assange since about 1994. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suelette_Dreyfus: She is a technology researcher, journalist, and writer. Her fields of research include information systems, digital security and privacy, the impact of technology on whistleblowing, health informatics[6] and e-Education. Her work examines digital whistleblowing as a form of freedom of expression and the right of dissent from corruption. She is a researcher and lecturer in the Department of Computing and Information Systems at the University of Melbourne, as well as the Principal Researcher on an international research project on the impact of digital technologies on whistleblowing.]

LIZZIE O'SHEA ATO whistleblower, Richard Boyle, may get 161 years in prison for ...

SUELETTE DREFUS: Whistleblowers. The good news is they are at least being properly recognised as whistleblowers. The bad news is we have a long way to travel yet. The ATO Boyle case... this is not some obscure thing in another country outside Australia. This is a whistleblower who blew the whistle on the ATO about not following its own policies and procedures about garnishing money out of peoples' bank accounts. [...] It's really important to follow policies and procedures because otherwise you end up with an authoritarian state, which is not what we all signed up for.

But it's not only the Boyle case. It's internationally. Its the Jeffrey Sterling case of a former CIA officer who was a whistleblower. This case is very interesting ... in the United States because we think it's the first case where a whistleblower has been convicted on the basis of metadata. [...] we have the little electronic bread crumb trail. [...]

We've seen another disturbing trend. In Europe we've seen the Anna Garrido [Ramos] case in Spain. She worked in the Madrid town hall. She revealed corruption at a local level, and ten years on, the truth came out. It went all the way up to national politics and caused the fall of the government and president in Spain.

We've seen the case of Andreo Franzoso, revealing fraud in a state-owned company in Italy. And Antoine Deltour, the Luxleaks case, revealing sweet deals by his government behind the scenes - tax lurks for large multinational companies. We've seen the Gupta case in South Africa - cosy ties between a wealthy family and the president's office. And we've also seen the John Doe case and the Panama Papers.

One of the most disturbing trends that we've seen, however, more recently, in Australia, is that government is not only going after whistleblowers; it's now going after the journalists, as we've heard recently. It's going after the lawyers, in the case of Bernard Cleary. And, I might say, earlier this year, I was due to speak at the largest cybersecurity conference in Australia, and merely, for floating the idea as a thought-bubble in a conversation about my talk - of maybe it would be interesting to have a teleconference at the conference with Edward Snowden - I was actually censored from speaking at the conference. I was disinvited from the conference, in part because I was told, I might say things that weren't representative enough of Australian values. I like that - 'Australian values'. It's important that our cybersecurity centre should be the organisation whose mission statement is to set Australian values, but the idea that, because I had spoken out on issues regarding whistleblowing and the impact of digital technologies on it, somehow I was too 'dangerous' to speak. It's quite extraordinary. So now, it's not just the lawyers, it's not just the journalists, it's not just the whistleblowers, it's also the academics.

But I did want to say one bit of hope. There is a little bit of shining light in here. And this is again a contribution that I think Wikileaks has made to the landscape. There has been a significant expansion in the number of laws around the world. [Continues to talk about the laws. Julian Burnside interjects to say that the Australian law doesn't work.]
[...]

Assange before he became an asylum-seeker

SUELETTE DREFUS: I've known Julian for a very long time. I got to know him around 1994. [...] We got to know each other in part because he was co-running the first free public access internet site here in Australia. And it was a haven for artists and writers and activists and creatives, programmers - people who wanted to contribute things to the community. And even then he was an [?] publisher. He would allow people to publish things on the site which were controversial and difficult, including articles backed up by evidence, scientology, and a set of other things. And he was pretty bright. He dealt with lawyers' letters and threats, and other assaults on it, but he was willing to stand up for it. And I knew him all during this period because he was very involved in the Free Software movement. Those of you who don't know much about the technology side of things, you obviously know Julian has not just got technical skills, but you may not know that for more than a decade, he contributed an enormous amount - thousands and thousands of hours to developing free software. And, in fact, for some of you who might use an Apple computer, there is probably free software in there by Julian Assange. So, he wrote software that helped to develop one of the operating systems - a variety of Unix. Julian did all of this labour for free and he wrote software that helped make the news function of the early internet function in a more optimized way, which was easier for more people to get news. He designed and wrote - and I was part of the project - then developed the first opensource software that was deniable cryptography file system. This was envisaged to be used by human rights groups around the world. It allowed you to store, for example, on a hard drive, multiple layers of encrypted files, so that, if a human rights workers taking witness statements, are in Guatamala - that genocide against the original peoples [?Cambodia], in Sri Lanka - took witness statements in rural areas and put them on these hard drives they could add a layer of something else on the top, with a different password and, if they were seized and tortured, they could give the password to that layer with very little information on it, and the other layer would never be discoverable. He wrote free software available - gave it away - to everyone, which allowed people to test the cybersecurity robustness of their computer systems connected to the internet. Much of this is not known about Julian. And, it's an incredible act of altruism to contribute in a free software community, but that, in itself, was many years of work.
[...]

Contribution of Wikileaks to National Security Reporting

LIZZIE O'SHEA: [...] What was the particular contribution of Wikileaks to this field of National Security reporting? It's obviously Wikileak's mode of publishing [...]access to source material [...] talk about that from the perspective of a journalist.

SUELETTE DREFUS: [...] So, a lot of the media has focused on all sorts of criticisms of Julian that are [?] pedantic, small mind things, but has missed the big picture, and that's unfortunate. Because, if you look at the ways in which he, as the editor of Wikileaks, has formed how we receive news and information, they are quite extraordinary. So the anonymous digital drop-offs are a Wikileaks invention. We look around today and we see the New York Times, Bloomberg media, Gizmodo, for those of you who use it, NBC, [?] Norwegian, CBC, which is the ABC of Canada, as well as the ABC here, using anonymous digital drop-offs for whistleblowers to provide information to journalists in the public interest. That came about because of Julian Assange. We see the popularised use of data set journalism. That is, taking large sets of data, analysing it, and looking for patterns, trying to understand what's really happening, and then tell people the story. That is largely because of Julian Assange. We see the kind of invented verification journalism, that is, not that you just do the analysis with the data set, but you publish it with the story. You do that to prove to your readers the story you're telling is truthful. And that's extra important in an era of fake news. That is largely true and popularised because of Julian ASsange. We see collaborative global partnerships in journalism accross countries and publications on a scale that was never seen before, across different countries and organisations, from 90+ different organisations, not in the same company, not in the same media family, because of Julian Assange. And we see a popularisation of cybersecurity training of journalists - much more widespread. I've been very active in some of it. That has largely happened because of Julian Assange. So, these are all really important innovations for journalism, but it actually goes beyond that. We are sitting in a state library. Libraries are valuable archives of information. Julian Assange and Wikileaks has created perhaps the most important archive on line library of information, of data, around international - US international - public policy-making and decision-making - particularly of war-decisions; war-policy, that, for the modern era, exists today. And is not behind closed walls in a private collection. It's not even inaccessible, in books on a shelf; it's available to everyone free today. And that is because of Julian Assange's vision. So, I think those are all things that are really important to recognise, that in their totality are extraordinary. Any one of them would have been a kind of life-time achievement for someone who is a publisher, a journalist, who cares about access to public information, but all of them together provide a life's work over a decade and a half that is just exceptional.

NOTES

Topic:
Julian Assange
Julian Assange
Suelette Drefus
4 December 2019
State Library Victoria
event
Lizzie O'Shea
Kristinn Hrajnsson
Peter Grest
Julian Burnside
press-freedom

Read more about Video & transcripts from event: "What is Happening to Julian Assange & Journalism?" (4 Dec 2019 )

For an effective Australian campaign to free Julian Assange!

Wed, 2019-12-04 13:27 by James Sinnamon

The article below has been adapted from a leaflet I printed and handed out to many of those who attended the meeting last night at the State Library in support of Julian Assange. Whilst speakers at that meeting showed that the outlook for a broader and more effective for Julian Assange now seems better than what my leaflet below indicates, the fact remains that because of errors of judgement in many cases, time has been lost, and Julian Assange's very life may well be at stake now. Those who want to participate in the Melbourne campaign to free Julian Assange could visit https://twitter.com/Melbourne4Wiki, https://www.facebook.com/Melbourne-4-WikiLeaks-2301719993184488/ or e-mail [email protected].

Topic:
Julian Assange
WikiLeaks
Socialist Equity Party
Caitlin Johnston

Read more about For an effective Australian campaign to free Julian Assange!

Oz MPs finally starting to stand on hind legs to help Julian Assange - more needed!

Mon, 2019-10-14 21:23 by Sheila Newman

Two Australian MPs - Barnaby Joyce and Andrew Wilkie - are at last trying to do something to get our government to help Julian Assange, who is currently at the mercy of the British establishment, which threatens to hand him over to a secret trial in the United States. See, "Barnaby Joyce says Government should protect Julian Assange from extradition to the US".

Independent Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie is apparently trying to get a coalition of supporters in the Australian Parliament to lobby for Assange's return to Australia. He has described Labour members as the most reluctant. See https://www.hepburnadvocate.com.au/story/6435790/barnaby-calls-on-australia-to-help-assange/?cs=7

Meanwhile Assange has been detained in prison beyond the term of his imprisonment for skipping bail (in fear of his life) whilst awaiting a hearing of the case to extradite him to the United States.

The United States wants Assange because he exposed its war-crimes. It is likely that any US tribunal that gets its hands on Assange will try him in secret, with no witnesses. The US has accused him of crimes that should only apply to US citizens. If the United States is given permission to extradite Assange by the UK, that will mean that the UK will have more or less crowned the US as a world emperor, by granting it jurisdiction over the whole world.

Topic:
Julian Assange
Barnaby Joyce
Andrew Wilkie
14-October-2019
Oz initiative to save Julian Assange

Read more about Oz MPs finally starting to stand on hind legs to help Julian Assange - more needed!
3 comments

Pages
« first
‹ previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
next ›
last »

	Electorate	State	Party	M/S

Mr George Christensen MP	Dawson	Qld	Liberal National Party of Qld	Co-Chair
Mr Andrew Wilkie MP	Clark	Tas	Independent	Co-Chair
Mr Adam Bandt MP	Melbourne	Vic	Greens	Member
Mr Steve Georganas MP	Adelaide	SA	Labor Party	Member
Dr Helen Haines MP	Indi	Vic	Independent	Member
Mr Julian Hill MP	Bruce	Vic	Labor Party	Member
Hon Barnaby Joyce MP	New England	NSW	The Nationals	Member
Mr Peter Khalil MP	Wills	Vic	Labor	Member
Ms Rebekha Sharkie MP	Mayo	SA	Centre Alliance	Member
Ms Zali Steggall OAM, MP	Warringah	NSW	Indpendent	Member
Ms Susan Templeman MP	Macquarie	NSW	Labor Party	Member
Ms Maria Vamvakinou MP	Calwell	Vic	Labor Party	Member
Mr Josh Wilson MP	Fremantle	WA	Labor Party	Member
Mr Tony Zappia MP	Makin	SA	Labor Party	Member

Julian Assange

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

What have you to fear from a debate on Julian Assange? - Open Letter to Scott Morrison

Appendix: Notice of Motion by Julian Hill MP (first posted here)

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

First event: Protest outdside the British Consulate - 90 Collins Street, 7:30AM-9:00AM

Second event: Weekly Friday evening Vigil for Julian Assange at Flinders Street Station

Topic:

Topic:

Appendix 1: Speech by Nils Melzer in support of Julian Assange

Appendix 2: My earlier suggested Parliamentary motion of 29 March

Topic:

15 June: Parliamentary discussion limited by collusion between Liberal/National Government & Labor Opposition?

15 June: How parliamentary rules allow the major parties to suppress discussion they don't want

Why have so few in Parliament had anything to say about Julian Assange, so far?

A motion in support of Julian Assange would massively invigorate debate in Parliament

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix: Australian Federal Parliamentarians speak up for Julian Assange

Petition: Mr Julian Assange - Andrew Wilkie, 10 Feb 2020

Assange, Mr Julian Paul - Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, 11 Feb 2020

#10;">Senate Notices - Presentation, #foreshadowedMotion" id="foreshadowedMotion">13 Feb 2020

Assange, Mr Julian - Mr George Christensen, 24 Feb 2020

Assange, Mr Julian - Senator Peter Whish-Wilson and Senator Katy Gallagher, 24 Feb 2020

Assange, Mr Julian - Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, 25 Feb 2020

Assange, Mr Julian - Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, 25 Feb 2020

#foreshadowedMotionOf2020" id="foreshadowedMotion2020">Correspondence received from Andrew Wilkie's office, Tuesday 15 June

Topic:

#whatYouCanDo">What you can do

My e-mail of 24 May to House of Representatives members of the "Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group"

Enclosed Letter of 23 May to Andrew Wilkie

Appendix: My earlier proposed motion of 29 March on Julian Assange

#bringAssangeHomeGroup">The "Bring Julian Assange Home" Group

House of Representatives members and supporters

Senate members and supporters

Footnote[s]

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Pentagon Papers whistleblower reveals that he also committed 'offence' for which Assange has been indicted

Another Twitter Post

Pentagon Papers whistleblower reveals that he also committed 'offence' for which Assange has been indicted

Topic:

Topic:

James Sinnamon speaks at Vigil for Julian Assange

Footnote[s]

Topic:

End the illegal detention and torture of this Australian hero.

Why won't the Australian government act to get Julian Assange out of the Belmarsh hellhole?

What you can do

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Excerpt from Craig Murray's report for Hearing Day 21

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

‘Subverting parliament’

‘Interfering with fair trial’

Topic:

Excerpts from Suelette Drefus's comments on Whistleblowers round the world.

Assange before he became an asylum-seeker

Contribution of Wikileaks to National Security Reporting

NOTES

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Pages

Tags in Topic

Help save injured wildlife

Recent comments