On the eve of World Press Freedom Day, Julian Assange appeared in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court briefly by video link from Belmarsh prison. There, he stated “I do not wish to surrender myself for extradition for doing journalism that has won many, many awards and protected many people”.
After the 15-minute hearing, he was likely taken straight back to his cell, where according to , editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Assange has been confined for 23 hours a day since entering the maximum security prison known as Britain’s Guantanamo Bay.
And there Julian Assange will remain until another procedural hearing on May 30, followed by the big one on June 12. Only then will the Trump administration’s lawyers outline all of the charges it plans to bring against Assange for doing the work that has seen him awarded more than 15 journalism prizes, all bestowed while he was a member of the trade union and professional association of Australian media workers, the MEAA. Several of the awards have come since the UK High Court ruling of November 2, 2011, the first line of which described Assange as, “…a journalist, well known through his operation of WikiLeaks.”
Assange was granted asylum and then citizenship by Ecuador on the basis that he was: without “the adequate protection and help that he should receive from the State of which he is a citizen” and due to credible belief and fear that the US sought to prosecute him, a publisher, for publishing — a belief confirmed within minutes of Assange entering court after Ecuador illegally withdrew his asylum three weeks ago.
For over eight years, the counterintelligence and smear campaigns against WikiLeaks have included fusing Assange’s name to sexual allegations, claiming that his presence in the Ecuadorian Embassy was fleeing justice. This was never the case. It was always about the US extradition. No charges were ever brought against Assange in Sweden. In fact, emails released under FOI revealed that Swedish authorities wanted to drop the arrest warrant for Assange as early as 2013 while the UK government insisted it continue.
Arguing that the prosecution of Julian Assange is unrelated to publishing is not just a quibbling demarcation dispute or a form of cognitive dissonance. It is a political and legal assertion that he is undeserving of first amendment protections that will have wide ramifications for whistleblowers, the watchdog role of the media in democratic societies, and even for those who like Peter Greste and his ilk arbitrarily believes worthy of the title “journalist”.
Former ABC Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes responded to Greste’s recent opinion piece by reaffirming these 2011 remarks in which he puzzled over why any journalist would feel inspired to claim Assange and WikiLeaks were not practicing journalism:
I suspect that this is a form of curious jealousy. They are nervous about the world of the internet. They are nervous about the proliferation of journalism on the internet. They are jealous of guarding their position as the gatekeepers, as the people who mediate between the public and information. Of course Assange has always believed that that mediation should be kept to a minimum and the job is just to get the stuff out there.
That’s an argument anyone can have, but if you are going to receive information from a source like WikiLeaks but deny that the person who set that up is a journalist, in the full knowledge that that makes them more vulnerable to prosecution, I don’t know how you can sleep at night.
But who’s sleeping when there is so much to read?
Since 2006 WikiLeaks has published well over 10 million documents. Often forgotten is that each one was provided by a whistleblower who trusted this platform to publish, and who sought reform of how political, corporate & media power elites operate. Each release has shared genuine official information about how governments, companies, banks, the UN, political parties, jailers, cults, private security firms, war planners and the media actually operate when they think no one is looking. I compiled a list here to remind all of us of just how many remarkable releases the organisation has provided, used as evidence in court cases, freeing prisoners and exposing scandals, torture, murder and surveillance for which redress is only possible when the wrongdoing is dragged into the light.
Opposition to the extradition of Assange is growing as it slowly dawns that a precedent is being set that threatens all publishers and the first amendment protections afforded to journalists in the US. The inaction of Australia’s major parties when in government during this saga have been woeful and embarrassing. If our new government presses the UK government to provide diplomatic assurances against extradition to the US, it will be because a concerted campaign effort gets going in earnest, similar to that which brought David Hicks home.
Julian Assange is not perfect — who of us is? But he has sacrificed everything so that we can understand our world, its wars, its trade deals, and how governments, banks and the UN are rendered corrupt and compromised. That is precisely why he is so dangerous. Not because of his mistakes, but his successes.
What are your thoughts on Julian Assange’s current situation? Write to boss@crikey.com.au with your full name and let us know.
If Assange’s chance of freedom is dependent upon any Australian political party, apart from the Greens, then he’s gone for at least 40 years.
Apart from Mark Latham (when opposition leader for the ALP many moons ago) I cannot recall any politician from the two major parties who has failed to tug on their forelock at the mention of the USA. What is it, Australia…?
Good piece Felicity. Holmes was correct to slam Greste for his self serving, vindictive and destructive comments about Assange. Greste was the beneficiary of enormous support and largesse from Australian’s and the government. His comments were disgraceful and he has shown himself to have not been worthy of that. Australia will sit and watch this man be abducted by the US and persecuted. Appalling and frightening and a dreadful attack on freedom.
“It’s different to when the Egyptians take you and do what they did to Greste : when the US takes a fellow journalist and Ozzie, and your government that “saved” you (to which you might owe so much “gratitude”?) is on their side too”?
The overt persecution of Assange by the UK and the US is despicable and Australia’s failure to protect an Australian citizen is also despicable. It demonstrates that the secrets of the military, security organisations and diplomatic services are more important than mere humans. This is how insane western governments have become. They will readily persecute citizens to protect government operatives from the revelation of their incompetence, malice and conspiracy with others to keep banal secrets confidential at all costs. How does that constitute representation of citizens?
Despite all the hyperbole from the US government, in which the Australian parliament and agents have been complicit, as far asI am aware, not a single person has been harmed by the Wikileaks revelations; ie apart from Assange, Manning and some justified embarrassment to the authors of many disclosed documents
The way Australia has allowed this persecution makes me ashamed of Australia and its craven politicians when it comes to demands from the US. And that does not appear to have changed despite the chaotic current presidency of the US. But we cannot hope for any ethical conduct by the Australian government given the outrageous pursuit of Witness K and Bernard Colleary and the ATO whistleblower, Richard Boyle. That the vast majority of Australians do not care about those prosecutions show how selfish and insular we have become as a society. But an overt racist like Hanson blubbering on TV stimulates sympathy in many. Go figure.
Further I cannot understand the UK judge’s decision that Assange skipping bail on an extradition application made by Sweden in the UK on a mere suspicion of the commission of a crime, in respect of which no formal criminal charges have ever been issued against Assange, is apparently so heinous. It seems to suggest the the UK judiciary is part of the conspiracy to persecute him. But that cannot be the case.
As your article says, it looks like only public opinion can save him from further oppression.
Public opinion will no doubt help but what is more likely to get Julian Assange out of jail is the Westminster Magistrates Court, which will put on trial, not so much Assange, as the American prosecutors who are hoping the court will easily grant their request for extradition. They will have to make a legally compelling case for extradition, which Assange’s lawyers will parry at each step, argue a case of political persecution, and drag the process out for months if not years. By then governments will have changed in the US, UK and Australia, to ones hopefully more respectful of the rights of journalists and whistleblowers. These issues have been well canvassed by that extraordinary Australian journalist John Helmer, who I dare say not many in this country have even heard of. Two of his articles can be read here:
http://johnhelmer.net/the-julian-assange-case-now-puts-the-us-on-trial-in-a-british-court-is-there-a-get-out-of-jail-card-for-assange/#more-20699
http://johnhelmer.net/virtue-signalling-wont-save-julian-assange-british-law-might/
In the meantime I’m sure Assange is better off under British legal protection than in the Ecuadorian embassy. I might add that although he was carried out like a battering ram by seven policeman, the photos of him in the van seem to show him beaming with a sort of “mission accomplished” look. And incidentally, as he was being heaved out, his hands were manacled but held what appeared to be a man’s portrait. Other viewers noticed this and identified it as a copy of Gore Vidal’s “History of the National Security State”. The messages here are truly multi-layered. Read about it here:
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/why-was-julian-assange-clutching-a-book-by-gore-vidal-as-he-was-dragged-from-the-ecuadorian-embassy
Just one word to offer in response to this piece of Ms Ruby’s;
“BRAVO!!”
And, thank you for including the link to the Ecuadorian government’s rationale for granting JA asylum, in the first place.
And, this one line from that rationale says so, so much;
“That Ecuador has verify that Mr. Assange does not count with the adequate protection and help that he should receive from the State of which he is a citizen”.
Obviously, one has to ignore the translation shortcomings, and just get the gist.
Of course, those were the days of Rafael Correa.
These are the times of Lenin Moreno, and here you can see just what it is that floats the Moreno boat;
https://www.rt.com/news/458215-wikileaks-editor-entry-ecuadorian-embassy/
“WikiLeaks editor denied entry to Ecuadorian Embassy to retrieve Assange’s belongings”
“I sent them an email and told them I would be there at 3 o’clock with a full mandate from Julian Assange, his family and friends and that I am the editor-in-chief of the WikiLeaks. They did not open the door. It is disgraceful,” Hrafnsson told a crowd of around 50 Assange supporters that had gathered in front of the embassy following the publisher’s extradition hearing.”