Assange's Balcony Speech

This afternoon Julian Assange delivered a long-awaited speech from the balcony of the Embassy of Ecuador in front of an assembled crowd of world media and supporters.  I'm intrigued to see what the press makes of it.  You can watch the speech in full here or read the full transcript here if you prefer.

I personally found the speech quite astounding.  There were various suggestions as to what he might say about the resolution of his situation, that he might submit voluntarily to the Swedish authorities etc.  He is of course under an obligation, as part of his being granted political asylum by the Republic of Ecuador, to refrain from making political statements.  Instead he used the opportunity, from the premises of the Embassy, to drive home a very political message and to describe his personal position in some of the dramatic terms that I have commented on in my last blog entry.

Specifically, the language he used would not be out of place in a political thriller.  He spoke in Hollywood terms of police "descending" on the building, "swarming" up an internal fire escape, "after dark".  He spoke in the language of the underdog: a courageous small nation standing up bravely to "threats" and taking a "stand for justice", a country defending its Constitution, of shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful, of unity in oppression and determination. 

All of this is of course like catnip to his devotees.  It is exactly the language they love and a reinforcement of a vision they seem to require.  The paranoid world they dwell in is full of fear, secrecy, and conspiracies.  He spoke to his supporters as being "witnesses" who had protected him, giving them a sense of importance and purpose.  It is all about vigilance: looking out for the hidden faces of the "enemy" and "oppression".  He reduced it to the personal: "his children who have been denied their father.  Forgive me, we will be reunited soon."

What he did not do once was mention why he was held up in the Embassy, which is because of his decision and own voluntary act in skipping bail, and being a fugitive from due judicial process.  Not once did he mention the two women in Sweden, alleged victims of serious sexual assault.  He blatantly conflated the work of Wikileaks (which many consider extremely valuable) with his personal situation of being a rape suspect avoiding justice.

To me he came across as being caught up in the same head space of many of his devoted supporters.  He expressly stated that the UK did not "throw away the Vienna Convention" because his supporters "were watching".  This must be either highly insincere, or the view of a fantasist.  The implication is the UK would have stormed the Embassy had no one noticed? I can't get my head round how that would work exactly.  I should have thought the media would have been involved in any such event, regardless of the presence of a group of people waiting outside.

He brought the United States into the picture by speaking of a witch hunt.  There was no acceptance that it is Sweden that requires him for a criminal prosecution, not a country that has not even sought his extradition.  It is exactly the same mixing of real and hypothetical that his supporters engage in. He spoke of Pussy Riot and the disgraceful case of the treatment of Private Manning.  What exactly do either of those have to do with his position as a rape suspect?

Assange named a host of Latin American nations whose foreign ministers would hold an "emergency meeting" (again note the drama of his language).  The irony that many on the list have quite dubious records on human rights and government oppression surely cannot be lost on the intelligent observer.  Here is a man whose organisation has stood up against government secrecy and censorship seeking refuge with regimes whose records are for the most part incomparably worse than the "oppressor" nations which are his enemies.

Julian Assange did not come across to me as a frightened man.  He came across today, in my subjective view, as an arrogant, egotistical, manipulative coward.  The last few days have really changed my view on him, and not for the better.  His speech took us no further.  It gave no detail of anything that would happen next, of any remorse, or of any recognition of the two women who have alleged serious sexual assault.  I joked before he came on that his appearance would remind me of a scene from Evita.  For the drama he plied on, and for his astounding egomania, I fear I was far from wrong.

Assange Cultism

Forgive me for blogging twice in as many days, but the reaction to my blog of last night is, to me, much more interesting than the actual subject matter.

I'm not "pro" or "anti" Assange, nor to be honest do I have strong feelings on Wikileaks.  I attempted yesterday evening to write a blog clarifying the situation without too much by the way of commentary.  I'd seen lots of information being banded about that I knew to be wrong and wanted to set out my understanding of the facts.

Conspiracy Theories

As a result I've come face to face with what many describe as the "cultism" around Julian Assange.  I have been told for example:

• that the "rape" is all a CIA set up
• that the "feminist dialectic is really a smoke screen.  The truth of the matter is: xxxx [the alleged rape victim] is a CIA collaborator"  
• that Sweden is a vassal state of the USA and that it collaborates in illegal activities for the US Empire
• that a secret grand jury has already been convened to sentence Assange to death 
• that there have been repeated calls from the US government for Assange's death.  This was backed up by an interview with his Mum as "evidence"

Above is a nice example.  He has "talked to [sic] much.. and now has to pay the bill".  There then follows the glib dismissal of allegations of a rape by shoving the term in inverted commas.  Time and time again people downgrade the seriousness of sexual offences in a similar way.  Owen Jones' excellent, balanced article on Assange today in the Independent had the alleged victims described as "two easy lays" and "hairy lipped feminists".  Welcome to "Misogyny R Us".

There is little point trying to argue against these wild assertions.  Why would the CIA set up the rape allegations to get Assange to Sweden, then ask for his extradition?  Why choose rape, which is notoriously hard to prove (his word against hers, etc) if this is a CIA "set up"? Why didn't the US try to extradite him from the UK?  Why demand an assurance from Sweden not to extradite, believing it to be a corrupt US poodle, when such assurance could then be broken?  Why convene a secret jury to sentence him to death? Why not just "take him out" (in a car crash for example whilst he was hiding in isolated rural Suffolk) - isn't that more fitting to the Bond movies that clearly inform these minds?  You can ask questions, there's an answer for all of it.

One woman told me the rape allegations had been dropped by the complainants.  When I asked for a link on this she said she had "heard it a while ago on Twitter".  Yep, that means it MUST be true, just like Prince Philip's recent death.  Even people as reputable as Stephanie Flanders get things wrong, such as that completely misleading BMW Olympics sexism story which I also blogged on recently.  My dog Oscar "tweets".  Guess what, you shouldn't believe everything he says either.  I *do* feed him enough biscuits.

If you're going to say "the truth is.." back it up with some facts, please.

The Personal Stuff

Then there are the personal attacks.  I wrote what I hoped was a balanced, neutral, informative piece.  I was accused of lying about being a lawyer.  I was told it was an incredibly biased piece and complete rubbish.   I'm a "moron to the highest degree", "I am a gullible idiot" etc.

[Update]: I particularly liked this one, which actually came in in relation to this post. For having pointed out that reactions can be a bit extreme I am labelled "an enemy of humanity": 

[Update 2]: This rather special one received 24/8/12 rather proves the thesis in Tweet A by the response in Tweet B:

Most of the tweets I have received have come from accounts without the people's actual faces on them.  Most seem to have few followers and can't spell properly or use proper grammar.  The language is fantastical and dramatic: "the US Empire", "enemies", "conspiracy", "in secret", "witch hunt", "war",  "shining a light into the dark world of" etc.   They represent the little man, just as Assange does.  They hold the truth and use that word, and the word "actually", to back up their assertions.  These people have read their books, seen their movies and they know there are state agents lurking round every corner to deal with them.  This presumably is why they don't reveal their identity on Twitter.  It's just not safe!  Their timelines are full of the same repetitive subject: #Assange, #Assange, #Assange

They have researched the details of the Swedish criminal allegations in depth: they know better than any police or judicial investigator, jury or judge what happened.  We, of course, have experience in this closer to home from the way Twitter weighs in to any high profile investigation (Jo Yeates/ Chris Jeffries, Tia Sharpe etc) and people set themselves up as experts and arbitrators.  I keep out of any trial by media or Twitter: how the hell can I judge (and why would I want to?) without the proper full range of evidence before me and the correct rules of court to govern their use.  I personally really don't have much interest in sharing unsubstantiated tittle-tattle.

The full extent of how bat-shit crazy some of these people are can be seen by allegations made towards Owen Jones.  He was accused of being a "racist idiot" (huh?), was told his position on Assange had left a huge question mark over his integrity, and was accused of being a state agent (anyone who knows Owen is no doubt rolling on the floor at this suggestion).  I know David Allen Green has been the subject of this kind of thing for months and apparently Louise Mensch has been treated to similar today.  Left, Centre and Right unite in being subject to this idiocy.

Radiator Fluid

Where does all this leave us?  Well, I genuinely had no knowledge and no expectation of any of this. I'd heard of Assange Cultism, but this was my first experience of it.   What I was trying to do was set out some facts, neutrally.  There seem to be a few people who just attract this level of blind, fanatical devotion: Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, Julian Assange.  I did tweet a question as to whether Beliebers would grow up to become Assangists.  A follower suggested it might be the other way round.  Hmm!

I have nothing against Bieber, but I do find the hero worship unbalanced and at times frightening.   Similarly, I really am not in position to say whether Assange is a knob or a saint.  I've never met him and don't know him personally.  What I can judge is the way many of his supporters appear unwilling to engage in any form of rational thought and spout every piece of utter nonsense they can in his defence.  The world, the state, the CIA, the USA are all conspiring against him and them.  Their behaviour changes nothing about what I think of Assange, but it has definitely opened my eyes about them.

Okay, I'm being a tad flippant now (permit me, I've been trolled quite a lot of late), but I do wonder if he told them to drink radiator fluid there would be a lot of fresh corpses dotted round the world.

Oh my.

Assange

There seems to be a lot of confusion and continued misinformation about Julian Assange going around on Twitter.  I'm not an expert, but here are eight points that I think are worth making:

1) He is Wanted in Connection with a Rape Investigation

People are still saying that he is wanted for "sex without a condom" which is an offence only in Sweden.  Wrong.  The European Arrest Warrant issued in respect of him clearly gives four offences that he is suspected of (but not yet charged for).  They are one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one of rape.

The issue of whether these were offences under English law was considered by the High Court (click for judgment).  Look at paragraphs 3, 78-91 (91 in particular).  It is very clear that the alleged offence is rape under English criminal law.  This very clear post by David Allen Green also sets out the situation: "English courts have held – twice – that the relevant allegation would also be an allegation of the offence of rape in English law"

Some people are saying "but he hasn't been charged".  The High Court considered since and noted differences in procedure between England and Sweden.  It determined he is clearly being "prosecuted". Whereas a suspect is charged early on in England, it is a final step in Sweden before trial.  There is a prima facie case against him with sufficient evidence.  Therefore extradition is possible, whereas in a case where someone is simply wanted for questioning it would not be.

2) This is the Personal Vendetta of one Swedish Prosecutor

Wrong.  The Stockholm District Court made an arrest order against Mr Assange, which he then challenged in the Swedish Svea Court of Appeal.  They examined the case in detail and determined there was probable cause and his arrest was justified.  His appeal was dismissed.

3) He has not had Full Recourse to the Courts of this Country

Wrong.  He has had a full hearing before the Senior District Judge and Chief Magistrate at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on his extradition.  It ordered his extradition to Sweden to face investigation (note, he is only the subject of an arrest warrant there and has not yet been charged).  Mr Assange appealed this order to the High Court.  It found against him.  He appealed to the UK Supreme Court.  It held against him.

4) He is a Fugitive from Justice

Indeed he is.  After the Supreme Court ruling went against him, he skipped bail and sought refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador before his deportation was scheduled to take place (commencing 28 June 2012).  He has therefore committed a separate criminal offence in this country for which he is wanted.

5) Britain has Threatened to Storm the Ecuador Embassy

It is debatable whether Britain has made an "open threat" to Ecuador as its foreign minister claims.  The text of the letter delivered by a British diplomat is said to be a reminder of the law by the Foreign Office, and a threat by others.  Judge for yourself.  I believe it can most definitely be seen as clumsy and may well have pushed Ecuador into its decision to grant political asylum.  As a small country it was keen to point out it was "not a British colony" and did not want to be seen to be bowing to pressure.

What the letter did not do was suggest Britain would break national or international law, which of course might well spark a serious international incident.  There is a power under English law to withdraw diplomatic recognition from a premises, which was introduced after the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher.  However, as Carl Gardner points out here very clearly any such decision must be in accordance with international law.  To do so would set a very difficult precedent and more than anything this looks to me like very clumsy saber rattling (that had of course, the opposite of the desired effect).

As for the SAS being about to storm the Embassy?  You've been watching too many movies.  A dull court case argued by public international lawyers is a lot more likely than that ever happening.

6)  Assange Can Now Leave the Country

Wrong.  He is stuck inside the Embassy of Ecuador in London and the moment he leaves the building, he is liable to be arrested.  Beginning in August 1989 and in the run up to November 1989, up to 20,000 East German citizens sought asylum in the West German Embassy in Prague.  This presented a massive problem: they had to be housed and fed in the grounds of the Lobkowicz Palace because they could not leave until a diplomatic solution was found.

The only feasible way of getting Assange from the Embassy and to a flight out of the country would be for him to be granted citizenship of Ecuador and then to be made a diplomat.  This would give him diplomatic immunity from arrest.  It's highly unlikely, but in with the Assange affair one never knows.

[Post script: it's been pointed out to me that the UK would have to accept his appointment as a diplomat. Even more unlikely, so we can discount this one.  Thanks @AdrianShort and @PeterNew!]

7) He faces a Secret Trial and/or he will be Extradited to America where he faces Death Penalty

I prefer to try to deal with facts.  There is nothing to suggest either case.  Sweden is far from being a tin-pot democracy.  It is a fellow EU member and ranks amongst the very highest countries in the world for lack of corruption (Sweden is currently 4th in the Corruption Perception Index; the UK is 16th).  If I personally had to go on trial anywhere, knowing I was innocent, I'd be quite happy to trust judicial process in any Scandinavian country.

The UK is interested in fulfilling its legal duty to extradite him to Sweden to face a criminal investigation.  There has not, to the best of my knowledge, been any request to extradite him to the US made to either the UK or to Sweden.  Arguably it would be less likely for this to take place from Sweden than from the UK in any case (see the many criticisms of our lenient US extradition policy).

Finally, both the United Kingdom and Sweden are prohibited from extraditing anyone who faces the death penalty under the European Convention of Human Rights. 

8)  The Man and the Movement

It is perfectly possible to support Wikileaks and the principles it stands for, whilst seeing Julian Assange as an individual to be judged on his own merits.  Why is that so controversial or difficult to grasp? 

Mr Assange is innocent until proven guilty of all the offences which he faces.  He has not yet been charged.  However, it seems fair to say that he has skipped bail in this country and that he is a fugitive from justice, who is wanted for questioning regarding very serious criminal sexual offences.

This issue is not like choosing sides in a soccer match.  You can be pro-Wikileaks and keen to see the rule of law operate.  This does not make you anti-Assange, an Assange Hater or anything else.  I, like you, have no idea whether he is guilty of the alleged crimes back in August 2010.  I do feel that the alleged victims deserve to be taken seriously, having taken the step of reporting the alleged offences to the Police, and that they should have some form of closure.

It is frankly irrelevant who the man is who is wanted for questioning, and what other great things he may (or may not) have done.  If you believe in judicial process and the rule of law, it is hard to argue he should not return to Sweden for questioning (after, of course, dealing with the consequences of his behaviour here in jumping bail).