Double Aussie perspective: brill article & a
reminder of the film which exposes the Assange
facts they don't want us to know & explodes all the bullshit
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=171928#171928
Sex, Lies and Julian Assange By Andrew Fowler and Wayne Harley May 16, 2013
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/23/3549280.htm
Disregard for UN ruling on Julian Assange's
detention will be a blow to human rights
February 7, 2016 - 18 reading nowRead later
Sweden and Britain ignore the UN's landmark
opinion on the detention of Julian Assange at
their peril, writes Melinda Taylor.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/disregard-for-un-ruling-on-assanges-detention-a-blow-to-human-rights-20160207-gmnlsp.html
Julian Assange, pictured on the balcony of
Ecuador's London embassy, with the UN report that
says he is being 'arbitrarily detained' by
Britain and Sweden. Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth
In September 2014, Julian Assange filed a
complaint against Sweden and Britain with the
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD).
In a landmark opinion issued on February 5, 2016,
WGAD upheld Assange’s complaint that he is a
victim of illegal and arbitrary detention, and
thereby dispelled the myths that Assange chooses
to remain in the Embassy or that he is a fugitive from justice.
This opinion is a victory not only for Assange,
but for the right of whistle-blowers everywhere
to be protected from persecution, and for the
victims who benefit from their work.
WGAD affirmed that Assange had been detained
continuously for more than five years: first in
isolation in a prison, then under house arrest,
and finally, under Embassy arrest which was
comprised of continuous confinement and police surveillance.
Regarding the latter, WGAD further found that
this "gilded cage" lacked the basic amenities
required to satisfy the minimum rights of
detainees, such as access to appropriate medical facilities and treatment.
The report said this had placed Assange’s health
at “serious risk”. Assange did not choose to be
detained in this manner. In February 2012, the
Special Rapporteur on Torture issued findings
that Chelsea Manning had been subjected to cruel
and inhumane treatment in the United States while
being interrogated in relation to Assange and Wikileaks.
There were also concrete indicia that the United
States was conducting a full-blown investigation
into Assange, and was engaged in discussions with
Sweden regarding his future extradition to the US.
Assange therefore requested Ecuador to afford him
protection from the well-founded risk that he
would be subjected to persecution and cruel and
inhumane treatment if extradited to the US.
After a thorough consideration of the
application, Ecuador granted Assange asylum under
the terms of the 1951 Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees. Sweden and Britain have
ratified this convention, but both refused to
either recognise Assange’s asylum status, or
provide him with assurances against refoulement to the US.
As a result, Assange was faced with an impossible
catch-22; if he stayed in the Embassy, he could
be detained indefinitely, but if he left he would
be the next victim of the US’ war on whistle-blowers.
This risk of refoulement to the US formed the
prison bars which kept him detained. In a damning
indictment of the manner in which Sweden and
Britain handled this situation, WGAD underscored
Assange’s continued willingness to co-operate
with the Swedish investigations during all stages
of the procedure, and concluded that he is in
fact a victim of a significant miscarriage of justice.
Concretely, for over five years, the Swedish
Prosecutor refused to question Assange in Sweden,
London or the embassy, and refused to provide him with access to the case file.
Assange was, as a result, denied the right to
clear his name, and to dispel the cloud of
suspicion which has been unfairly fanned by the
high profile nature of this case. This
contravened the presumption of innocence, and his
right to have the uncharged allegations
investigated fairly, impartially and expeditiously.
In light of these findings, WGAD upheld Assange’s
complaint that he is arbitrarily detained. WGAD
further recognised that Assange should not have
to sacrifice his right to liberty in order to
enjoy protection from torture: Sweden and Britain
were requested to ensure his safety, protection
and his right to freedom of movement.
In an important recognition of the fact that
Assange has been a victim of this process, WGAD
further ordered Britain and Sweden to accord him
an enforceable right to compensation.
Of course, financial compensation can never bring
back the time that Assange has lost with his
family, but it may provide a powerful incentive
for Sweden and Britain to implement the findings
now, rather than later, given that the potential costs will continue to mount.
Such incentives are important given that
Britain's foreign secretary came out swinging,
with claims that Britain has no obligation to
comply with the “ridiculous” finding, issued by “laypersons”.
The foreign secretary was apparently not briefed
on the fact that WGAD is a specialised United
Nations body composed of impartial, international
legal experts, which applies binding standards of
international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.
This response is of course disappointing, but it
is also untenable. Political posturing cannot and
should not prevail over a detailed, impartial
assessment based on facts and law.
Britain and Sweden cannot simply ignore WGAD’s
findings because it is them in the dock, or
because they disagree with Assange’s whistleblowing activities.
The system of international human rights law
established by the United Nations Charter serves
to protect the rights of all persons, weak and strong, throughout the world.
Their disregard for this decision would only
serve to diminish this system of protection, and
weaken the rights of victims everywhere. Of
course, today it is Assange – an antipodean who
challenges authority – but tomorrow, if it is
someone from England or Sweden locked up
illegally, what authority will Sweden and Britain have to demand their release?
Arbitrary detention is also a grave international
crime, akin to torture and cruel and inhumane treatment.
If Britain and Sweden intentionally continue this
crime, they may have more to worry about then financial sanctions.
Melinda Taylor is a human rights lawyer and a
member of Julian Assange's legal team.
--
--
Please consider seriously the reason why these elite institutions are not discussed in the mainstream press despite the immense financial and political power they wield?
There are sick and evil occultists running the Western World. They are power mad lunatics like something from a kids cartoon with their fingers on the nuclear button! Armageddon is closer than you thought. Only God can save our souls from their clutches, at least that's my considered opinion - Tony
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"PEPIS" group. Please feel free to forward it to anyone who might be interested
particularly your political representatives, journalists and spiritual leaders/dudes.
To post to this group, send email to pepis@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pepis-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pepis?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PEPIS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pepis+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
