[governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Mon Aug 20 09:26:09 EDT 2012
First (not on your post, but provoked by it) of all we could embrace
some of the complexity of the situation and have people state their
views without calling for the silencing of others' views (othering iow)
- that not all those who support Assange's asylum request are against
the complainants, are conspiracy theorists nor trying to introduce
unrelated issues into this sphere (we merely respond to the invitation
of Exceptionalism)... iow some decorum instead of pushing people with
different (and credible - i.e. capable of being entertained without
being accepted) world views into a defensive corner.
Second, some clarity on facts (like reality, which has some consistency)
would be ok. When Assange claims political asylum of course he is
skipping bail. But asylum is granted to those with a well founded fear
of persecution. In UK he is a criminal, in Ecuador he is not. To simply
insist that the rich North countries are better does not take the
argument further. Then to stoop to namecalling (conspiracy theorist,
callous about rape - or alleged rape, etc) as a tactic is just nonsense.
There are many people who see the need for dealing with issues of
legitimacy. But civil society on this list seems to arrogate to certain
groups/individuals/world views that authority to tell others not only
what to think and how to think. If (and not speaking for others, but
with some identification - with which they can disagree) Parminder et al
were to adopt the tone of our critics then on issues like the Great Fire
Wall of China we could namecall too and say racists (invitation - review
China discussions with what was said about the North and see for
yourself), what would happen to discussion and debate? We could even
call out about coconuts (no one makes claims about the South or Third
World being homogenous). But, with restraint, we largely refrain and
simply point to double standards, which with reason can be worked
through (of course no point engaging when you are not open to even
entertain others ideas, or that newbies on this list seem to get scared
about sharing info or their openness is read as siding with a particular
view). When American Exceptionalism is introduced as a rational, we
discuss it - and this list is remarkable for it robustness - and is free
from constrained political correctness. If Assange is irrelevant then
analogously so is AExcep as a rationale for DOC/ICANN/IANA domination of
CIR. But no one seems to make this link which follows logically (as the
argument goes)...
And imho there seems to be a "majority" (perhaps of posters to this
list) that seemingly support (albeit critically) ICANN (failing to see
that non-participation with it but participation with UN structures is a
democractic choice) win out as if majority is the only determinant of
legitimacy. That is why there are Bills of Rights - which ALSO operate
as countermajoritarian devices - some things, like racism are just not
on despite what the majority may want or think, or that in international
relations legitimacy is as important as effectiveness.
It is tragic that we have to deal with idiocy (in the classical sense -
those who do not engage in democracy) and have to repeatedly assert that
we have the right to define the debate in 'our' own terms (eg legitimacy
vs/AND effectiveness).
More specifically, on what would "open eyes" I am not sure. As it is
difficult. We do need to handle complexity which means handling
contradictions - as some who do engage claim to do when they engage in
ICANN etc. But simply because one group finds a particular set of
contradictions acceptable does not mean that they are universally
applicable. Those who insisted on only a single root then go on to
complain about technical "incompetence" of others. I mean, how does one
go about engaging on let alone resolving these kinds of first principle
double standards?
Some of these issues can be managed in at least the form and manner of
debate , but I think it is high time that those who call for balance in
support of their world view take a principled/ethical stance to
engagement on this list without seeking to question the right of others
to shape debates as they see fit (barring of course completely banal
contributions). The link between bona fides of American Exceptionalism
and IG have been made apposite on this list. To merely insist that it is
not is not debate, and moves to impose silence should be dealt with with
balance and even handedness. And with what passes for acceptable
discourse on this list, it is a hard core rebuttal unfortunately... and
if people don't like it, they can bump me off this list or perhaps then
give only as good as they are prepared to get... eye for an eye and all
that...
On 2012/08/20 02:43 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote:
> Diplomatic "indignity" is what we're left with just now. Sad situation
> indeed.
> What would open their eyes? (not suggesting anything here) A
> petition? Signature campaign? Protest march? "Satyagraha"
> movement? riots?
> -C
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com
> <mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> And the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity be damned (they
> UK threated to storm foreign territory, which is what an embassy
> is)? Which certainly has implications for faith in American
> Exceptionalism as a basis for CIR control.
>
> So I guess the taking of American hostages in Iran at the time of
> the overthrow of the American approved despot (the Shah) in the
> 1970s would be ok, retrospectively?
>
> Funny, he skipped bail but is willing to fulfil the claims for
> questioning on terms that do not expose him to the threat of
> extradition. Extradition to the US may involve treatment like
> Bradley Manning has received in US prison - long periods of
> solitary confinement. This kind of treatment is against the EU
> Bill of Rights, the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on
> Torture and regarded as unlawful (i.e. cruel and degrading
> punishment) even by the New York Bar Association.
>
> You see, if I don't like your principles on this matter, I have
> others... so for me it is completely specious to start of
> irrespective of extradition threat... its kinda like saying:
> irrespective of the REAL threat of torture and/or cruel and
> degrading punishment... which as you can surmise from my position
> is a non starter . . .
>
> ... and I will as always simply remain amazed at the robustness of
> discussion on this list . . . which is refreshing for its candour,
> of which we can all freely take part...
>
>
>
> On 2012/08/20 07:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> In message <502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com
> <mailto:502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com>>, at 10:53:58 on Sat, 18
> Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com
> <mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com>> writes
>
> The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three
> to around 50, with officers on the embassy's fire escape
> and at every window.
>
>
> I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if this
> is a repeat: Irrespective of any threat to extradite him, let
> alone the Wikileaks episode, Assange is a plain and simple
> fugitive from a UK court (he's skipped bail).
>
> The British Police would be roundly criticised if they let him
> escape through a back window in the middle of the night and
> make off across Hyde Park.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120820/44aaddce/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list