[governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain

[Riaz K Tayob]

But let us be clear that the rich countries play fast and loose with 
their own laws, according to a well referenced comment (seems consistent 
with other reports) on the UK Guardian editorial lambasting Assange 
(quoted below) and that Australia also seems to have no concerns 
regarding Assange and his extradition 
<http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html> 
(and possible torture). So the double standards in the selective 
application of Swedish law is something that also needs to be faced and 
it is INSUFFICIENT to argue that Sweden is just following the rules. 
Perhaps we need to widen the net say that it is not just America and its 
poodle (as the Atlanticist humour goes) but Northern exceptionalism. 
Perhaps IG could consider a coalition of civil society that firmly 
rejects such exceptionalism, irrespective of one's position on how to 
change CIR governance.

The problem I have on this list is how to deal with those who enter the 
fray and then do not deal with issues that are raised in response. I am 
sure that I have not been convincing in many cases, but it shows the 
tenor of discussions on this list... those with critical views are 
required to justify ad nauseum while the "mainstream IG" views can just 
plod along with satisfaction that they are  hanging on the coat tails of 
the mighty...

As this is a techie community perhaps I should explain why this sucks 
(barring people being busy etc): because it indicates that one is 
participating not in a genuine dialogue (people are interested in being 
partisan or being right, not in an evolutionary manner that is apt to 
change). The matters are not interrogated to the point where the 
essentialia of the dispute are clarified so that lurkers can discern the 
points in contest, forks in the road regarding reasoning/judgement are 
identified, etc - and then make judgements based on their own 
predilection - they just drop the issue. It is important to engage so 
that this point is reached if we are civil society, otherwise we are 
idiots (the classical definition - as I would like to those who have the 
monopoly on namecalling to retain it as it bespokes for most not only 
intent but substance as far as I discern). But then again tolerance of 
double standards is something "we" just have to put up with (and still 
be called out for non-participation even though it is exercise of a 
democratic choice, fork in the road decision, etc). But if this is the 
case, then let it not be said there is not grounds for saying that at an 
ESSENTIAL level (many of those who engage against a proverbial "us") the 
virtue of engagement on this list is based on "might is right" (which 
explains namecalling and double standards as preponderant method of 
engagement on CIR and "tangential" issues)... Now it is convenient to 
think that the excellent dialogue between Conrad and Parminder showed up 
Parminder as being unclear, non--technical, 
not-knowing-what-he-is-talking-about, etc... on the other hand it can be 
a reflection of the virtues of engagement in a community where we work 
together even if we disagree on issues... I prefer the latter discourse 
to the former....

Snip:

/"Firstly, in Sweden they revealed the identity of Assange against the 
law (SFS: 2009:400 Law about Public Access to Information and Security, 
Chapter 18 and 35). In Britain, Assange could sue for defamation simply 
on those grounds. /

/It is also important that the case is addressed immediately so that a 
person can be detained on a sufficient basis. Ms Ny, the prosecutor, 
denied the opportunity to interview Mr. Assange after she took over the 
case on 1 September 2010, even though he was in Sweden until the 27 
September 2010, and had already been voluntarily interviewed over the 
three lesser allegations./

/When Ms Ny revived the investigations on the 2 September and had 
re-interviewed one of the complainants she did not act then to interview 
Mr Assange, which would have been an imperative in such a case (Supreme 
Court in Sweden NJA 2009 s. 447 I o II and B 2937-10). /

/Also another denial of justice was done to Mr Assange by the Swedish 
police when they interviewed both complainants together allowing the 
contamination of evidence./

/Ms Ny also used unreasonable and disproportionate powers by enacting a 
European Arrest Warrant rather than arranging for questioning in Britain 
using Mutual Legal Assistance, especially in a case where it is one 
person’s word against another."/


On 2012/08/21 02:48 AM, Norbert Klein wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 1:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug 
>> 2012, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> writes
>>> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to 
>>> explain why he could not be questioned in the UK."
>>>
>>> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question?
>>
>> As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done in 
>> front of what's generically described as an "investigating 
>> magistrate" (and not the police) and therefore has to be on that 
>> magistrate's home territory.
> Thanks for the revelation - still extremely surprised that the Swedish 
> government did not give this information for 19 months! But now, 
> thanks to this information on our list, the world can know and relax.
>
> Still deeply wondering why the world had to wait for 19 months until 
> finally our list breaks the silence.
>
> And I observe all this in the context where I live and work, where, 
> years ago, there were often appeals using examples from the "developed 
> world" which should be followed where there is transparency and public 
> justice. Of course such black-and-white arguments where wrong anyway, 
> but convenient.
>
> To take a similar approach when we here have to discuss more and more 
> issues of freedom of expression (which is in the constitution) and 
> Internet control, it is not so easy to point to other more ideal worlds.
>
> That is the background from which I think that the allegation of 
> personal misconduct and the different case of Wikileaks have a 
> rightful place on this list: different legal issues are connected. 
> Like we have to struggle often in similar ways here.
>
>
> Norbert Klein
> Cambodia
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120821/9b316ea6/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