Slashdot Mirror
Assange Talk Spurs UK Judges To Boycott Legal Conference
An anonymous reader writes The Commonwealth Law Conference in Glasgow was subjected to walk outs and boycott once it became known that Julian Assange was to appear by video link from the Ecuadorian embassy to give a talk at the conference. The Guardian reports that, "Judges from Scotland, England and Wales and the UK supreme court had agreed to speak at or chair other sessions but withdrew – in some cases after arriving at the conference centre– when they found out about Assange's appearance. Among those to boycott the conference were the most senior judge in Scotland, Lord Gill, and two judges on the supreme court, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge. A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: "The conference programme was changed to include Mr Assange's participation at short notice and without consultation. Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice, and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him. "Under these circumstances, the lord president, Lord Gill, and the other Scottish judicial officeholders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference." A spokesman for the UK supreme court added: "Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge share the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and his fellow senior Scottish judges ... "As a result of this unfortunate development, they trust that delegates will understand their decision to withdraw from the conference. ..." A spokesman for judiciary of England and Wales said: "The lord chief justice shares the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and Lord Neuberger ... He agreed with the position taken by both, and the judges of England and Wales also withdrew from the conference. ...""
And the fact that his appearance was arranged "at short notice and without consultation" makes it appear that someone wants him to plead his case in front of the judges without going to trial.
notice how they aren't publishing leaks of any kind of quality for the last several years.
They helped Snowden get out of the US and then from Hong Kong to Russia, and then helped him to stay there with his girlfriend. That was only June 2013, so clearly they have been doing some very useful work in the "last several years".
Wikileaks can only leak what people give to them. You can't really blame them for not releasing more stuff, since it's not like they write it themselves.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I don't see why his being an alleged criminal means they aren't allowed to simply listen to him.
He is more than an alleged criminal. There is a warrant out for his arrest and he is seeking asylum in a foreign embassy. The judges are correct, his current status is that of being a fugitive. Since it is possible that Great Britain may one day extradite, it would be improper for them to share the stage (even if he is doing so remotely) with him. If nothing else, it would question whether they, the judges, could be impartial if his case came to trial.
Because, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Assange is not on British soil.
He is on British soil. Britain, like most (all?) countries in the world, doesn't consider embassy buildings to be the soil of the embassy's sending country.
For countries that have their embassy in the UK, them asserting that the embassy is their own soil doesn't have any effect. Sweden still needs to deport Assange from the UK as that is where he is as far as the UK is concerned. The Swedes could start extradition proceedings with Ecuador if they wanted but the UK would arrest him when he left the embassy and the extradition from Equador would have no effect. The UK doesn't need to extradite him from Equador either. They just need Equador to give him up to UK authorities.
The slightly more interesting case might be a UK embassy on the soil of a country who does say that embassies are the soil of the sending country. Because there are probably a few cases where it could matter - e.g. accident insurance that applies only in the UK - i.e. not for travel. If you fell and broke your leg in a UK embassy somewhere else in the world could you claim? The UK courts would probably say no even if the foreign country said "actually that building is in the UK".
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
"Fortunately the UK has judges of the calibre of Lords Gill, Neuberger and Hodge who, on trusts, would require an actual criminal offence or some other lawful reason, and evidence sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof, before deporting anyone."
It's important to note that the British courts have already upheld Assange's extradition at all levels up to the highest courts in the land, and so all of those judges you list would also chuck him out in a second if he wasn't hiding behind diplomatic protection in the Ecuadorian embassy. Actually it's more correct to say that they already have done that, since no further legal action is required or indeed possible to effect his extradition. But I take your point on my opinions of Assange, that wasn't the most constructive bit of the post.
Oh no... it's the future.
There is no charge.
It's not suprising you aren't aware of this - since the mainstream media made this smear non-stop and have been doing so.
So you can catch up:
1) The women involved don't want to charge him with anything, the prosecutor threw out the case, but a different prosecutor, allegedly with links to US intelligence opened the case in another location
2) Assange was interviewed over the allegations and told he was free to leave Sweden
3) Sweden issued an Interpol warrant, contravening the actual law on their issuance
4) The UK courts ruled that the issuance was illegal, and in future will not honor such a warrant.. but made an exception for Assange.
You're naïve as hell if you think there is anything 'lawful' regarding how Assange is being treated - from clowns saying he's charged with rape to thinking that there's this is about anything less than Assange having the journalistic balls to go after governments and corporations.
Its amusing how all four of the points you raise are false:
1. The initial prosecutor threw the case out, but a second senior prosecutor took up the case on request from the victims.
2. Assange was not told he was free to leave Sweden, infact his lawyer was specifically told they wanted to talk to him again and he should contact the police before leaving Sweden.
3. No Swedish or Interpol law was contravened by the issuance of Assanges warrant - infact, this is exactly the sort of use they are for.
4. All UK courts where this case has been argued has actually both affirmed the legality of the arrest warrant, and affirmed the right of the Swedish to issue it. No UK court has ruled it illegal, and most certainly no UK court has said what you claim they have said.
How about you get your facts in order before claiming bullshit, k?
No one in their right mind would release information to them. First, it's a long prison term under the best circumstances, and then you have all of that blood on your conscience.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Well fuck you and your total disregard for a fair trial.
Assange is in breach of bail conditions that are not considered excessively onerous, undue or demeaning. He's broken the law by failing to comply with those conditions.
It would compromise his right to a fair trial were he to speak beforehand with a judge that might preside over it. It would also compromise the public's right to a fair trial.