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these circumstances, the lord president, Lord Gill, and the other Scottish judicial officeholders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference."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. ...""
This is total flamebait.
with the rest of the UK.
They seem mostly to be concerned with protecting peadophiles rather than their constituants. Our politicians are the only people I am aware of that are anti-Assange.
Maybe not so much a boycott as the judges being careful not to break the rules. IANAL, but there a lots of rules that prohibit the communication between defendants and judges, at least in US law, and I presume it's similar in GB.
Should be conqured.
Marry young girls.
Given what we know about groups like JTRIG, spook groups that make false victim claims, fake evidence, use 'honeypots' (i.e. women offering sex),
The whole legal system is on trial. Several UK judges have permitted evidence in secret from the spooks, which denies the right of the defendant to challenge it, so they're not exactly an innocent group here of perfect people defending the basis of law.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/exclusive-snowden-docs-show-british-spies-used-sex-dirty-tricks-n23091
"British spies have developed "dirty tricks" for use against nations, hackers, terror groups, suspected criminals and arms dealers that include releasing computer viruses, spying on journalists and diplomats, jamming phones and computers, and using sex to lure targets into "honey traps.""
"Documents taken from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden and exclusively obtained by NBC News describe techniques developed by a secret British spy unit called the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group (JTRIG) as part of a growing mission to go on offense and attack adversaries ranging from Iran to the hacktivists of Anonymous. According to the documents, which come from presentations prepped in 2010 and 2012 for NSA cyber spy conferences, the agency's goal was to "destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt" enemies by "discrediting" them, planting misinformation and shutting down their communications. "
because that is appropriate.
Mr Assange is a de facto political prisoner.
That these judges were required to show "loyalty" to their government by walking out, instead of asserting the independence of the judiciary - a basic requirement for a democracy that takes itself seriously - exposes, in my view, much about the sorry state of the United Kingdom. And it looks like it's the same everywhere I look..
Bewigged Fools! You of all people should know better!
What they so afraid of, that they have to hide behind avoidance phrases like "not appropriate"?
On the one hand I can appreciate the judge's worry; he may one day see Julian in his court. On the other hand Julian is not a fugitive from the British police, and he was scheduled because he has something important to say. Do you close your ears to someone because you might someday have to listen to him?
If... oh say Iran, declared the chief justice of Scotland to be a fugitive, would it make it so? I would say no, because the chief justice is not in Iranian jurisdiction, and not in a jurisdiction subject to Iranian extradition. The same goes for Assange. If there's a difference, I'd love to know what it is.
The UK handled everything per the law. They received an extradition request from a country they have a treaty with regarding this. They are required by the treaty to deal with these, they can't ignore them. So they reviewed it in court, to make sure it was a valid request per the treaty and decided it was. He appealed and the case moved up the chain until the high court heard it and decided that this extradition request is legitimate under the treaty, the UK has no standing to refuse.
Up until this point, Assanage was in no trouble in the UK, he hadn't broken UK law, they were just acting based on the extradition request. However then he fled. That is now a violation of UK law. He violated the conditions of his bail. That makes him a criminal in the UK. Skipping bail doesn't make you a "political prisoner" it makes you a standard criminal.
to protect their interests, too bad the rest of us can't
agen bola, agen judi, agen casino
http://198.50.133.242/claudio-bravo-banjir-pujian/
How can a Law Conference be an: "important forum for sharing experiences and good practice across the legal profession." if it does not invite high-profile judges, lawyers, criminals, fugitives, and police alike? If it is "inappropriate" for one particular legal class to address another then I don't see how a productive conference can be possible.
Anyone with the least grasp of what a conflict of interest is, should know that, whatever the opinion of those judges, they did the professional thing to do: left a colloquial event in order to prevent influence of informal statements from a very likely candidate to be heard in their courts. Simple as that
The whole situation is doubleplusgood agiprop. Truth is lies. War is peace and the Tory or is it the Labor government will protect your rights and privacy?
lot of whiny commenters here: to shut someone up you make trumped up charges, isn;t that an abuse of the justice system? just to cowtow to the usa lol
loads of people whine here about human rights abuses in equador or other countries you don;t like but when your own goverment abuses the law to shut someone up you're silent lol nice behaved slaves lol, do as your told
many european countries don't have freedom of speech, and with sheeple like you censoring those that speak out its even more difficult. ( not that wikileaks is 100% legit)
The Judges are boycotting the whole conference, not just the speech by Assange, the whole conference.
It's political gesture not a legal one, trying to pressure the conference organizers not to let Assange speak, rather than protecting themselves in any later prosecution they might be involved in.
"But, first and foremost, he's a wanted CRIMINAL in the UK for skipping bail"
First and foremost he's a journalist who published embarrassing leaks and is on a target list:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/18/julian_assange_on_being_placed_on
These targets being ones outside the normal legal processes.
"One document from 2010 shows that the National Security Agency added WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to a "manhunting" target list, together with suspected members of al-Qaeda."
Until they get rid of those stupid, girly wigs, I have no interest in what UK judges say. Tossers.
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
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.
Nice try, but sorry, no. The grandparent discussed "quality material", not aiding fugitives. Taking a quick glance at Wikipedia, it looks like they stopped releasing anything of note around 2013.
Which raises the question, why aren't people giving them stuff anymore? Certainly part of it is tinfoil hat paranoia (justified or no) - but I suspect a large part of it is Assange's hijacking Wikileaks to serve as a platform for his ego and fallout from the internal political battles back in 2010 or so.
Judges who cannot fact the truth, are corrupt and should be removed from the bench.
... because I have better things to do than listen to that pasty son of a bitch rattle on as if he's actually a productive individual.
Assange talks about things Wikileaks has done AFTER they have done it. He's the SPOKSEPERSON. He's said numerous times the HE, HIMSELF, has not released any documents.
Assange is useless as tits on a boar hog.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Since Tony Blair first came to power in the UK, every major UK institution has been put under the control of Blairites. Now Blair operates on the world stage- mostly invisible to ordinary sheeple- arranging things like the recent Holocaust in Gaza, the destruction of Libya, the rise of Saudi Arabia terror gangs (like ISIS and Boko Haram), mass murder of ethnic Russians in Eats Ukraine, etc.
Britain's senior judges do exactly what their military intelligence minders tell them to do (and this was true long before Blair was born). It is notable, of course, that 100% of senior British judges backed Blair's program of grabbing and keeping DNA records of as many innocent Brits as possible, and actually issued public statements MOCKING the idea that people had the right to object under Human Rights laws. After failing at every UK court, objectors took their case to the European Rights Court, where the judgement was 100% AGAINST Tony Blair and his legal goons.
Think on this. 100% of senior British judges STATED that the government had the right to forcible take and keep DNA records of INNOCENT Britons. The judgement of the ECHR was 100% AGAINST the abuse, and forced the legal filth of the UK to PRETEND to change their policy.
This is how EVIL Tony Blair appointed senior judges are in the UK - but in every AUTOCRACY things go this way. PS Britain has an upcoming election were the choice is between four main parties of Tony Blair quislings, ensuring Blair's rule continues for another age. Massively increasing authoritarianism and the continued growth of the police state and surveillance society is all Britain has to look forward to.
Now for the shill responses arguing the fake left/right paradigm in politics in most of the West represents "real choice".
PS you Yanks are getting Rand Paul for president next year- and no US politician is closer in form to Blair than Paul.
Hi Julian, seems the TLA trolls are out in force today! If you could be so kind I would really like to know the answer to the question below. In 1947 when Roswell occurred the Jews were only 47% through their 100 year plan to buy Palestine. They subsequently asked that it be kept under wraps until they had time to forcefully and prematurely take over in 1948. To cut a long story short, it is always impossible to admit to a crime and the USA subsequently spent more and more money covering it up. Today we have the bits and pieces from Roswell hidden in the fake centre ridge of three 5km North South running ridges just East of Nellis AFB and Frenchmans Mountain in Las Vegas. This is the USA's ufo research facility. What I would like to know is what the exact writing says around the edge of the craft? It will be something like 'Sorry about the whole God bull dust thing'. Thanking you in advance. Your friend Apple Pie.
Assange discovers corruption in politics, police, and judiciary, etc.
He then makes some evidence of this public.
Then they attack him, in corrupt ways.
And then he flees into an embassy.
And top commenters here argue he should just bow to corrupt systems,
follow some "laws", as if they were not corrupt.
These commenters are stupid or corrupt, obviously.
Not the text, "just the amount of "nested" quote marks"! It's hard to keep count, but I think we're left with two un-closed quote contexts at the end.