The Guardian hit a new low in Amelia Hill’s report on Julian Assange’s appearance at the Oxford Union. Hill moved beyond propaganda to downright lies.
This is easy to show. Read through Hill’s “report”. Then zip to 20 minutes and 55 seconds of the recording of Assange speaking at the event Hill misreports, and simply listen to the applause from the Oxford Union after Assange stops speaking.
Just that hearty applause is sufficient to show that the entire thrust and argument of Amelia Hill’s article moves beyong distortion or misreprentation – in themselves dreadful sins in a journalist – and into the field of outright lies. Her entire piece is intended to give the impression that the event was a failure and the audience were hostile to Assange. That is completely untrue.
Much of what Hill wrote is not journalism at all. What does this actually mean?
“His critics were reasoned, those who queued for over an hour in the snow to hear him speak were thoughtful. It was Julian Assange – the man at the centre of controversy – who refused to be gracious.”
Hill manages to quote five full sentences of the organiser of the anti-Assange demonstration (which I counted at 37 people) while giving us not one single sentence of Assange’s twenty minute address. Nor a single sentence of Tom Fingar, the senior US security official who was receiving the Sam Adams award. Even more remarkably, all three students Hill could find to interview were hostile to Assange. In a hall of 450 students who applauded Assange enthusiastically and many of whom crowded round to shake my hand after the event, Hill was apparently unable to find a single person who did not share the Rusbridger line on Julian Assange.
Hill is not a journalist – she is a pathetic grovelling lickspittle who should be deeply, deeply ashamed.
Here is the answer to the question about cyber-terrorism of which Amelia Hill writes:
“A question about cyber-terrorism was greeted with verbose warmth”
As you can see, Assange’s answer is serious, detailed, thoughtful and not patronising to the student. Hill’s characterisation – again without giving a word of Assange’s actual answer – is not one that could genuinely be maintained. Can anybody – and I mean this as a real question – can anybody look at that answer and believe that “Verbose warmth” is a fair and reasonable way to communicate what had been said to an audience who had not seen it? Or is it just an appalling piece of hostile propaganda by Hill?
The night before Assange’s contribution at the union, John Bolton had been there as guest speaker. John Bolton is a war criminal whose actions deliberately and directly contributed to the launching of an illegal war which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Yet there had not been one single Oxford student picketing the hosting of John Bolton, and Amelia Hill did not turn up to vilify him. My main contribution to the Sam Adams event was to point to this as an example of the way people are manipulated by the mainstream media into adopting seriously warped moral values.
Amelia Hill is one of the warpers, the distorters of reality. The Guardian calls her a “Special Investigative Correspondent.” She is actually a degraded purveyor of lies on behalf of the establishment. Sickening.
Habbabkuk, I have some straightforward questions for you. Would you be prepared to answer them for me please?
Habbabkuk, I see from the next thread that you have gone to have dinner. Another time, then.
Thanks John. Your poem was equally moving. You have obviously seen this photo which sends shudders through me each and every time I happen upon it. I am so glad that Ali found a girlfriend and got married. Hopefully his own children will live their lives unaffected by the many clones of Bush and Bliar.
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair due on trial in the Hague
David Halpin
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=44102
Strange that the only link to his marriage that I could find was in the Sun who of course carried the war for Bliar.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4715418/ali-abbas-wedding-iraq.html
“resident dissident, if you were in Assange’s position, would you feel safe from establishment persecution for your Wikileaks work in submitting yourself to custody?”
I would behave with absolute probity and be very careful not to give my tormentors any excuse to prosecute me – all of which Assange failed to do. Also if I was charged with rape I would want to go to court to clear my name. Assange’s problem is that he does not have a clear idea of what laws are legitimate and those which are not.
resident dissident, I see, but would you feel safe from establishment persecution for your Wikileaks work in submitting yourself to custody?
Clark
You talk as if this is a new issue – but it isn’t. You forget that most of our reforms in this country were won by people taking on and standing up to the establishment – yes of course those brave people were scared but they had the courage of their convictions to stand up for what they believe is right. They won through despite the system and very important and valuable changes were made to the legal system as a result. I’m afraid I don’t find running and hiding from rape allegations consistent with that behaviour and quite frankly it is something of an insult to those who achieved the reforms to legal systems the hard way. Similarly, I don’t have a lot of time who pooh pooh our hard earned democratic institutions as a barrier to change rather than trying to use the ones that we have. Some idiot said that it was Craig who had the old fashioned political values – all I can say is that most of these values were handed down to me by grandfather, who also passed on the other old fashioned belief that fighting fascism wherever and whenever it occurs is what socialists do.
resident dissident, you talk like someone who wants to discredit Assange.
You wrote: “would behave with absolute probity”, which Assange did, right up to the point of no return, where he would have had to surrender his freedom.
You wrote: “if I was charged with rape I would want to go to court to clear my name”, as if Assange does not. Yet he has repeatedly stated that he does, but that first he requires protection from unrelated charges.
You wrote “Assange’s problem is that he does not have a clear idea of what laws are legitimate and those which are not”, which is simply a slur.
Assange has been very open and public. You post anonymously under a pseudonym. I respect Assange. You behave like a dishonest coward.
Clark
I think Assange has discredited himself
Do you really believe Assange’s behaviour with those women amounted to absolute probity? Even if belive it was legal – it certainly wasn’t honest, moral or decent in my book – which is the normal meaning of that word.
I don’t think the comment you refer to is a slur – my not facing the music on the rape charge i think he failing to answer the case against him on a legitimate law. I also think that arguing that I might be charged on some other matter (he hasn’t to date – and asking any decent legal system to grant immunity on such a basis is quite frankly ridiculous) which he doesn’t think he should be charged for (and may well be inappropriate) is not a particularly convincing excuse. On the other hand if you want to say that Assange having a different view from my own on whether he should answer the case against for rape (which I view as legitimate law) is a slur – then please feel free.
I have very good reasons for protecting my identity – especially on forums such as these – perhaps you should also not that in the past Assange and Wikileaks recognised that such legitimate reasons exist. Despite the countless accusations I always speak for myself and don’t play any silly sock puppet games. If Assange thinks I have libelled him – then I’m sure he is more than capable of issuing the writ.
Of course the Libyan peoples stomached destruction, war, suffering and death, when the solution to the conflict could have been secured by peaceful means.
The fabricated takeover of Tripoli’s Green Plaza fabricated and filmed in Qatar and disseminated by international mainstream media outlets, successfully secured recognition of the NATO-backed National Transition Council (CNT) as the ‘new government in Libya’ and convinced many Libyan embassy staff abroad to defect.
NATO allies launched over 20,000 sorties over Libya, carrying out an estimated 9,000 air strikes that murdered 30,000 civilians.
Russia and China and most of the world knew that UKUSIS axis of imperialism had sown together a new format for imperial aggression’ by using the hegemonic international media to demonize governments opposed to US foreign policy.
I reported here UK mercenaries and Saudi terrorists helped instigate revolutions of colour and revolutions of spring in countries in which imperialism claims civil liberties are restricted. Demonization followed by international media campaigns to topple anti-USUKIS governments and, if necessary, direct military intervention would follow.
This modus of deception was of course uncloaked early from experience gained in the Iraq war and Russia and China clearly knew at the time Syria was in grave danger.
The vetoes by China and Russia at the UN security council saved Syria and Assad from another NATO psywar. This failure to secure another ‘no-fly zone’ would lead to the next step, an invasion with Israel taking the lead role.
Such an invasion would be justified in the Western press on the concocted pretext that Syria’s chemical weapons must be secured before they fall into the wrong hands in the chaotic aftermath of a post-Assad Syria.
The plot was preempted by intelligence and the anti-Assad fundamentalist terrorists, who have been caught committing massacres as well as faking them to blame Assad for propaganda purposes, found themselves on the same side as the arch foe of the region, Israel.
Frustrated Israel would later strike a Syrian Scientific Studies and Research complex, a dual purpose small strike package that was expected to uncover chemical and biological weapons and test Syrian air-defense for a later major incursion by a COVERT joint Israeli/NATO strike force UNDER COVER OF DARKNESS.
“Russia and China and most of the world knew that UKUSIS axis of imperialism had sown together a new format for imperial aggression”
An apt article by DIANA JOHNSTONE;
http://warisacrime.org/content/good-intentions-pave-road-war
Resident Dissident, 10.39am
“Do you really believe Assange’s behaviour with those women amounted to absolute probity? Even if belive it was legal – it certainly wasn’t honest, moral or decent in my book”
Are you male or female? If the former, have you ever slept with two different women – willing partners and fully consenting, that is – within the same week? Because it’s abundantly clear from the women’s own statements to the police that that’s all Assange did.
If you’re female, have you ever had the misfortune to find out that a man has two-timed you in this way? Did you report him to the police for it?
Final question, as you have such strict standards of probity, are you Victorian?
resident dissident, ah, so by “absolute probity”, you mean that Assange should have conformed to your code of sexual exclusivity, rather than that chosen by the participants, who all knew of each other’s interests, and indeed facilitated them. Either that, or you are presuming guilt based upon the women’s statements as interpreted by the second prosecutor.
I was referring to Assange’s probity in dealing with the law enforcement agencies.
You “don’t think the comment […] is a slur”, but I already suspect your honesty; let’s look at it again:
You are saying that Assange does not respect laws of sexual consent, which is a slur and again, a presumption of guilt. You have again established your own dishonesty.
No, he’s asking a political system to grant him immunity from a political charge; again, you misrepresent.
Ah. A veiled threat, and from behind a mask, too. Really, you should be ashamed of yourself.
As you say Macky, a succinct and pertinent post by two humanitarian warriors, Diana Johnstone and close friend David Swanson. Fine chap. Solid, trustworthy.
Huffpo is a sayanim love fest. Discuss . PS – I make no apologies for throwing the first punch, but there are resident Albrights (and Kerrys too) to parry in this blog.
Resident Dissident, I fear your logical conclusions regarding JA will fall on deaf ears around here. Much like Hiroo Onoda, the vanguard on here will refute any evidence presented that compromises JA ,and viciously attack anyone who has the temerity to criticise him. . Despite the futility of their fight and the fact that any reasoned individual can see that the emperor is wearing no clothes, they have invested too much of themselves in ‘JA the Brand’, and to face the uncomfortable truth now would compromise their whole belief system.
Whilst every man and his dog on plant earth can see that JA is an utterly discredited, bail-skipping, self-promoting, hypocritical liar , the last remaining defenders would have us believe he is bravely fighting for truth and freedom at the same time as being holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy so that he escape the forces of justice and avoid due process from a serious sexual crime? Pass me the sick bag.
Mark Golding,
you blithely state that “NATO allies launched over 20,000 sorties over Libya, carrying out an estimated 9,000 air strikes that murdered 30,000 civilians.”
Do you have a scintilla of evidence to back up your figure of 30,000, or is this a complete fabrication to lend credence to your argument?
993964 471267Aw, it was a genuinely very good post. In concept I ought to put in writing related to this furthermore – spending time and actual effort to manufacture a exceptional article
CE, 6 Feb, 3:30 am
And yet you present no logical argument whatsoever, and instead issue empty rhetoric.
You also previously demonstrated that you couldn’t care less about at least one of the women involved, and that for the likes of you it’s all just good material towards your persecution of Assange. “Sick bag”? Indeed.
“resident dissident, ah, so by “absolute probity”, you mean that Assange should have conformed to your code of sexual exclusivity, rather than that chosen by the participants, who all knew of each other’s interests, and indeed facilitated them. “
Well of course any view about probity, which relates to what is moral and decent, is an individual view. But I’m fairly comfortable in asserting that most of society would share my stance – and even one of your cult members Gorgeous George has now backed down and admitted that Assange’s behavior although in his view was completely legal was someway short of being desirable.
I could of course cite other elements of Assange’s behavior which fall well below my view of what constitutes probity e.g his taking the Putin shilling by working for Russia Today, Putin of course being famous for his openness and defence of press freedoms, or his vomit inducing interview with Nasrallah on RT.
“You are saying that Assange does not respect laws of sexual consent, which is a slur and again, a presumption of guilt. You have again established your own dishonesty.”
This is a ridiculous statement – I have been very careful not to make an assumption of guilty. What I have said that when a decent legal system believes that there is a case to answer on the question of rape (and all the evidence is that legal authorities in the West only seek to prosecute a very small proportion of actual rape cases) then a decent person would at least seek to answer that case through the courts. It would be totally stupid to argue that presumption of innocence means that you have the freedom to pick and chose whether or not you wish to appear in court to answer a case against you – otherwise I suspect everyone would use that argument to avoid justice.
“No, he’s asking a political system to grant him immunity from a political charge; again, you misrepresent.”
What you fail to understand that decent legal systems try and resist interference from politicians – and that decent politicians avoid interfering in said legal systems. It happens too much even in the West and is of course the norm in the regimes you often seek to defend.
“I have very good reasons for protecting my identity – especially on forums such as these – perhaps you should also…” [my emphasis]
“Ah. A veiled threat, and from behind a mask, too. Really, you should be ashamed of yourself.”
And you have the nerve to call me dishonest – could you please look at the words I said after the italics – all I was saying is that Assange and Wikileaks have also in the past recognized the need to project the anonymity of their sources (although of course in Assange’s case it was reported by Luke Harding that he said that such anonymity should be applied to informants in Afghanistan who supplied information to the US, who he believed should be shot). There was no threat veiled or otherwise – and I look forward to an apology for your selective misquoting to infer that there was.
resident dissident, I see no reason to apologise for your dishonesty and misrepresentation, of which you have just produced further examples. Let’s take the most blatant one first:
You really just don’t care, do you? Just twist it in whatever direction serves your ends at the time. You’re a disgrace.
Oh I understand the importance separation of politics and justice. But extradition inherently straddles that boundary, as it involves the passing of a prisoner from one set of laws produced by one government to a set of laws produced by a different government. Assange has repeatedly stated that he will present himself to Sweden once he has a political assurance that he won’t be sent elsewhere at the behest of the USA. Why do you continue to ignore this?
Your above paragraph also includes a misrepresentation of myself: “the regimes you often seek to defend”. Which “regimes”, and where have I defended them? All comments on this blog can be linked to individually.
You do like to repeat the word “rape”, don’t you? It invokes the kind of feelings you wish people to associate with Assange, and thus suits your defamation campaign. You make no mention of the various distinctions within Swedish law which are absent in that single word. By doing so, you debase the term itself, doing a disservice to all who have suffered sexual compulsion, and all yet to suffer so.
http://womenagainstrape.net/inthemedia/we-are-women-against-rape-we-do-not-want-julian-as
Yes, “unusual zeal”. That’s just what I see from you and CE. Hypocrisy, dishonesty, and a load of hot air.
resident dissident, go on, then, clarify. Exactly why should I “protect my identity”, as you apparently need to? Neither of us is a “source”. We merely argue over publicly available evidence.
I should correct an inaccuracy in the passage that I quoted above:
In this case, the accuser is the second prosecutor in Sweden, notably a more politically connected prosecutor than the first, who dropped the case.
“Just twist it in whatever direction serves your ends at the time. You’re a disgrace.”
Ditto Habbabkuk & CE; but did you really expect anything different ?
These trolls cannot engage in honest rational debate because their mission is to troll; and even if not deliberate trolls with an agenda, but simply not very bright individuals, they end up behaving exactly like trolls, as by definition it’s impossible to defend the indefensible (ie their “views”) . Although it’s best to simply ignore such trolls, each poster has to experience each troll’s dishonesty for themselves, both to obtain the troll realization, & after all, even trolls deserve one chance from everybody.
I understand the temptation to respond to a particularly provocative troll post, and there is nothing wrong in delivering a short response, but to play their game more than the initial once, by engaging in a prolong “debate”, is why this saying exist: “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.
Resident Dissident, 10.51am
“in Assange’s case it was reported by Luke Harding that he said that such anonymity should be applied to informants in Afghanistan who supplied information to the US, who he believed should be shot)”
Resident Dissident, you are wilfully ignoring the fact that I have already posted here in this very thread a pdf signed witness statement from an independent journalist totally refuting that Assange ever said the remark which Luke Harding claims.
On the subject of the Swedish investigation, you may be interested in reading this. Yes, I wrote it (kind of – it was cobbled together from comments of mine in the Guardian which someone took from there unbeknownst to me, but to which I give my blessing ex post facto):
http://www.marthamitchelleffect.org/#/experience-is-knowing/4571327145
That should explain to you why I take such an interest in this case, as most women in my position do – we don’t like our trauma and pain being trivialised for political purposes. Most of us also believe that justice means applying rape laws equally and impartially to both accusers and accused, otherwise it is not justice at all, by definition.
I didn’t write this one, but you will find attached to this article the original police forensic report on a condom handed in to police by one of the complainants in the Assange case as evidence that he deliberately tore it during sex, as she maintains in her witness statement.
The forensic lab reports the condom – though it has a tear in it and looks ‘used’ (yes, there’s a photo) – has no DNA on it at all, neither male nor female.
The article references the dates given on various documents within the Swedish police protocol to conclusively prove that the Swedish prosecutor already had this forensic evidence in her possession three weeks before she issued an international EAW warrant for Assange’s extradition but ignored it, in dereliction of her legal duty under Swedish law (where prosecutors are allowed the dual role of both investigator and judicial authority (some “decent legal system”, eh?)) to follow the Objectivity Rule and take mitigating evidence into account before deciding to proceed.
http://wlcentral.org/node/2325
So, a woman hands in fabricated physical evidence when making rape allegations to the police? Genuine rape victims don’t do that.
And a prosecutor ignores forensic evidence already in her possession when seeking to forcibly extradite a suspect and put him in jail before either questioning or charging him? Genuine prosecutions don’t do that either.
Re Belarus v Sweden
I dont know how well known this is internationally, but it might be of interest to divulge some of the backstory behind it.
In the summer of 2012, a Swedish PR firm carried out a campaign in Belarus in support of the opposition and for democracy and freedom of speech. They flew over the border from the baltic states into Belarus airspace in small civilian aircrafts, and dropped several hundred teddy bears with pro democracy messages attached.
In reaction to this, Belarus declared the Swedish ambassador a persona non grata, and acused him of contacts with the opposition, and Sweden in turn declared that the newly appointed Belarus amabassador was not welcome to Sweden, and two other Belarus representatives were expelled.
As far as I know several people in Belarus has then been arrested, tried and sentenced in conjuction to the action, and Belarus KGB requested that the representatives for the PR firm come to Minsk for “questioning”, and promised a fair and leagally secure handling of their case.
To the point, it can also be noted that the PR firm meticulously recorded everything they did, including illegally crossing into Belarus airspace.
So I think it is conducive to view the references to Assange in the light of this, and in the context of the ongoing dispute between Belarus and Sweden.
@ LastBlueBell, 1.07pm
Yes, I did know about the international spat between Sweden and Belarus over the teddy bears incident. Presumably, some Swedish politicians have made public remarks about the merits of Belarus’s extradition request. It would be very interesting for readers of Craig’s blog if you could post some of these – if you have links for them – so we can see how they compare with statements made by Swedish and/or UK/EU/US politicians about the merits of extradition in Julian Assange’s case.
Any chance?
LastBlueBell, thanks, that’s very interesting.
Hmm. A PR firm wouldn’t do this spontaneously. Do you know who had hired them? Why a Swedish firm, I wonder?
So the PR firm must be expecting some sort of political support; some state or country must have offered them some kind of legal cover, so long as they acted within certain parameters.
Teddy bears. Cuddly-toy political stand-ins, or something. What a weird and fascinating story.
Clark
I am still due an apology for you quoting my words out of context to imply that I was threatening you – I think you may not have recognized that in the first of your quotes there is was a pretty obvious type since the “not” you have italicized should be “note” – rather than you trying to again abuse what I said to infer that I had changed my position.
On extradition you fail to recognize that as many Swedes have repeatedly pointed out their system does allow their politicians to say how the legal system might be used in the future to handle charges and requests for extradition that have not yet arisen – and nor should it. How the Swedish legal system would respond in such a situation would be dependent on what the charges were, how supportable they were and the current arrangements for reviewing such requests in Sweden including any multilateral and bilateral treaties that are in force with other countries. If there were countless tails of Sweden extraditing people to other countries without due process – believe me your lot would have already provided voluminous details. We also now know that for Assange to be extradited he would also have to meet the legal conditions of the UK – which based on recent legal cases most people will acknowledge as being pretty rigorous ( I appreciate that many members of the cult will not share this view – but then they wouldn’t want to extradite anyone who shared their political views whatever their crime)
You do like to repeat the word “rape”, don’t you? Not really – in fact you appear to use the word rather more often than I do. But it is a serious crime and it is what Assange is being accused of. If it was common assault I would feel pretty much the same. Yes you are right that Swedish Law distinguishes between different types of rape – but as far as I can see they all amount to different forms of assault rather than “sexual compulsion” as you euphemistically call it.
I could just as easily point/link to others who argue that the pursuit of Assange on this matter is not political – and if you think I haven’t seen the arguments you are just being naïve. I just don’t agree with them for some of the reasons I have already mentioned – and I daresay the cult is aware of some more which they believe have already addressed. Judgements and views are made on the subject – mine differs from yours, and however much you shout and scream and throw petty insults I just do not find your arguments convincing without the provision of some rather more convincing evidence on your part. The conspiracy may be obvious to you – but it isn’t to me. Your past record does indicate that you tend to see the US behind most of the evil in this world doesn’t it?
As for reasons for confidentiality – there are many and they depend on different circumstances. Mine include the following:
– my day to day work is far removed from the political sphere – and believe it or not having publicly held strong political views such as my own would not go down too well
– If my identity became known then many islamofascists and other political nutters would invade by personal privacy at home which I share with my family, I have already seen attempts to send nasty viruses to my PC from some sites which I have visited and where I have left comments
– Given that there are many like yourself who are prepared to respond with personal abuse to my own views – I guess that knowing my personal details the temptation to up the stakes would be irresistible – my guess is that in your role as moderator you have already looked up my IP address etc with goodness knows what purpose in mind.
Anyway until you apologise and start to show a bit of maturity and recognize that it is possible to have genuine differences of opinion based on how people see the world rather than whether they are good or evil – please do not bother continuing this dialogue. Until now I have been polite and tried to answer your questions – but as CE has pointed out my politeness is probably not worth the effort.
“Resident Dissident, you are wilfully ignoring the fact that I have already posted here in this very thread a pdf signed witness statement from an independent journalist totally refuting that Assange ever said the remark which Luke Harding claims.”
No I’m not wilfully ignoring the fact – because believe it or not I don’t follow all your threads, especially those in Swedish. In fact I have probably only looked at 2 or 3.
Luke Harding stands by the statement. Luke Harding is a brave man who consistently stands up for press freedom and against Putin – which is considerably more than your hero and probably the independent journalist to which you refer. Did Luke Harding ever say that said journalist was present when the remark was made – if not an affadvit saying that Assange never said the words quoted would be pretty meaningless.
I believe that the right place for the evidence to be considered and judged in this case is in Court and I have a lot of faith that this would happen. Assange is currently innocent and there is no need to try and prove this to me by what may or may not be evidence for the defence and would then be examined by skilled prosecutors or the judge. Blogs and the internet are pretty useless for that purpose. I’m not sure that you understand that because there is uncertainty in this world the roles of defence, prosection and judge need to be separated – the only people who are certain of everything are usually fools.
Macky
Yes of course my views and those of my fellow trolls are indefensible, since of course the views of the cult are the correct and have been demonstrated as being so to the faithful time and time again. Other views can therefore be ignored and rubbished and those expressing them can be ignored as they are the work of the Devil, Lucifer and Beelzebub. You are certain in your views (nay substantiated facts), since they are righteous.
Jeez – and to think those on the left used to believe in dialectical argument.