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.
“I’m pleased that the scales have at last fallen from Jemima’s eyes and she can see Assange for what he is. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes for the others to overcome their embarrassment and admit that they were fooled too.”
You, like others are a victim of the Purity Patrol. They see any chinks in the human armor as permanently disabling, and make us throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. if that’s the criteria for any seeking change and improvement in the World, we are doomed.
Is that what you wish to convey?
Clark,
As I’m sure you are aware, no government in the world can pre-judge a hypothetical application and provide an amnesty to alleged criminals from that countries extradition obligations, no matter how unlikely they are.
CE, thank you. So it’s a matter of the terms of Sweden’s extradition treaty with the US, is it?
Guano, I have understood your words and I reflect your Companionship. My simple mind tells me Islamic rule is neither Shi’a or Sunni and abusing union, camaraderie or love is a Kaba’r
@Arbed 1:21pm
I have not followed the story that close unfortunately, so I can not expand upon it (more then I do below), without committing to some google wrestling, uncertain if I will have time in the near future, but I will keep a tab on it 🙂
@Clark 1:26pm
Yes it is very strange, in so many ways I think. I found an interview with the pilot (and leader, if I understand correctly), describing their planning, and in one part saying, ‘that they had one person taking fotos from within a Belarus security restricted area with a car, that could pick them up, if they were “shoot down”…’
They were flying in a small civilian aircraft, and seriously expected to be able to be picked by a car if shot down??? It truly beggars belief!
But the interview was published by SVT, our national public service TV (equivalent to BBC), so I do not question the interview as such,
http://debatt.svt.se/2012/07/05/har-ar-beviset-for-att-vi-slappte-nallar-over-minsk/
@Villager 3:41pm, “i saw that recommendation of Steven Pinker’s book … Hope he’s right and not just looking through rose-tinted glasses.”
Me to, and I think Pinker writes amazingly well, which makes his book easy to read, even with its 800+ pages.
Thank God Mary is made of more Humane, wisdom than Dickhead features…But it wories me, that there’s only so much one can take, So we engage with dickhead, and lose Mary…The lack of warnings to the troll, from mods is Curius in the extreme
It seems Ms Khan is trying to have it every-which-way. She objectively lists a whole raft of achievements by Assange and Wikileaks and correctly states their purposes and principles but then mangles it with subjective observations, misstatements of fact, expressions of doubt, and unrelated, incongruous comparisons with people such as L.Ron Hubbard, George Clooney etc.
She makes an obviously false statement that Wikileaks “expects” followers to engage in “cultish devotion” as if she had personal knowledge of WL’s internal operations and culture. She also repeats the now discredited lie that the two Swedish women made allegations of rape. And then there’s her claim that there is a “risk” of JA/WL becoming a cult with the glaring absence of any understanding of what a cult is. Assange and Wikileaks have firm supporters who articulate their support with sound reason, corroborated facts and a mostly respectful tone to those who raise questions – hardly the kind of people who would feel at home at a Scientology convention.
Does Ms Khan count the likes of Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, various anonymous intelligence officers, politicians, lawyers, human rights activists et al. amongst the cultists she claims are forming around Assange?
She also seems to assume that her part payment of Assange’s surety entitles her to instruct him to answer questions posed by others. How arrogant is that? If, in the very unlikely chance that, Ms Khan reads this thread, I would like to an extend an invitation to her to engage in a discussion on this blog about the various points that she has raised in her New Statesman article. If she is genuine in her desire to uncover the truth and understand what the issues are then she will happily engage with the several commentators here who are well able to answer her queries.
The challenge is out. Ms Khan, please visit and discuss with us these matters as you have demanded of Assange with David Allen Green.
Aw common Craig, it must be a good feeling to have highest level hasbara Oniels assigned to your blog (funded from hillarys annual $400m CIA “internet” fund?). Clark & Co have done a decent job of outing them. But frankly the “dershowitzian” logic and satan inspired spin is getting a bit nauseating now. Very soon we will have a Kempe informing us satanyahu agreed to restart stalled talks with the PA over the correct font for Judea & Samaria, only its the Palestinians’ quibbling about the size thats preventing any further progress! Thats classic “nuyowk” logic for you – they even managed to fine Iran $6b for being responsible for 911 !
Current ownership of New Statesman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/14/new-statesman-ownership-mike-danson-geoffrey-robinson
His company http://www.progressivedigitalmedia.com/index.html
http://www.progressivedigitalmedia.com/board.html Directors
Note the war criminal Alastair Campbell was a guest editor after the Danson acquisition. Telling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman
Little on the internet on Danson.
~~
Ms Khan daughter of James Goldsmith.
Causes are taken up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemima_Khan She comes from a muddled unstable background from which you could say it’s rather a miracle that adults emerged. You can almost feel sorry for the various offspring. Did they have to compete for parental affection?
‘Born in The London’s Westminster Hospital as Jemima Marcelle Goldsmith, Khan is the eldest child of Lady Annabel Vane-Tempest-Stewart and Anglo-French financier Sir James Goldsmith. Her parents had a polyamorous relationship where they were married to different partners, but in 1978, they married to legitimize their children. She has two younger brothers, Zac Goldsmith and Ben Goldsmith, and five paternal and three maternal half-siblings, including Robin Birley and India Jane Birley.’
Her father was notorious and a monster. Very acquisitive in all aspects of his life! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goldsmith I see that both Mrs T and Bliar admired him. I bet they did. A buccaneer spirit after their own hearts.
As a teenager I can well remember the news at the time being dominated by his elopement with the Bolivian tin heiress.
There are some interesting comments on the NS piece. The comments were closed overnight but have now been reopened.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/jemima-khan-inside-story-how-julian-assange-alienated-his-allies
“There are some interesting comments on the NS piece. The comments were closed overnight but have now been reopened.”
Yeah, I’ve read them all and have bookmarked the article to continue reading the comments when it reopens. There appears to be a couple of shills/trolls in the same mould as we have all become accustomed to when visiting online comments/forums. Note the amount of effort put into the replies of those who comment in good faith versus those who don’t, and the differences in tone of the two sides. It’s a feature of the dichotomy that forms in online discussions and, i think, speaks of a larger dichotomy that exists in society.
An interesting response in the comment thread following Jemima Khan’s article:
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/jemima-khan-inside-story-how-julian-assange-alienated-his-allies
I’ve omitted the final point which is trivial and unclearly expressed, and standardised the paragraph breaks. Abbreviations and explanations:
BM = Bradley Manning
JA = Julian Assange
WL = Wikileaks
DDB = Daniel Domscheit-Berg
NDA = Non-disclosure agreement (I think)
the architect = one of the original programmers for Wikileaks
I therefore agree that the article, despite appearing balanced, is in fact biased. I do not hold Jemima Khan to blame for this bias, as she, like everyone else, is attempting to make sense of arguments that exceed the spare capacity of a single human brain, while also stimulating much emotion that makes it difficult to think clearly.
Further to my own remark:
– one of the things that seems to be interfering with my own thought process are the constant references to “Saint Julian” and being dubbed as a member of a “cult”. Such remarks seem provocative, and I ask the people making them to please desist.
Clark,
In response to CE’s question:
… because governments and judiciary are always completely separate elements of the State, silly, and Western democratic govermentsTM are always way too squeaky clean to interfere with the courts. Blimey, what a daft question. (Just kidding ;))
Uuuppps, I meant ‘in response to your question to CE’, of course.
English Knight, 7 Feb, 8:07 am: I refuse to accept your support while you continue to hold racist attitudes towards Jews. Please don’t waste any more of my time by causing me to disavow further similar offerings. Or even better, mend your attitudes; then you can be of assistance.
Astute question, and response, I found in another forum:
” what is these people’s idea of what should I do, as a supporter, not to be considered a demented cult follower? Insult Julian all the time? Smear him in every comment? Because what emerges is that basically in order to not be considered a cult leader, Julian should have no supporters at all.”
Nail on head – this is exactly what this label is intended to achieve. They know it won’t intimidate Assange in the slightest, he’s well aware of what the game is and never rises to the bait. What it will achieve, however, is to intimidate his supporters – people like you and me, who (it is hoped) will become hyper-critical of all Assange/Wikileaks’ words and actions in order to gain the prized “I’m not a cult member” self-perception. As you note, though, when overdone it’s counter-productive – so let’s hope they carry on exactly as they’re doing (and we, meanwhile, can make sure we share with others how the game works).
Ahh, good old reliable Mary to the rescue, as soon as someone has the temerity to criticise the cult leader and blinkered misguided devotion towards him, what do we get in response, but blinkered misguided cultish devotion. It really is time to stop shooting the messenger and face the uncomfortable truth, despite the nauseating affect this is likely to have on your misguided world-view.
Your cod psychology and character assassination of JK say a lot more about you than they do about her.
Mary, 7 Feb, 8:42 am; thank you for the background of New Statesman’s ownership and Jemima Khan’s background. Regardless of their personal morality, people embedded among the powerful are under intense pressure from the attitudes and information flow of the people the surround them. In a way, they are more subject to propaganda than ordinary folk. If they publish their opinions, they also become targets for deliberate persuasion and disinformation.
I can never see any mention of the war criminal Alastair Campbell without linking to the following. Although he is probably only peripheral to this matter, it provides a much needed laugh, and reminds us of the type of liars we’re dealing with when we oppose perpetual war. Credit for first linking goes to Technicolour:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/?p=2374&print=1
CE, I see that (1) you have ignored my request to stop escalating emotional responses in this complex matter and (2) that you have not answered the second question that I asked you.
CE, nothing transmitted through the corporate media can be regarded as merely the words of a “messenger”. The corporate media quite clearly have their own agendas, which far more often than not involve encouraging, popularising and falsely legitimising perpetual NATO / US / “Western” war.
D’oh! Further further to my own remark, originally at 7 Feb, 11:24 am and repeated at 11:29 am, I should have written:
Apologies for my lack of clarity. As you can see, I’m suffering from the very problem that I’m describing. I’ll slow down a bit.
I had a look at the Guardian in a Costalot coffee shop this morning. What a rag and £1.40. It resembles the Beano.
Ms Khan’s piece is given little prominence on p 16 on about 1/8th of the page which is a bit larger than tabloid size.
The centrefold will probably excite the likes of Lord Mandelson – A double page spread of two young naked Indian men just wearing loin cloths on the back of a motorbike.
And here two holy men of the Juna Akhara sect ride on a motorcycle driven by their teacher. Photographs: Rajesh Kumar Singh/AP
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/2/6/1360146079590/a04ab72d-95d8-4a8c-94f4-0cbfd6b27199-620.jpeg
Other photos in this set http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2013/feb/06/picture-desk-live-the-best-news-pictures-of-the-day?INTCMP=SRCH
A Naga Sadhu and other Hindu holy men of the Juna Akhara sect participate in a ritual that is believed to rid them of all ties in this life and dedicate themselves to serving God during the Maha Kumbh festival in Allahabad, India.
‘The likes of Lord Mandelson’. – Mary
I presume you mean Gay men like Lord Mandelson, so why not just say so?
Slight nasty, homophobic tinge to that statement, I suggest you be a tad more careful or the mask may slip further.
—————————————————————————
Clark,
1) It is amusing how the followers of JA will sling any insult(shill, stooge, c***, W*****, brainless, are just a few of the more plesant I’ve had in the last day) going at anyone who dares critise ‘One of The Bravest Men in Human History’, but those of use who don’t subscribe to ‘Brand JA’ have to tone down our language. I admire your chutzpah if nothing else.
2) Wasn’t sure where you were taking with that strange dance, as we both know the answer to your questions, but yes.
CE ‘good old reliable Mary’ …maybe physically old but quite young at heart and in spirit!
Omit the sarcastic smearing please, though subtle in this case.
You rose nicely to my planted comment! although I think Mandy has a preference for young Brazilian men. Didn’t he get British citizenship through for his current partner just like Blunkett got a visa for his mistress’s nanny.
Oh yes he did. Sorry it’s a Mail link, first that came up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041233/Mandelson-leaves-Reinaldo-8million-moving-day.html#axzz2K4FQ1U2C
Mr de Silva was lucky to have a protector. So unlike poor Jean Charles shot through the head multiple times.
Q arises from the Mail piece. Why was Lord Browne-Wilkinson the purchaser of the £8m London pad?
PS You see that I can be a little evil even though I am old CE.
PPS What does CE stand for btw? Are you in this country or abroad? Are you British? I think we should be told.
CE, I have asked some of the anti-extradition to go easy and depolarise the argument; last paragraph, here:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/01/amelia-hill-is-a-dirty-liar/comment-page-4/#comment-392486
I see absolutely no justification for your attack upon Mary for her comment of 7 Feb, 8:42 am. and it is utterly unfair of you to take out your apparent anger with certain contributors upon a different individual. It is not other people’s fault that you happen to think that there is some sort of conspiracy that you describe as a “cult”.
And please stop attributing foreknowledge to myself. You claim expertise upon a matter, so I consulted you; I really don’t understand why you should object to that.
So you claim it is a matter of that treaty, which seems reasonable to me. Please tell me where I can find a copy. Preferably, please link to it so that I can read it. If you know of other documents that are relevant, international law, for instance, please volunteer those, too.
The conclusion of that Mail piece about Mandelslime takes us neatly back to the New statesman. Robinson was its previous owner.
As MP for Hartlepool, Peter Mandelson resigned as Trade and Industry Secretary in 1998 after it emerged that he had accepted a secret loan of £373,000 from Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson to buy a £475,000 house in Notting Hill.
He was forced out because he failed to declare the details of the loan to either the Commons Register of Members’ Interests or to the company which gave him the mortgage
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041233/Mandelson-leaves-Reinaldo-8million-moving-day.html#ixzz2KDbBO5W5
Omit the sarcastic smearing, the words, pot, black, and kettle spring to mind! If you intended to nearly make me choke on my lunch you succeeded.
Still struggling to understand your beef with Mandy, is it the Age, Gender, Sexuality or Nationality of his partners you have a problem with, or all four?
CE is my initials. Am I in this Country, that depends where this country is?
Slightly bored to be treading old ground here Clark, but I’ll indulge you;
The U.S. has made no extradition request to Sweden. But if it does, the case would proceed in accordance with normal legal processes. It would not simply be granted as part of the extradition request Sweden has made to the U.K. It would stand or fall on its own merits. Extradition processes in both Britain and Sweden are governed by compulsory documentary standards, legal tests, rights of defence, and rights of appeal.
If U.S. prosecutors were to make an extradition request to Sweden, they would have to submit the materials required by the 1961 US-Swedish Extradition Convention, the Supplementary Convention of 1983, the Swedish Extradition Act of 1957 and its updating legislation, including provisions in 2003. Swedish courts would then decide if all the tests have been met.
Under the dual criminality test contained in the U.S.-Swedish conventions, the alleged conduct would have to be an offence in the U.S. and Sweden, and be punishable (under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, as amended) by least twelve months’ imprisonment. No one can be extradited from Sweden to the U.S. for a “political offense,” as extradition is precluded (under Section 7 of the 1957 Act) if there is a risk of persecution on account of membership of a social group, “political views” or “otherwise on account of political circumstances.” Extradition (under Article VI (4) of the 1961 Convention) is not permitted for military offenses. Extradition proceedings must also consider, inter alia, ill-health, the “personal circumstances of the person concerned,” and (Section 8, 1957 Act) the “nature of the act and the interests of the foreign state.”
Assange and his supporters claim that, if extradited from Sweden to the U.S., he could receive the death penalty. This is a clear effort to play on anti-American sentiments, and it is false. Sweden’s Extradition Act (Section 12(3)) proscribes the death penalty in all extradition cases. Moreover, as an EU country, Sweden is further (or, rather, redundantly) bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, under Swedish law, Assange or any other person subject to a U.S. extradition request will be legally represented, at Sweden’s expense if necessary, and able to challenge any request in court. If the Swedish Courts agree to the request for extradition, Assange will have full rights of appeal, including to the European Court of Human Rights.
The final decision on extradition does rest with the Swedish Government. But that does not mean that the Swedish Government can act on its own. On the contrary: if the Swedish Courts reject a U.S. request, it would not be lawful for the Government to continue extradition proceedings (Sections 16 and 20, 1957 Act). Only if and when an independent Swedish court decides that Assange can legally be extradited will the Government take the final decision. Nor can Assange be spirited away to the U.S. under a temporary surrender provision (Section 11, 1957 Act, as amended, and Article VI, 1983 Convention. Temporary surrender, a common feature of modern extradition systems, is available only when and if the Swedish Courts and subsequently the Swedish Government have agreed to extradite.
Finally, even after Assange arrives in Sweden, he still could not be extradited on to the U.S. without British consent, because the original Swedish request to Britain was made through the procedures of the European Arrest Warrant (Article 28(4). In order to give this consent Britain must, by the terms of its Extradition Act of 2003 (section 58), and as confirmed by Foreign Secretary Hague to Parliament on September 3, 2012, determine that the request from the U.S. to Sweden concerns an extraditable crime, that British Courts would have agreed to extradition if the request had been made to the U.K., and that onward extradition is not prohibited by any other legal test. Even if British consent is given for Assange’s onward extradition to the U.S., extradition must be separately agreed under Swedish processes.
No democratic government can comment on hypothetical extradition requests. But as the many controversial extradition cases between the U.S. and Britain have demonstrated, the Assange case highlights the fact that the British public – and too many MPs – do not understand Britain’s extradition arrangements with the U.S. That is too bad, because the U.S.- U.K. treaty embodies a modern and responsible approach to extradition, one that respects every single one of the protections from which Assange will benefit. The British Government should take every opportunity within the Coalition, in Parliament, and in the press to publicize and promote the existence of these protections, and the other relevant provisions in Part 2 of the 2003 Extradition Act. Sweden should do the same for its system, which affords similar protections.
http://www.cps.org.uk/blog/q/date/2012/09/19/assange-sweden-the-u-k-and-the-u-s/