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.
Arbed,
I think you have been promoting some of these lies for so long that you may have started to believe them, but continually repeating a lie does you or your weak arguments no favours at all.
Last just take your last paragraph containing at least three blatant falsehoods/Zombie Facts that the followers like to promote;
1) The interpol myth – From Goran Rudling-
FACTS ABOUT INTERPOL NOTICES
Let’s look at the description of the three different Interpol Notices.
1)To seek the location and arrest of a person wanted by a judicial jurisdiction or an international tribunal with a view to his/her extradition.
2)To warn about a person’s criminal activities if that person is considered to be a possible threat to public safety.
3)To warn of an event, a person, an object or a process representing an imminent threat and danger to persons or property.
I think you agree with me number 1 is most applicable to Julian Assange.
Notices have different FUNCTIONS. It is not as Jennifer Robinson(arbed) makes us believe that the color has something to do with the dangerousness of the person or crimes committed. “Dictators get red and tax evaders get yellow.”
We can see that Red Notices are used for people that are wanted for extradition. Just like Julian Assange. And there are many Red Notices issued for crimes much less serious than rape.
As of today there are 21 persons wanted by Sweden that are subjects to Red Notices. I think everybody understands that Sweden is not looking for 21 “terrorists and dictators”. Even Jennifer Robinson understands that.
One of these individuals is Stefan Daniel Oscarsson. He is subject to a Red Notice for thefts. Wanted by Sweden. He is a Swedish citizen. It proves that Red Notices are used for people that are wanted for extradition, that Swedish citizens that have committed thefts can be subjects and that Jennifer Robinson does not have a clue of what she is talking about. She is not alone. There’s a group of lawyers around Julian Assange that are in a similar position.
Below you can see how many notices Interpol issued in 2011. If Jennifer Robinson was right there should be 7 678 dictators and terrorists being wanted. Thank God Jennifer is completely wrong.
The EAW Myth
Just like an Interpol Red Notice, an EAW is common for an alleged sex offender on the run internationally. JA also lost three separate court cases challenging the EAW!
As DAG has indicated the prosecutors position sets out the inevitablity of the EAW due to JA’s actions;
140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:
“6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange’s] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.
“7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
“8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.
“9. It is submitted on Julian Assange’s behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange’s case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.
“10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.”
and also in the judgement arguing against JA’s spurious claim that arbed has swallowed hook, line and sinker;
160. We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea, that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr Assange’s surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge.
The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution.
Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.
3) ‘storming of an embassy over the non-use of condoms’
Where to even begin with this turgid nonsense? At best extremely disturbing and offensive.
Out of interest, if a man eschews a condom despite it being his knowledge that this is the explicit wish of his sexual partner, would you consider this to be rape? Or even a crime?
———————————————————————————
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/10/jennifer-robinson-57-varieties-of-truth/
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/assange-and-legal-myths
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
Thankfully Goran has also ended his hiatus from the Assange case.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2013/02/if-jemima-khan-can-anybody-can/
Undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable commentators on The JA case and an essential voice, despite his sometimes grumpy and indiosyncratic manner.
CE,
I will leave it to some of our regular Swedish visitors from Flashback to explain to you why Goran Rudling has no credibility whatsoever. And they would know.
Meanwhile, here is an article setting out the controversy raging within Interpol how the very unusual way in which an Interpol notice was used in this case:
Interpol insiders’ disquiet about Swedish request for Red Notice:
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/politics/ia-investigation-interpol-and-julian-assanges-red-notice/
With regard to DAG’s claims (David Allen Green), I can’t swear to this because I haven’t researched it fully yet, but there are rumours coming out of Sweden that he was commissioned and paid from within Sweden to write his Five Legal Myths of the Assange Case article – the very article that proponents for shoving Assange off to Sweden post-haste always rely on, despite the fact that lawyers such as Glenn Greenwald (a Constitutional lawyer, whereas DAG is only a specialist in media law) are still – to this day – pointing out that DAG’s article was profoundly misleading in key aspects, Greenwald suspected deliberately.
And finally, touche and up yours, darling:
Superb article by SACC setting out very clearly why Assange is right to fear US extradition via Sweden, proposing an alternative resolution for the allegations against him to be heard by a court of law that protects his human rights, and why the uptick in the UK MSM smear campaign against him matters so much:
http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=931&catid=56
Within this, there is also a link to an equally clear and comprehensive article on the extradition cases of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan:
http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=921&catid=55
Gawd !..Checked a few archives and this buffoon is 24/7 JA, JA……..
AAAAASSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGE!!!!!!
Voldemort and Darth Vader have nothing on Assange. He is the penultimate scion of evil.
Talk about comedy gold……..this is Hermeticism and I’ve got plenty of lead in my pants from laughing.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/
And Goran’s response to your link which is just misguided as your are;
Dear Tess Lawrence,
Interpol Notices are color coded. That is correct. The color is in no way an indication of the severity of the notice. You ask:
“Why was Julian Assange – who has not yet been charged – given the most severe Red Notice by Interpol, when brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi only received an Orange Notice?”
“What’s with the Interpol Colour Chart for the world’s most wanted?”
You seem to believe that a Red Notice is more severe than an Orange Notice. As if the colors of Interpol Notices should be interpreted in a similar fashion like US threat levels. Red, Orange, Yellow, Blue andGreen with red as the highest level and green the lowest.
In your article there is nothing that supports your interpretation. On the contrary. Your article offers proof that you have completely misunderstood the situation.
Interpol Notices have DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS. In your article, roughly midway, there is a picture of an Interpol document.
Link http://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Notices
Anybody that reads the document will see this:
Red Notice function.
To seek the location and arrest of a person wanted by a judicial jurisdiction or an international tribunal with a view to his/her extradition.
Green Notice function
To warn about a person’s criminal activities if that person is considered to be a possible threat to public safety.
Orange Notice function
To warn of an event, a person, an object or a process representing an imminent threat and danger to persons or property.
Furthermore. The text goes on:
“In the case of Red Notices, the persons concerned are wanted by national jurisdictions and the notices requested are based on an arrest warrant or court decision. INTERPOL’s role is to assist the national police forces in identifying and locating these persons with a view to their arrest and extradition.”
Julian Assange was wanted by Sweden and the Red Notice was based on three court decisions including the Supreme Court in Sweden. As you can see it was perfectly in order to issue a Red Notice. During 2011 there were a total of 7 678 persons subject to Red Notices.
Muammar Quadhafi was subject to an Orange Notice in 2011. In your article you show his notice. The first sentence reads:”
Alert concerning possible movement of dangerous individuals and assets”.
It is obvious that the proper Notice for Quadafi should be Orange. In the document you refer to 16 people were subject to Orange Notices. The total of Orange Notices for 2011 were 31. More than half of the individuals originated from Libya.
Today when I checked the Interpol Red Notices concerning extradition to Sweden I could see that 21 individuals were listed. One of these were Stefan Daniel Oscarsson. A Swedish citizen wanted for thefts. More on this can be found at http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/07/assanges-lawyers-lies-about-interpol-red-notices/
I’ve noted that your so called research appears at the Justice for Assange website. And that “The story has been Facebook recommended well over 500 times and Tweeted over 250 times, including by WikiLeaks itself and Bianca Jagger!” From this I understand that you are not alone in your misconceptions. Maybe you are the origin to other peoples’ misconceptions.
What are you going to do now? I am most interested in getting a response from you.
Kind regards,
Göran Rudling
CE, 10.52pm
Goran was roundly trounced in Craig’s blog several months ago when he invaded and tried to bully everyone into submission to his personal view. He’s been silent for months a) because he rather stupidly wrote an open letter to the Anders Perklev, Sweden’s Prosecutor-General, demanding that Perklev officially confirm his (ie Rudling’s) view that Assange HAD been charged – or the equivalent of it – under Swedish law. No response.
and b) the publication of this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112662612/Samtycke-Leaks
And someone’s just posted this interesting response to Goran’s thoughts on Jemima Khan in the comments to his blog:
When she was married to Imran Khan, Jemima was charged with smuggling antique tiles out of Pakistan. She refused to return to the country to face *actual* charges, saying they were politically motivated. She eventually returned to Pakistan when the govt changed and the charges were dropped.
Shows the hypocrisy and sheer bloody chutzpah of her demanding that Assange goes to Sweden under similar circumstances, except with him there are not even formal charges – in her case, there were.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/253616.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemima_Khan
CE,
“3) ‘storming of an embassy over the non-use of condoms’
Where to even begin with this turgid nonsense? At best extremely disturbing and offensive.”
because I watched it with my own eyes, along with between 7,000 and 10,000 other people watching the livestream being uploaded by supporters from directly in front of the embassy that night. It kept me awake and glued to my screen until 5am. Here, if you don’t believe me:
Darkernet analysis of aborted embassy raid:
http://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/ecuador-embassy-did-twitter-journos-thwart-the-raid-that-almost-was/
http://darkernet.in/ecuador-embassy-siege-more-evidence-it-was-a-raid-called-off-at-last-moment/
http://darkernet.in/breaking-assange-aviation-police-unit-role-in-ecuador-embassy-police-op/
http://darkernet.in/covert-police-unit-with-links-to-armed-ops-to-infiltrate-supporters-outside-ecuador-embassy/
I don’t tell lies, thank you very much CE, and I would appreciate it if you would kindly stop calling me a liar.
Come arbed, you can do better than that
Blatant whatabouttery rather than admit your pronouncement on Red Notices was completely false.
Playing the man not the ball if ever I have seen it, a standard tactic among the followers.
Funny how none of this stuff mattered till JK had the courage to leave the cult. 🙄
AQ Khan, the nuclear proliferator….
“It is also sad though to see Dr Khan targets Imran Khan who stood steadfast behind him in his time of need. He was the first leader who went to visit him when he was released from house detention,” she noted.:”
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-132422-PTI-slams-Dr-AQ-Khans-remarks-on-nukes-Imran
Because nukes make the world go ’round, just like love.
The Embassy was not ‘stormed’ now matter how much you or JA would have been delighted with that and any action taken was most definitely not because of non-use of a condom. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Arbed; I see what you are doing with much more clarity. You can learn oodles from our bridge-dwellers, and the pitch, pace and power of their information delivery are terrific tells for intent.
Dishonesty is not the sole possession of trolls, and it’s presence is shown explicitly in the record of same, but no need to smear the average lurker who speaks out of ignorance, not deliberation.
CE,
“Come arbed, you can do better than that
Blatant whatabouttery”
Whatabouttery? Really? You mean like this that I posted not two hours ago:
You are being offensive to someone who knows a great deal more, I suspect, about the subject of rape investigations than you do. I am no longer going to engage with you at all CE. It isn’t worth it. When it has been a hard enough battle to regain a sense of worth and self-respect again women like me do not take kindly to having further abuse heaped upon us. I will tolerate it no more.
Arbed,
Apologies if my language or tone has offended you. I presumed you would not have me judge the strength and validity of your statements on your traumatic experience.
Again apologies if I have upset you, but it is extremely frustrating to see myths\zombie facts continually being written as gospel and I feel they should be countered strongly.
Two (2) men were the subject of rendition from Sweden in 2001 since when Sweden has stopped co-operating with the US, made the practice illegal and paid substantial compensation. Listen to Assange’s supporters and you could be forgiven for thinking that 747’s full of innocents are being flown out of Sweden to CIA death camps on a daily basis.
JON; I think some moderation is in order….please.
CE, 10 Feb, 10:47 pm:
CE, are you claiming that Arbed is Jennifer Robinson, the Australian human rights lawyer?
Arbed, sorry, I don’t know what to say, words are inadequate here. I offer you my support.
Clark,
I think I’ll quit while I’m behind if my arguments are causing such offence but that excerpt was from Goran’s article ridiculing Jen Robinson’s similar misguided view or Red Notices.
CE, no comment on this blog has ever made me feel as sick and furious as yours have right now.
Give me a direct reply to my question.
No.
Again Arbed profound apologies for my insensitivity, offence was never my intention only a bit of cut and thrust which I obviously took too far. I will withdraw.
Read from the first link to the second:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-3/#comment-361048
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-3/#comment-361075
Insensitivity? Try some honesty. You couldn’t care less.
Fuck, CE, if you don’t KNOW that you’re just using women to get at Assange, you need a long time in therapy, discovering yourself. I’ve been able to see it for months. First SW, then Naomi Wolf, and now in direct conversation.
You are male, I assume?
And you talk of “cults” and say about Assange supporters “smearing” and being offensive? You’ve been utterly aggressive for all this time. It’s people like you who do the smearing, not the people that you smear and insult. We held a SILENT vigil.
A vow of silence eh? and there was only one anti assange protestor – see that person was not cult like at all :p
Sorry, a jest is all i can muster. If only it were just a light hearted matter.
The misunderstanding regarding the Interpol Red Notice vs other notices was an isolated instance of over-zealous defence of Assange. Let’s be gracious enough to acknowledge that, knowing that it has absolutely no impact on the myriad other points of Assange’s defence. Can we move on from this detail to something new and relevant?
While Assange is safe for the time being in the Ecuadoran Embassy, there’s another whistleblower who is being hunted down in the US with a shoot-to-kill notice on him.
Whatever happened to Kempe, hasnt raised his yarmulke over the parapet for quite some time now?!
A sign of things to come and only days after Assange’s warning on use of drones to assassinate US citizens.
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil
Well I avoid this thread for two days and two predictable things occur;
1) Somebody more eloquent than myself make the obvious point that I was trying to make a few pages ago with my comments about US prisons; in that what is awaiting Assange if he does take the risk to go to Sweden without any safeguards, is literally a fate worse than death, life-long mental torture inflicted by extreme isolation, routinely “justified” by the Orwellian “for their own protection”, as used to excuse the tortures inflicted upon Bradley Manning;
“But the US pursuit of Julian Assange is nonetheless quite clearly underway, with the aim of despatching him, via a US court-room, to the US prison system for destruction by long-term solitary confinement – the fate of thousands of prisoners in the US and especially of those convicted because of the government’s antipathy towards them. The US can afford to wait. But in the end, there is probably very little it won’t do to achieve its goal.”
http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=931&catid=56
This is of course the risk that all the hypocritical “face the Swedish charges” Assange “critics”, refuse to contemplate, hence their desperate & telling avoidance in stating if they personally would take such an effective life & death risk themselves. One such person, namely our Resident Hypocrite Dissident, having spent pages on this thread avoiding this question, despite it being put to him directly & repeatedly by myself as well as by others, has now shamelessly run-off to the Richard III thread, no doubt where his dishonest “debating” will again be revealed.
2) The other predictable was at exactly where I left this Thread two days ago, with this comment to CE;
““Anymore troll & empty snide remarks ?”
Seconds thoughts, don’t bother; I’m going to take a break from dealing with trolls, and leave this dubious pleasure to others for a while.”
As can be seen with what subsequently transpired with CE’s comments to Arbed, the snide remarks eventually caused great offense, and I feel guilty that I let other, more generously polite posters, alone to deal with CE, because as I’ve expressed before here, the most effective way to deal with such troll-like individuals is to adopt an aggressive whack-a-troll approach by delivering short strong blows of unsubtle home-truths.
“A sign of things to come and only days after Assange’s warning on use of drones to assassinate US citizens.”
When they start to flatten whole buildings full of civilians just to get one “suspected” individual, then we will know that US racism has finally ended.