To my astonishment, the FCO Official Spokesman has just confirmed to me that the FCO stands by Phillip Hammond’s statement that the members of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are lay persons, and not lawyers. Even though every single one of them is an extremely distinguished lawyer.
I confess I am utterly astonished. I know there is nothing more dull than an old buffer like me droning on about falling standards in public life. But when I was in the FCO, the vast majority of colleagues would have refused to advance what is a total and outright lie, about which it cannot be argued there is an area of interpretation, doubt or nuance.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office officially states that the members of the UN Working Group are all lay people, and not lawyers. Given a chance to retract, they confirm to me that this is their official position.
I repeat again the cvs of all the Working Group.
Sètondji Adjovi (Benin, Second Vice-Chair) Adjovi, an academic and practitioner specialising in international criminal procedure and judicial reform, worked at the International Criminal Court and at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda before his appointment to the UN WGAD.
Mads Andenas (Norway, Chair and member until mid-2015) Chair of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention until mid-2015. Has previously held positions as Director of the Centre of European Law at King’s College, University of London and Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London. Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo.
Mr. José Guevara (Mexico, First Vice-Chair) Guevara is a legal academic and practitioner who focuses on Human Rights Protection and International Criminal Law. Prior to joining the WGAD, worked in the NGO sector, Mexico City’s Ombudsman’s office and in government in the area of human rights. Guevara is the recipient of the Open Society Foundation’s New Executives Fund leading the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights.
Seong-Phil Hong (Chair-Rapporteur, Republic of Korea) An expert member of the Asian Council of Jurists of the Asia Pacific Forum and legal academic, Seong-Phil Hong has specialised in the case for reparations regarding Japan’s Enforced Sex Slavery during the Second World War and accountability for human rights violations by the North Korean regime.
Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine) A legal academic and practitioner whose expertise lies in international criminal justice and procedure. Tochilovsky was part of the Preparatory Committee and Commission that drafted the guidelines on criminal procedure for the International Criminal Court.
I honestly don’t know what to say, or to think, any more. When you have a government which believes it does not even have to pretend that its words and actions have even the remotest relationship to truth, I cannot conceive how society can continue to function in any direction other than fascist.
Thanks Mark Golding, I am busy watching it, indeed a woman of integrity and a model human being. Although sadly as John Goss has pointed out since then the bastards have got the holes patched up and now they hold the cases in camera with the evidence being given in camera.
But history shall recall Katherine with fondness and admiration.
It’s interesting to mentally place this incredibly brave young woman next to Blair, Straw, Goldsmith, et al, I think, and see how they measure up to her.
John SD- please add to your list of dissembling poltroons Cameron and his wooden aide de camp Hammond.
‘That’s a whopper from Hammond. I would be astonished if the corporate media don’t call him on this lie, it’s too flagrant, too massive. I mean, there is bullshit, which is expected, and their is an astonishing, easily disproved whopper. Surely someone has to step up? Corbyn will, I’m sure.’
Sadly there is no guarantee that someone either in the media or HM’s opposition will step up and challenge these lies. In the latter case it would normally fall to Hammond’s opposite number, Hilary Benn, to ask the pertinent question, and I don’t think that is likely. Corbyn could raise this at PMQs next week if Benn holds back, but by then the media will judge the issue to be ‘stale’ and ‘yesterdays news’
“Here’s a very bad limerick I wrote at the time…
There once was a man called Assange
Whose party became a blancmange
They called him narcistic
Not really realistic
And a bugger to rhyme with ‘orange’ (French pronunciation)”
There is nothing bad about that ‘oranzh’. It compares well with other Limericks though it is not one of my favourite forms. However I had to keep my epitaph short as an epigram and ended up with this.
I was dying to live a bit longer,
And I would if I’d been a bit stronger,
But now I’m a gonner
I don’t have the honour
To live any longer among you. (Yobs version yer)
@John Goss
I have mentioned before on this blog the use of the operating system TAILS. I have found it superb for surfing and it a live version that runs directly from a DVD or USB stick and does not allow any program to access the hard disc without the explicit permission of the operator.
It is by no means a panacea, but it should mean that you do not have to keep restoring your system.
https://tails.boum.org/
“‘That’s a whopper from Hammond. I would be astonished if the corporate media don’t call him on this lie, it’s too flagrant, too massive.”
It doesn’t matter any more. When you’ve fucked a dead pig’s head in front of others you are a paragon of the establishment and deserve to be Prime Minister. Where do we get these shits from? And don’t say Eton!
CanXpat I’ll think about it.
As Craig notes, the members of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention possess serious credentials, and their findings cannot be dismissed as the witterings of amateurs, as the contemptible Hammond asserts.
The lawyer to whose opinion we are asked to defer,Elisabeth Massi Fritz, appears however to be a slippery as an eel-
http://professorsblogg.com/2014/02/07/rebuttingemfritz/
Perhaps Martinned, the here today gone tomorrow star of an earlier Assange thread, would like to address these claims of sharp practice by the accuser’s lawyer ?
“As Craig notes, the members of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention possess serious credentials, and their findings cannot be dismissed as the witterings of amateurs, as the contemptible Hammond asserts.”
Serious credentials mean nothing when there is an agenda that must be pushed through. I did a search through our foreign secretary’s legal credentials on Wikipedia (always top of the Google engine) and the only connection he seems to have with the law is Ma(law)i.
“He had many business interests including house building and property, manufacturing, healthcare, and oil and gas. He undertook various consulting assignments in Latin America for the World Bank in Washington, D.C., and was a consultant to the Government of Malawi from 1995 until his election to Parliament.”
As a UN member nation the UK accepts the applicable legal authorities of the International Court of Justice. Specifically, as a party to the ICJ Statute, the UK has acknowledged as legal authorities ‘the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations’ under Statute Article 38 (1d). Individually or collectively the WGAD experts have been accepted as authoritative experts by ICJ and ECtHR. On what grounds does the UK disqualify the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations in this binding instance? Does the UK intend to enter a reservation to Statute Article 38(1d) freeing it and all other state parties from WGAD authority in ICJ judgements? Or will the UK comply with ICJ judgments under existing treaty law? Does the UK repudiate prior WGAD deliberations and associated sanctions affecting Iran, Myanmar, and Malaysia and other states?
Is there any legal body in the UK that could be asked to opine on this matter?
The question that should be put to the weasel Hammond is ‘If the members of the panel are only lay people not lawyers and the ruling has no meaning – why did the UK participate?’
I’m not holding my breath waiting for the MSM to ask this or any other apposite questions.
“I cannot conceive how society can continue to function in any direction other than fascist.”
I was thinking the same yesterday after reading the Guardian and hearing what Hammond had to say.
Shocking and quite scary.
“I was thinking the same yesterday after reading the Guardian and hearing what Hammond had to say.
Shocking and quite scary.”
I endorse that opinion.
Cheers Fedup – Did you note the extraordinary paradox between the justification of Katherine’s ethics from Peter Earnest and that of Daniel Ellsberg? Maybe this gives us a clear understanding of the mindset within the back-end of the CIA.
Talking of The Guardian and Julian Assange, here’s celebrated CiF columnist Marina Hyde’s take on all of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-un-panel-blame-fugitive
It’s not about falling standards, Craig, that implies the nasty party had some kind of standards. Hammond and others lie straight to camera, because they can.
RT, as per, the only channel news outlet prepared to call him out. They showed a clip from Oct2015 of Hammond singing the praises of this group, then yesterday’s clip, of him running them down, because the decision doesn’t suit.
Becky Cohen- thanks for posting Marina Hyde’s pathetic brainfart of a justification of the UK Government’s contemptible dismissal of the UN Working Group’s ruling. Her foot stamping vituperation clearly gets in the way of rational discussion of the points made by the working group.
BTW what are the odds on Ms Hyde having read the judgment in full before hitting the keyboard and pontificating to us at the Graun’s expense ?
Jonathan Cook on Julian Assange:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/05/the-liberal-hounding-of-julian-assange-from-alex-gibney-to-the-guardian/
I have drafted a petition for Change (or other petition site) and would like others to help with suggestions of how it can be improved. It possibly needs signatories of Craig’s standing to be effective. This is my attempt.
“In what many think is a politically-motivated case, Julian Assange has been technically imprisoned in the Ecuador Embassy, for more than three years. Before that he was held in prison and under house arrest despite never having been charged with a crime.
The United Nations is an administer of international law. The United Kingdom is one of only five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. A working group of highly-qualified international lawyers: Sètondji Adjovi (Benin, Second Vice-Chair) Adjovi, Mads Andenas (Norway, Chair and member until mid-2015), Mr. José Guevara (Mexico, First Vice-Chair), Seong-Phil Hong (Chair-Rapporteur, Republic of Korea), Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine) reached the conclusion that Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained and advised that he should be released.
The UK was given the opportunity to appeal to the working group but declined. Not abiding by the findings of the working group undermines international law, undermines UK participation in the United Nations and undermines the role of the United Nations in world affairs. We therefore respectfully ask that Philip Hammond and the UK government abide by the findings of the United Nations’ Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, allow Julian Assange freedom that should never have been taken away from him, and return his passport.”
Suggested recipients are: House of Commons, Jeremy Corbyn, International Court of Human Rights, Philip Hammond.
I’ll start by removing the comma after “Ecuador Embassy,”.
Any more suggestions welcome.
I sent the above draft petition to Justice4Assange but it got bounced back probably because it was not encrypted. I think Justice4Assange might be the best organisation to start a petition.
“I am wondering if the FCO is taking as the formal definition of a “lawyer”, membership of a nationally or internationally recognised body of legal practitioners, such as (in the UK) membership of the Law Society or the Bar Council.”
Or for that matter the literal definition of the word “lay”.
A lay preacher is one who hasn’t been ordained. That person could have a string of qualifications in theology as long as their arm but if they aren’t ordained they are lay preacher. Someone could be doing research into some aspect of medicine and have far more knowledge and qualifications than a normal GP but the GP is a medical doctor while the person would be a lay medical doctor.
Old Mark, thanks for the link to Professor’s Blog, Marcello Ferrada de Noli knows a lot about unlawful government detention from his own experiences under Pinochet. I’ve just emailed him to try and get a similar petition going in Sweden.
At least three of them are practising lawyers who appear in cases. Two I don’t know, but the idea that an academic lawyer, professor of law, is not a lawyer is in any case complete nonsense.
Interesting that whatever the official spokesman has been quoted as saying, the FCO has not put it in writing
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-disputes-un-working-group-opinion-on-julian-assange
“At least three of them are practising lawyers who appear in cases. Two I don’t know, but the idea that an academic lawyer, professor of law, is not a lawyer is in any case complete nonsense.”
Just as lay preachers often stand in a pulpit.
But a lawyer is someone who’s occupation is advocate, attorney, barrister, counsel, judge or solicitor.
Why Be Ordinary,
Actually they did put it in writing. Here is my text exchange with them
FCO: Hi Craig I understand that you spoke to GRC about the Assange case. The Foreign Secretary’s words speak for themselves.
Me: So FCO spokesman stands by the statement that the members of the UN Working Group are not lawyers but lay persons. Can I publish that?
FCO: Craig the Foreign Secretary said his words which can be published. The FCO also sent out a statement which can be used.
Me: But you know that all the members of the working group are in fact lawyers. What I want to know is whether the FCO stands by the statement that they are not lawyers.
No further response.
Fred,
Can you source that definition other than your own rabid head? So a company lawyer is not a lawyer? A professor of law is not a lawyer? A government lawyer is not a lawyer?
Even on your own stupid attempt to justify Hammond, a minimum of three of the five fit your definition anyway.
“Can you source that definition other than your own rabid head?”
Yes I can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer
Can you manage to argue your point without being insulting? I didn’t insult you.
Craig Murray
06/02/2015 12:18pm
On reading your texts, the matter seems a little more nuanced than your assertion that the FCO official spokesman stands by Philip Hammond’s statement.
The spokesman reiterates that Philip Hammond’s statement can be published, but does not express explicit agreement with it, as far as I can see. As far as I am aware the FCO statement referred to does not mention the professional status of the group members, maybe I am wrong on that and you can correct me.
On putting the question directly you received no reply.
The weight of evidence rather suggests to me that the FCO does not agree with Hammond, but does not want to make him look a plonker by saying so.
Kind regards,
John