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.
John,
I cannot agree with you. By referring me to the Secretary of State’s statement to publish it, the FCO Spokesman is endorsing it as the official position. My final question was kindly giving them a last chance to retract the endorsement of a blatant lie.
If I were Assange, I would walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, and see what happens.
I would contest everything that happens, and appeal any conviction up to the Lords.
This way he would create such a storm that he at least would never go to prison.
Think the decent thing for us to do is to provide him with funds.
I will contribute immediately $100 to support such an effort.
Hope the effort catches on.
Trowbridge,
The House of Lords is no longer a court of appeal.
He would be immediately extradited to Sweden. Rape trials in Sweden are held almost wholly in secret – all of the evidence, all of the cross examination, in secret. No jury. No public. No media. With none of the “evidence” reported, he would be declared a rapist. Having thus lost all public sympathy, he would be shipped to the US for trial as a terrorist.
Those of the panel who are practicing lawyers will have had their reputation (and future earning power) reduced by having their credentials called into question by the British Foreign Minister. A pre-action enquiry for slander might produce interesting results.
Otherwise I agree with John. Your exchange shows the FCO conspicuously refusing to put the comments in writing. When you were a civil servant did you ever put in writing a statement that “my current boss f**ckec it up” (past ones maybe)
Thanks for the correction, Craig, but if I were he, I would still do it.
It would be a role of a lifetime rather than just remain in self-imposed prison.
And my suggestion still holds.
Craig
06/02/2016 1:01pm
Fair enough. I suppose they have to do it: they can hardly publicly contradict their own Secretary of State, can they? Or can they?
Thank you for the note on the practising lawyers in the group, which – assuming you are correct, which I’m sure you are – removes the last possible justification for Hammond, who is obviously a lying git. Why does no-one in the media call him on it? Really beats me.
Thanks, John
I just had a very courteous exchange with a senior member of the working group. He declined to respond to Hammond but said “our credentials are in the public domain”. Also a strong hint to research the countries involved in the selection process. Where is Mary when we need her?
“Those of the panel who are practicing lawyers will have had their reputation (and future earning power) reduced by having their credentials called into question by the British Foreign Minister. A pre-action enquiry for slander might produce interesting results.”
If they were practising lawyers they would know the laws of slander do not apply to a class of people, only to a single legal entity. You can say “all politicians are liars” or “all lawyers are crooks” with impunity.
And wouldn’t his immediate extradiction cause a firestorm in the country, and in the Commons.
If it decided to let Trump come in, wouldn’t they try to keep Assange in the UK?
I used to naively believe that Sweden was an enlightened democracy, Assange case dashed that hope too, and now I can see that shithole for what it is; a fiefdom with weird laws that leave we the people exposed to legal abuse.
The unhinged US operatives pontificating extra judicial murder of Assange It should be noted that the luminary wishing thus is not for the “death penalty”!!!!
“Where is Mary when we need her?”
It’s a good question. Unfortunately there are some nasty individuals who inhabit this blog targeting people like Mary because, unlike them, she does make a contribution. They have driven her away. And according to Clark she is still not well. That knowledge did not prevent her attackers from continuing their assault on her.
“But when I was in the FCO, the vast majority of colleagues would have refused to advance what is a total and outright lie”
The suggestion that the FCO was until recently a bastion of decent chaps expounding integrity and truth is hilarious nonsense. Jesus, what do you think departments of empire charged with foreign affairs do? The FCO has a long history of explicit remit to produce propaganda with very real departments having very Kafkaesque names. Look em up: Information Research Department, Overseas Information Department, Information Management Department…
Craig this is the UN’s own list which is a starting point.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/Members.aspx
Mary would not shut up Habby and company by simply identifying herself, and making it quite clear that she would sue them for defamation, etc. if they continued.
As reported, the Foreign Secretary was actually quite specific. Not “all lawyers” but specifically the panel in this case.
Phil,
If you are really good at propaganda, you avoid outright lies.
In my opinion Hammond and ergo the British government have damaged the UN’s reputation.
My reasoning for that claim, is answered with, why would any other country now listen to and comply with a UN judgement. They could quite easily cite Britain’s refusal to acknowledge a UN finding.
Westminster by denouncing the UN’s findings has created a rod for its own back, for how could a British government now implore any nation to accept a UN finding. In my opinion Westminster’s poor handling of the Assange debacle, has left it with a damaged reputation, and poor credibility along with an £11 million bill footed by the taxpayer.
Conviction of rape, not just being charged with rape, is treated like torture as an international crime, justifying extradition.
Seems like the British courts could review Assange going straight to Sweden if forced to,
Look at In Re Pinochet too.
Thanks for that link to the video of katherine Gun, Mark G., I can only second the comments from others, what a corageous, clever and demure mind.
@Craig. Cases becoming before the WGAD are handled by the special procedures regulations, if I’m not mistaken, as set out on pg. 10 of this latest submission by the ISHR.
There is guidance for those who intimidate the parties and procedures you might want to look into.
http://www.ishr.ch/sites/default/files/documents/ishr_submissions_to_22nd_annual_meeting_of_special_procedures_june_2015.pdf
and here is the WGAD’s history, dates from when the UN needed to think about this subject until today, a detailed list of competences for a five person panel of Independents who are highly qualified. How cases are forwarded, definitions of arbitrary detention and much more.
Of very high interest in this case, a should read, not too long.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pdf
” With none of the “evidence” reported, he would be declared a rapist. ”
How so? It’s the panel of judges who decide not the public or the media and the rate of conviction for rape is still distressingly low in Sweden.
Laying aside the strength or weakness of the case against Assange and the unfounded fear of rendition to the US (a practice now illegal in Sweden) he went into hiding voluntarily from due legal process. How that becomes arbitrary detention is what is really Kafkaesque about this whole affair. Maybe the surviving train robbers can claim compensation for being arbitrarily detained in a farmhouse whilst plod were looking for them and the Home Secretary should apologise to Raol Moat’s family for the way he was arbitrarily detained in a storm drain for several days.
The findings are not legally binding.
“The statement from the Working Group has no formal impact on the ongoing investigation, according to Swedish law,” said Karin Rosander, spokeswoman for Sweden’s Prosecution Authority.”
Going by what the SPA have said above, Mr Assange will be arrested and extradited to Sweden to face trumped up rape charges. And even if by some miracle the closed rape trial in Sweden ended with Mr Assange being found not guilty, he’d probably find himself on a fast jet to the states, then onto a even faster jet to a country where
waterboarding etc, is a favourite pastime.
“As reported, the Foreign Secretary was actually quite specific. Not “all lawyers” but specifically the panel in this case.”
Yes the the statement was made about the panel and I don’t think the panel would constitute an entity in law.
Unless one of them could show the statement was made with malice against them in particular I don’t think they would have a case.
“If you are really good at propaganda, you avoid outright lies.”
To rely on distinguishing between outright lies and other lies is engaging in sophistry worthy of the FCO. The FCO has always served propaganda in the interests of the British establishment.
Effective propaganda avoids lies that can be easily seen to be lies. This blatant slur on the credentials of the UN working group panel is easily proved false and will backfire on Hammond and his masters – eventually. What is more disturbing is the MSM have not called him on it. Predictable complicity with the powerful but disturbing nonetheless.
Too bad for them they don’t have a stranglehold on the internet so we can still get the word out and in time the MSM will be obliged to play catch up.
Propaganda can have obvious lies. If you are bold enough, you just package them with some road apples of truth and then take refuge in the denial. It’s called chaos and the confusion homogenizes the package into a slurry of human error.
Re Mary;
http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1454770602.html
I have never had the fortune of not knowing the UK as fascist, so this is business as usual for me, but with an attempt to disguise the stench by throwing yet more excrement in your face.
Just in case Craig gives a flying fuck…..
Re: Mary! You are in demand!
Posted by Mary on February 6, 2016, 3:03 pm, in reply to “Mary! You are in demand!”
Tough Ken. I would not waste my time there again. If he had logical and fair moderation and got rid of the Zionist trolls, it would help. They ran riot with the blog’s comments. ”
Thanks for checking on her Macky. 🙂
Get your names on this petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/116451
Did you see also see this Ben;
http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1454749781.html